Gaveled in 11:25 AM · Albany, New York · 2025–26 session
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 13, 2025
11:25 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR ROXANNE J. PERSAUD, Acting President
ALEJANDRA N. PAULINO, ESQ., Secretary
P R O C E E D I N G SACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone to please rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:In the absence of clergy, let us bow our heads in a moment of silent reflection or prayer.
(Whereupon, the assemblage respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Reading of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY:In Senate, Wednesday, March 12, 2025, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Tuesday, March 11, 2025, was read and approved. On motion, the Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD: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.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Good morning, Madam President.
There's a privileged resolution at the desk, Senate Resolution 488, by Leader Stewart-Cousins. Please take it up and read its title.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Resolution 488, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, resolution in response to the 2025-2026 Executive Budget submission.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, this resolution, as everyone knows, is the Senate's one-house budget resolution. We have an agreement with our Minority colleagues that debate will be strictly limited to two hours.
As usual, our Finance chair, Senator Krueger, will lead the debate for the Majority, with other members getting up in their areas of expertise as necessary.
We're ready to begin.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator O'Mara.
SENATOR O'MARA:Good aft -- good morning. It's not afternoon yet.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Good morning, Senator.
SENATOR O'MARA:Good morning, Madam President.
I have a few questions on the budget, if Senator Krueger would not mind responding to some questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Krueger, do you mind?
SENATOR O'MARA:It's been a long two weeks without you, Liz, so it's good to get back together again after a month of budget hearings. But --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator is ready.
SENATOR KRUEGER:I'm ready.
SENATOR O'MARA:All right. I've just got a few questions. I don't think I have a whole lot today. I know we've got a lot of members here that do have a lot of questions on this.
But overall, this is roughly about a $259 billion budget at this point?
SENATOR KRUEGER:That is correct, Senator.
SENATOR O'MARA:And you have increased, over -- through you, Madam President if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:And this is an increase -- this one-house budget bill here in the Senate is an increase of how much over what the Executive proposed, the Executive's -- how much over what the Governor proposed?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Approximately 6.5 billion, Madam President.
SENATOR O'MARA:Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:The -- and the Governor had raised spending about what over last year?
SENATOR KRUEGER:The Governor's growth between last year and this year is approximately 3.6 percent.
SENATOR O'MARA:No, the dollar increase I was asking for.
SENATOR KRUEGER:About $9 billion dollars.
SENATOR O'MARA:Okay. So through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:So in all total, this is about $17 billion increased spending over last year's budget?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Approximately 15 billion, Madam President. Her 9 billion plus our 6.5 billion. 15 and a half billion.
SENATOR O'MARA:Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:Well, my figures have it closer to 17 billion, but what's a couple billion between friends here.
And we're looking -- it's roughly -- it's almost a 13 percent increase over last year's budget, what we have proposed here. Would you agree with that?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes. You know, we're different on the exact numbers, but we show about a 12.7 percent from our one-house to last year, yes.
SENATOR O'MARA:Very good. Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:We came back to the same number, because I have 12.7 percent on my sheet here too.
SENATOR KRUEGER:There we go.
SENATOR O'MARA:We'll have to figure out where that $2 billion is not showing up or showing up here. But we'll -- I'm sure we'll get to that before we get to the final budget here in a few weeks.
Where is the -- through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:This 15 to 17 billion dollars of increased spending, how is that being raised? Where's the revenues coming from?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. In our one-house we obviously have the 800 million addition from the revenue consensus agreement.
We have an increase in the personal income tax for the highest level earners in the State of New York, an increase for those with 5 million and up in income, and another bump for people with $25 million and up.
And then we also do an increase in the corporate income tax for businesses with over $5 million in revenue. So larger businesses.
SENATOR O'MARA:Thank you, Senator.
Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:We're increasing state income taxes on the highest earners, those over $5 million a year, is that correct?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
SENATOR O'MARA:And that rate is going up to 10.8 percent for those --
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes. Yes, Madam President.
SENATOR O'MARA:Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:Now, in my district that I represent in rural upstate New York, frankly, there's not many of those earners in that district. But in the state, there is. And particularly in our financial services industry, which accounts for almost 20 percent of our total revenues, are you concerned that raising income taxes -- are they going to cause more of those people to leave the state?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. No, I'm actually not.
When you look at the data, not just questions of what do we charge in taxes or a budget for the State of New York, but when you look at it in relationship to the growth of the gross product for New York State, New York State at the end of 2024 -- granted, we've been in a new administration for a couple of months now -- had the most successful economy in the country. We had higher growth than most states in the country.
When you evaluate us in the decisions we make on tax policy or spending policy, a better evaluation would be looking at us as a world economy, not as one of 50 states. Because technically, if we were our own nation, New York State would be the 10th largest economy in the world.
So when you ask questions about why do people come here to live or to grow businesses or to stay and to do business, you look at it in a world economic analysis. And on that analysis, on report after report after report, New York is doing terrifically.
So I am not worried that a very small percentage increase on the highest earners on their state taxes will have any impact on the decisions they make from a marginal perspective on the people who live here.
SENATOR O'MARA:Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:We seem to be doing our best here in New York -- and I disagree with your analysis on the impacts of these tax increases, particularly in light of recent news just in the last couple of weeks, and in the last few days, that the New York Stock Exchange is opening an exchange in Texas. Goldman Sachs, one of the largest financial firms in the state, in the country, in the world, is encouraging their New York managers to move to Texas.
These -- I don't see how these tax increases are not going to just accelerate that even more and move higher earners out of our state.
But what is your analysis of Goldman encouraging their workers to move to Texas, of the New York Stock Exchange opening in Dallas? What's the impact of that going to have on the revenues in New York State?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Appreciate the question, Madam President.
The fact is in today's world where finance industry can be anywhere -- it's true you don't need to be tethered to a specific stock market floor somewhere, everything is done in the clouds -- there is more distribution of the financial sector, as there's more distribution of other parts of the economy that have been rushing to New York. So that New York City, particularly its economy, is heavily driven now by healthcare, professional business services, tech, fintech, retail, trade, manufacturing, education, where growth has been extremely strong.
And again, I was describing that we raised both corporate taxes through 9A on larger industries -- businesses, excuse me -- as well as the highest earner PIT. So those companies have to pay those taxes whether they are in New York or not in New York. I would prefer they stay in New York for everyone. But if they're doing business with the State of New York, those taxes will come to us whether they decide to move their location to Texas or somewhere else.
For the very top earners who are sometimes involved with these sectors, and often not, they already have multiple homes. They already go back and forth. So they pay part of their taxes to us here in New York, and they may pay taxes somewhere else.
Yes, you can read me reports of such-and-such company. But when I talk to, actually, people who are in business to move them, what I'm hearing back is, Yes, some of them are moving there. And then they say, Oh, I don't like it here. I can't move back the company right away, I already moved people. But I'm not spending a lot of time here. New York is where it's happening. New York is where the innovation happens, where the talent is.
And frankly, combined with climate-change crises, which we are apparently not officially allowed to talk about in this country anymore, many of those same states are the states people are actually having to flee.
So big picture, I'm not really worried.
SENATOR O'MARA:Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:Well, I do worry because I see the people leaving. And I see people leaving -- even lower-income people leaving because of the affordability in this state and the amount of people leaving to other, lower-cost states.
Now, this $259 billion one-house budget here actually comes in a few billion dollars less than what the Assembly one-house came in at, as I'm informed.
But it's a $17 billion increase, and I'm assuming that it is a balanced budget, because it has to be, by law. But we have concerns over outyear budget gaps that are created through this budget of an estimated -- for fiscal year '27, 6.5 billion; fiscal year '28, 9.8 billion; and fiscal year '29, 11 billion of structural deficits moving forward.
How is this budget setting us up -- or why is this budget setting us up with these outyear gaps?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Sorry. I appreciate my colleague's questions. And even his statement about -- earlier in his prequestion was about concerns about affordability. And I want to assure everyone the Democratic Conference is very focused on affordability for New York. And if we weren't just talking about the financial plan but, rather, what we have put in our one-house budget and what we have not accepted from the Governor, the bottom-line theme of that is how we increase affordability and protect New Yorkers of lower incomes to be able to stay here and take care of their children and pay their taxes and continue to live and work and thrive here.
So we are very focused on affordability, which we'll probably get to a little later, hopefully in the presentation.
And as far as outyear debt, I've been here 23 years. I'm not sure when we've not shown outyear debt looking pretty bad, sometimes horrible. It's one of the reasons we did support the Governor in investing even more money in state reserves and rainy day funds, so that if in fact bad things happen to our economy or bad policy comes out of Washington -- always a possibility right now -- we will be able to try to sustain that.
In fact, if something radically different happens within the budget year or heading towards the following budget year, guess what? We'll be back, and we'll have to adjust.
But right now the fact that there is outyear debt showing approximately I think 7 billion -- do we agree with that? Approximately, we agree. We have lived through years where we saw much larger dollar amounts in outyear debt.
I guess the other good news for us, we have less debt per capita now than we've had in 20 years. So New York is actually financially in a very strong position, or was by the end of 2024. Again, lots of things may be happening in 2025.
Our growth rate is good. Actually, we're seeing people return to the State of New York, based on demographic data. Job opportunities have been strong, and our debt per capita and in relationship to GDP has actually been lower, and the bond market is assuring us they are very comfortable with the state's debt situation and are still very positive about the future of New York economically.
Thank you, Madam President.
SENATOR O'MARA:Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR O'MARA:Senator, in addition to spending $259 billion in this one-house budget proposal, there are, by my count, 162 Article VII policy proposals in this budget. Most or certainly many of those are really nonbudgetary items of policy in here, one of the biggest ones being the NY HEAT Act that is your legislation, and that has no budgetary impact on the budget.
Why is that and all these other 160 policy proposals in this budget?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Well, there's a different answer for each one of those policy questions. But since -- thank you very much for bringing up my NY HEAT Act. The NY HEAT Act is projected by our work and by outside reviewers to save the ratepayers of New York an enormous amount of money.
So we often think of looking at budget issues as what's going to cost us money, but isn't it refreshing to actually have a policy proposal that would save the ratepayers of New York so much money as is projected the NY HEAT Act would do?
Very simply, just on one part of it, if we are not spending hundreds of millions of dollars per year to put new oil pipes in the ground, that saves the utility companies that cost and that saves us as ratepayers that cost. And frankly the State of New York as a government also has to pay these costs in our own utilities. So I think that's the perfect example of the kind of policy issue we should take up in the budget.
SENATOR O'MARA:Through you, Madam President, actually just on the resolution.
Thank you, Senator --
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you, sir.
SENATOR O'MARA:-- for your --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator O'Mara on the resolution.
SENATOR O'MARA:You know, I'll just reiterate my strong concerns with this increased spending proposal, $259 billion. Now, we on this side of the aisle, you know, we lost the majority in the election of 2018. It has been one-party rule in this state starting in 2019. The budget that year was $168 billion -- $90 billion less than this year's budget in just seven years.
That increased spending is unsustainable. It is leading to and is an exacerbation of the affordability of living in this state. And we're seeing it with people voting with their feet and leaving this state.
We're seeing it with our largest industry in this state, the financial services industry -- 20 percent of our total revenues -- leaving this state for greener pastures, leaving to Texas where they're being lured. And now we have the biggest players in the financial services industries encouraging their top employees to leave New York State.
The concerns are immense. But just in addition to the spending increases of $90 billion in seven years, the state's population has only increased 1.5 percent since that time. So the per-capita spending is much higher than it was.
We have, in this budget proposal, 162 Article VIIs. The NY HEAT Act, which has absolutely nothing to do with this budget -- and I'm not asking any questions on this because we have members here that are eager to ask these questions.
But, you know, policies in here, in this budget, like allowing bars and restaurants to buy 12 bottles or liquor or wine from a liquor store, that's not related to a budget. There's just things in here that are totally unrelated to the spending plan and should not be included in a budget. They should be debated individually on this floor so that we can get into those, the pros and cons of each.
Certainly in a $259 billion budget, there's a lot of good things in here that you can -- that you can look at and say yeah, that's good, that's great. But is it affordable? And is it sustainable for the citizens of New York State to continue down this road of spending -- increasing $90 billion in just seven years, from a $168 billion budget, which was too big then, to a $259 billion budget, which is way too big today?
This budget further does nothing to -- despite all the spending, does nothing to pay down the unemployment insurance debt that was built up during COVID. My understanding is the Assembly's one-house budget does eliminate that, which is an important thing to eliminate for the cost of doing business in New York so that employers are not being assessed fees upon every employee, when 35 other states in this country used their COVID -- federal COVID relief funds to pay down that debt, yet we're still somewhere around $7 billion owed on that and taxing every employer every year on that.
It's something that needs to be paid down. It's something that we should be addressing in this budget. It's something we should have addressed in the last several years' budgets. And it's just -- it's not appropriate to not be dealing with that. It's irresponsible to not be paying that down.
We need to be looking at ways to make the cost of doing business in New York lower, the cost of living in New York lower. Most everything in this budget is making things more expensive and less affordable, and that is not the direction that we should be going.
But thank you, Madam President. I'll be voting no on this one-house budget resolution and encouraging others to join me.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Mattera.
SENATOR MATTERA:Thank you, Madam President.
This is on Part EEE, the HEAT Act. And would the sponsor please yield for a couple of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I certainly will.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:Thank you. And it's great to see you, Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
SENATOR MATTERA:And I know you're very consistent and persistent on your HEAT Act. But --
SENATOR KRUEGER:I like to be consistent and persistent on almost everything. Thank you.
SENATOR MATTERA:Oh, you are. And I'm going to tell you, it's just a total disaster for all New Yorkers.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MATTERA:I see that before January 1, 2030, that no resident customer will have gas services discontinued without the consent of the customer. Will customers have their gas services discontinued after January 1, 2030, with -- against their consent? Will the customer have a say?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you. Thank you for asking the question.
So actually we have amended the bill introduced this year, because we do hear people and we try to modify to make our bills better, and I think we have.
So in this new version in fact there is a two-year process with community participation and review before there's any decision about ending gas service in any specific geographic area. And there has to be alternatives available before any gas service would be ended.
So no, there's no reason for people to worry that if they haven't shifted to an alternative or are not able to shift to an alternative, that they will lose their gas service.
SENATOR MATTERA:So, Madam President, will the sponsor still continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So does that mean that the community gets together and they say, We don't want to eliminate our natural gas, we're fine with this -- you're then okay with this bill, this is saying that that's okay?
SENATOR KRUEGER:If the community doesn't come to an agreement about the proposal being made and there's no other alternatives available to people there in existing buildings, yes.
Although I think that dialogue over two years might really focus on "Look how expensive your current utility costs are and how much cheaper it will be if we do change to a less costly sustainable."
And I suspect many of these communities, once they go through this process, will come to the same conclusion many of us already have come to, that our utility rates are eating us alive because we're on an oil-and-gas- based system and there are far less expensive and safer options.
SENATOR MATTERA:Madam President, would the sponsor still continue to yield for questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:Will the bill still include the language to eliminate the so-called hundred-foot rule, which requires utilities to provide gas services to new customers that are within a hundred feet of the gas line for free?
SENATOR KRUEGER:So Madam President, yes, it still has the ending of the hundred-foot rule. Which, one, allows PSC to decide to waiver and allow the pipes if there's a justification that that's the only option available in that specific building -- often a manufacturing setting or location.
But also it transfers the cost of that to whoever is asking for that new pipe to go in, rather than all of us utility ratepayers having to pay that cost.
SENATOR MATTERA:Will the sponsor still continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So -- good, so you did answer that. So right now the customers, there it is, there's five homes that -- usually that's how that works, is a lot, five homes. They go and they put the application in -- just want to make sure all New Yorkers understand this. If they go put the application in, that means the utility will be coming in and they will be putting that in for free and it's not going to cost any of the ratepayers.
SENATOR KRUEGER:No. Right now it costs all the ratepayers. We pay for all of that through our rates.
Under this law, only those facilities that we're waivering out of not being able to get the pipes and got approval to continue to put the pipes in for those new buildings, would pay for it themselves instead of every one of us in the state paying for it.
SENATOR MATTERA:Would our sponsor still continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So will the ratepayers pay for all the electrification then also?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Actually, the state will be paying for the transition costs moving into an electrification system, with special programs even within my legislation to have the maximum utility cost be no more than 6 percent of people's income. Many people are paying more than that now, particularly I think in Nassau County, where my colleague lives, I think has one of the highest utility rates certainly in the state, but maybe in the country. So that it will actually be lower utility rates as we transition to electricity, with the state picking up much of the cost of the transition.
SENATOR MATTERA:Would the sponsor still continue to yield for --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:Where is this in any of -- I haven't seen any of that language -- in other words, the state is going to be paying for this. Because right now our ratepayers, right now their bills are skyrocketing because of the mandates that have been put in place.
So do you believe that the emission mandates under the CLCPA are still achievable by the 2030 deadline? Do you really feel, in other words, that our infrastructure -- it's always the cart before the horse, what we do here. Do you feel that our infrastructure right now can handle what we're looking to do by 2030? I know on Long Island not one thing has been done about that to go and make sure the infrastructure's put in place, then we can transition into renewable energy.
So my question again is, where does it say in here that, in other words, the state's paying that? Because I know our utility bills are going up as we speak because of this mandate.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. Our utility bills are going up because we're so heavily dependent on oil and gas, often foreign, and the skyrocketing costs of the products we're using under the system we have.
The costs are not going up because of the CLCPA. My colleague is right, we're not as far along as we hoped to be. I think we'd actually be seeing utility rate decreases if we were further ahead.
But his two specific questions, where in this bill does it say that that cost is going to be taken on by the state -- and I will refer him to Section 3008--B, page 108 on my printout, section -- it's always a challenge -- 66-z and paragraph 4, Section (b), "have access to funding and technical support for the purchase and installation of customer-owned equipment at low or no cost" through the state.
And on the bigger question, Can we meet the targets of the CLCPA - and my colleague might be right. But you know what we did in the CLCPA that takes care of that question? We require reliability. So if we don't have the alternative options with reliability, we are not going to meet the 2030 deadline. We will have to extend. But it requires no legislative change now.
But to assure all New Yorkers, when we wrote the CLCPA we were very conscious about making sure that reliability was a top priority, along with transition to sustainable options. And so you don't get one without the other. We require both. It doesn't require us to change the law if we aren't going to meet a 2030 deadline in any specific subsection of that law. We were smart. We're covered.
Thank you, Madam President.
SENATOR MATTERA:So would the sponsor still yield for a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So I am so happy, I am so thrilled that you finally told all New Yorkers that in other words that we're not going to meet this goal, because it's again the cart before the horse.
So who is going to pay for the equipment needed for this transition? Who is going to be -- who is going to be -- who is going to be using -- who's going to get this equipment? Who's going to be -- to transition into this?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President, I think I just read the section of the NY HEAT Act that explains that, that it will be a cost that applies to the state. And we're prepared to deal with this because, guess what, it's going to be saving everybody money.
So there are some up-front costs in infrastructure to change our model of heating and air conditioning and lighting our houses into new sustainable models. But that infrastructure cost will be made up for very quickly because the actual kilowatt hours of cost dramatically plummet when you make that change, not to mention the advantages for the environment and our personal health. So I'm not concerned about that.
And you say I've made some grandiose statement that we might not hit the 2030 waiver -- '30 deadline. Some sections of it are 2035, some sections I think are even later than 2035. That's right, we recognized when we wrote the law, when we worked for several years on a plan, that we were going to do our best, we were going to be as broad-based-thinking as we could be, and we were going to count on the industry to actually come up with new models that could be even more effective and save us even more money.
And you know what? Even though we haven't hit any of those deadlines, that's exactly what's happened. The kilowatt-hour costs for wind and solar and geothermal have dropped significantly. The technology's getting better and better. So even though, yes, we have infrastructure costs in changing the model of how we handle energy in our state, it's not just a win economically, it's not just a win for climate, it's also resulted in a whole new world of jobs opening up, today and in the future.
And that's -- so it's a win/win/win. We're saving people money long term. We're creating an infrastructure that has good-paying labor jobs, unionized jobs. And it's actually ultimately cost-saving the state and utility payers dramatically larger amounts of money than if we didn't do what we're doing.
SENATOR MATTERA:Will the sponsor please continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:I'm so glad, Senator, that you brought up jobs. Do you realize the jobs, the millions of jobs that are going to be lost? We had the pipefitters up here yesterday. Really, they are so concerned. The apprentices, there they are. Do you realize in the State of New York that we have licensing, we have to have certifications that the state put forward. Right? The gas operator's qualification, this came about.
We make sure that we have to train all these workers to say to them, Guess what, now you're going to have to become an electrician. That's how bad this is. Millions of jobs, not just for the contractors, don't -- seriously, this is the truth. They were up here yesterday, very, very concerned.
We're asking the state to make -- the state is asking to make sure that our workers are certified. We do this. The next thing you know, to say to them, Guess what, we're going to shut it down by 2030 -- which I hope it's going to be a pause, just like congestion pricing was a pause. But guess what, then it continued.
But my point again is this. What about the contractors, the utility workers that are trained for this? Because New York State makes that sure that we train all these workers. Just me personally, what I have done to get the hardworking men and women to go to work, get into that trench, to learn, to be qualified. And you're saying it's going to create jobs? Are you telling right now all these workers, Senator, that guess what, you better go right now, get training to be an electrician?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President --
SENATOR MATTERA:Because there's nothing in here that states where the funding is for all these people to get retrained. I was wondering -- I was hoping -- we talked about this last year, that we were going to have something like that in here this year.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. We continue to invest in training in our state budgets across the board on many different issues.
The pipefitters -- and I know my colleague is a pipefitter, so I appreciate his unique specialty area. We're not laying off pipefitters tomorrow. These are 25-year timelines. It's new generations of people coming in who will need to be trained and certified and licensed in new fields, not just the traditional ones that pipefitters have been doing.
There will still need to be pipefitters, but they might be running different products through those pipes. In fact, yesterday I believe the pipefitters were here in New York State talking about support for training in geothermal because they're so excited about moving into geothermal. So they recognize themselves that the world is changing, that the opportunities for the next generation of workers coming in are real.
But there will be new training requirements. And frankly, I've talked to many construction unions about what the impact is of a changing world, and they recognize as proactive unions that jobs change for their workers over time all the time, hence why they have continuing education, continuing training, internships and apprenticeships that are training people in different skills than perhaps their father who was in the same union 30 years earlier. That's what happens in the world and in business and in jobs.
And again, the data is clear: There are more jobs for people in a -- moving into a green economy than there are under the current system. So no, I don't worry that we're going to be laying people off and telling them "There's no future for you." I do not accept that argument.
SENATOR MATTERA:Through you, Madam President, I want to take a little time for just a couple more questions, please. Would the sponsor please --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:You know, and I'm going to say something that was so important, that there it is, you're eliminating natural gas. This is what you're looking to do. I know this. And you know what, for somebody that you're sitting there saying it's not going to eliminate jobs, and you're sitting there and saying, Senator, that in other words they have to be retrained -- there's nothing in this that shows that, in other words, we are going to put money into education with the apprenticeship programs. There isn't anything.
So the other thing is we talked about, yes, we're talking about -- which is very, very important -- thermal energy. Okay? I have nothing in here that says anything about thermal energy.
Let's talk about green hydrogen. There's nothing in here that says anything about that.
Let's talk about retooling our existing power plants, which I have bills out that I'm hoping that Senator Parker will be looking to do this, to go show about carbon capture. Any stack that's going up that we could actually recover.
You know what? And again, anything in the City of New York where you live, thousands and thousands and thousands of gallons per day of condensate that is being dumped out, all that water that's being dumped out into the East River that could be reused. That's something that I would have loved to see --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, are you on the resolution?
SENATOR MATTERA:So my question is -- thank you, I just wanted to get into my question. My question is, I would have loved that to be into your HEAT Act, that you were going to add all this renewable energy. But you see nothing. All this says is we're going to eliminate natural gas in the future.
But you don't have anything else in there. If you would have put a couple of things in there, it would have made me feel warm and cozy, I would feel very, very happy if you were to do that. But you know what, there's nothing about education and there's nothing about other sources of renewable energy. We just hear about it.
So I wish you would please maybe amend this and add this and make me happy.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:I'll try to make --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator was on the resolution.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Well, I don't -- in fairness, Senator Mattera is right. All of that is not in the HEAT Act. It's one bill. I carry many bills, many of us carry bills to expand our transition to a climate-protecting model of energy. My colleague Senator Parker, as the Energy chair, works on this all the time. My colleague Senator Harckham works on this all the time.
Many of the questions my colleague is asking me are answered actually in the CLCPA law that we've already passed, are answered in the Scoping Plan that has also been approved. So that the answers are there. But are they in this piece of legislation, just a small piece of the bigger assignment? No, they're not in this piece of legislation.
SENATOR MATTERA:Madam President, again, on the bill. And I thank you, Senator Krueger --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Mattera on the resolution.
SENATOR MATTERA:-- but please, amend this to do something.
You know, just so all New Yorkers understand what is going on over here, you right now with this HEAT Act is eliminating our natural gas for our future. It's amazing when I go speak to my constituents and say that to them, especially, you know, there it is, cooking that you're going to make sure by 2030 if something does happen, you're not going to be able to replace your gas stove, your boiler, dryer, et cetera -- ovens. That's the way this is looking right now.
You're going to be losing -- if a business has gas in that building and for some reason is trying to rent a store out, just so everybody understands, a certain amount of time that they don't rent that, that gas will be eliminated. That's what's going to be happening.
Natural gas is being eliminated from New York State. Again, the cart before the horse. Wind, solar, I could sit there and say, you know what, I like it, it's just not going to make -- it's not going to produce enough energy for what we're looking to do with the CLCPA.
Battery storage is nothing but a total disaster. All it is is an experiment. And it's going to cost all New Yorkers trillions of dollars in their utility bills. And it's already starting to happen, everybody. And you know what? I'm receiving phone calls -- and I guarantee you, everybody in this room, in this great chamber, is receiving phone calls that their bills are already starting to go up because of this mandate.
We need to sit back, you know what, just sit there and say $280 billion is going to fix our grid and all New York State -- that's the number I heard. Two hundred and eighty billion dollars? That's not even going to fix the grid in New York City, no less the rest of New York State.
Again, it's going to cost billions of dollars with this experiment, and it's not going to work. Let's do the right thing. Let's look at the bills that I have right now in the Energy Committee that's not moving forward, because they're the right ones. The most economical way and the most efficient way is to go right now, retool our existing power plants.
The other thing no one talks about, too, close to 40 percent -- 40 percent of our transmission lines come from other states. We don't even talk about that. But guess what, that are ran on fossil fuels. That are ran on fossil fuels. We don't talk about eliminating them to be self-sufficient and self-reliant. We don't talk about that.
Right now we're boosting up the pressure on the Iroquois Pipeline because we have a gas capacity shortage. Look at what just happened this past winter. A very cold winter. We needed to make sure we boosted up. But it's okay to have trucks, natural -- frozen natural gas. Right now, guys, just understand this, driving on our roadways and our bridges, frozen natural gas. Then it gets liquefied and gets pumped into our system. That's the way New Yorkers -- that's what we have, a capacity shortage on natural gas. But it's okay to have frozen natural gas to be on our roadways and our bridges right now.
Again, this is called dysfunctional government at its worst. If we don't do something about this right now, that -- other resources of renewable energy? Sorry, our infrastructure cannot handle it.
It needs to be put on pause. It needs to be stopped. This is ridiculous. It's just continuing every time, every year. Jobs are going to be lost. My brothers and sisters in the workforce are going to be losing their jobs. But there's nothing in here that states that we're going to go and put money in education, we're going to go and put money, in other words, that we're going to protect your jobs. But no, you've got to go and find a new profession.
Guess what? The electricians are sitting back and going like this (gesturing). Which is good, I have good friends with electricians. We need to make sure that we protect all jobs and continue. There's a reason why we have certifications. There's a reason why we have licenses. And then what are we going to do? We're going to just shut it down? I understand that.
I wish -- I wish we would just put this on pause and just stop this madness. And I, Madam President, vote no on this.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR MATTERA:Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Stec.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President, I just want to point out that my colleague's last set of statements weren't relating to the budget. None of that is in the NY HEAT Act. None of that is actually in the budget.
Although there is an Article VII section of the budget that has a number of proposals to advance language for evaluating our energy situation, reviewing whether we in fact need to make any changes and updates in our gas supply infrastructure capital planning requirements, targets to limit energy burden and not to exceed the 6 percent of household income.
We already know from the CLCPA, which my colleague really was debating -- fine, it's just that it's not on the floor right now -- that there's a projected 200,000 new jobs in a green economy that will grow out of the law we did pass that he continues to urge that we pause. And he has every right to, but just for the record, none of it was germane to the bill we're debating today.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stec.
SENATOR STEC:Thank you, Madam President. If the sponsor will yield, this naval nuclear engineer is going to give everyone a pass on my opinions on the lunacy of the energy policies in this chamber. I think my colleague Senator Mattera covered that very well.
I would like to discuss corrections and public protection. Not the criminal protection, but the public protection portion of the budget.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Salazar.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Senator Salazar will be covering us for that.
SENATOR STEC:Thank you.
Madam President, through you, if Senator Salazar would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:Thank you, Madam President.
This one-house budget includes the Governor's proposal to authorize the closure of up to five of our remaining prisons, is that correct?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
SENATOR STEC:Thank you, Madam President. If the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:Does this budget repeal the HALT Act?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President, no, it does not.
SENATOR STEC:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:Thank you.
Does this budget make any changes at all to the HALT Act?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President, no, it does not.
SENATOR STEC:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:Thank you.
Does this budget include anything that would address the valid concerns of safety that we've been hearing from corrections officers since the adoption of HALT went into effect?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President. I believe that the proposals, including the correctional facility closures, actually do address safety concerns.
It is in the interest of public safety and prison safety that prisons are able to operate effectively and efficiently, and right now that is not the case in many of our correctional facilities due to staffing shortages. Which is a problem that the closure, potential closure of up to five facilities would seek to address.
SENATOR STEC:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:Thank you.
While I'm not sure that the corrections officers would agree that fewer corrections officers and concentrating remaining nominates into fewer prisons is a step in the direction of addressing issues of HALT or their own workforce safety.
But the question would be, is there nothing in the budget that expands the ability for DOCCS to impose disciplinary sanctions on inmates who assault COs, staff or other inmates? Is that correct?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President, it is correct.
And I would add that correction officers do already have the ability to discipline incarcerated individuals.
SENATOR STEC:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:I suppose that would significantly depend on the -- what your definition of discipline is.
But does Part II direct the IG -- does it direct the IG to investigate sexual assaults on inmates?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President. It would authorize the Inspector General to receive complaints of sexual misconduct, including sexual assault from incarcerated individuals, yes.
SENATOR STEC:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:Is there any part of this public protection bill that would direct the IG to investigate assaults on corrections officers or staff?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President, no. If a correction officer or corrections staff is sexually assaulted or is the victim of a sex crime, they have multiple avenues of recourse and ways of reporting that crime that are not currently available to incarcerated individuals because they don't have the liberty, for example, to report a crime to State Police.
SENATOR STEC:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:And there continues to be significant limitations on the ability of DOCCS to separate dangerous inmates from the general population, correct?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President, I -- I disagree.
SENATOR STEC:Well, if I could have another question. Will the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:So an inmate that puts a padlock in a sock and is walking down the hallway and hauls off and swings that sock and breaks somebody's eye socket -- staff member or inmate -- the appropriate behavioral control there or message to send to that inmate and other inmates would be that the most that they could possibly get, assuming that they're older than 22 and younger than 55 -- because if you're younger than 55, you're still dangerous, but if you're older than 55, you're not dangerous. And for the record, I'm older than 55, and I'm certain I'm dangerous.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STEC:If that incarcerated individual hauls off and hits somebody and they happen to be between the ages of 22 and 55 when they do so, smashes that person's face -- and that person's out of work for months or maybe never works again -- that the most that that person can get, their punishment, would be 15 days in solitary confinement, which is special housing, which is a cell the same size as general population; they have more access to tablets; they have more access to programming; they are mandated to make sure that their needs are met before those in the general population. So when I talk to an Honor Block inmate and they say, You know what, the message here is that people have a better deal if they're in SHU than if they're in the general population -- I'm not sure that's the message we want to send to the incarcerated.
But that the most that that person is going to get punished would be 15 days of less time with their fellow inmates but more access to tablets and programming for 15 days while that person, that employee of ours, may be out of work for months because they shattered bones in their face. Does that seem like a good behavioral control to you?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President. I will just note that currently -- well, first of all, the HALT Solitary Confinement Act did not modify the size of cells. So even if HALT were not the law, the SHU cells would the size that they are right now and were before HALT was enacted.
I'll also add that the tablets that are available to incarcerated individuals are available to individuals in the general population as well. There's also now wifi available to incarcerated individuals in the general population, as it is in SHU or RRU.
What Senator Stec has described is what I would say is an assault that causes physical injury, for which someone can be given a SHU sentence or an RRU sentence. And I think that that is an appropriate response.
I don't think that it is appropriate to put people in solitary confinement indefinitely or for a long period of time. It's well-documented the physical, even, and mental negative impacts on individuals if they are held in solitary confinement.
And additionally, people decompensate if they are kept in solitary confinement for a long time, and that is not in the interest of safety for staff or anyone else in a correctional facility.
SENATOR STEC:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:All right. Again, I'm not sure that most people would agree that wifi in special housing is a terrible punishment.
And again, I'll point out that if you're 55 or older or 21 or younger, you can haul off with that padlock in a sock and you don't receive any discipline for that.
But contraband overdose and exposure continues to be a major problem for everyone inside our facilities. In 2023's ELFA bill, body scanners were made optional for visitors and inmates. Does this budget make them not optional?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President, I will note that visitors who come to a correctional facility, as well as incarcerated individuals, are expected to go through a body scanner as part of security. And if they refuse to go through the body scanner or if, let's say, for example, the visitor or the incarcerated individual is a pregnant person, right, they for health reasons should not be subjected to these body scanners.
If they refuse or are ineligible to go through the body scanner, they are subject to a different search technique. They may be strip-searched. They also may be denied entry to the facility.
I will also note that contraband is a serious problem. Incarcerated individuals and visitors are not the only people who bring in contraband. And it is noteworthy that staff, DOCCS staff, correction officers, are not required to go through the body scanners. And it might be worth considering that this is an opportunity for contraband to be introduced to facilities as well.
SENATOR STEC:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the Senator yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR STEC:You know, if you want to get on a plane, good luck telling the TSA you're not going to get scanned. And pregnant women get scanned in the airport.
These are contact visits. If you don't want to have a contact visit, then you don't need to go through the scanner. Monticello just put out a temporary emergency directive that makes a reasonable modification: If you don't want to get scanned, right now, today, then you have a noncontact visit. You have Plexiglass between you. You're still seeing the same person, but you're not sharing a bag of gummies.
So there are options. And it is a major problem.
On the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Stec on the resolution.
SENATOR STEC:New York State is experiencing its most significant crisis in the history of the Department of Corrections right now. It started long before more than half of the 14,000 corrections officers and sergeants went on strike in February. It started long before two dozen of my constituents at Upstate Correctional Facility in Malone were exposed to an unknown chemical, a contraband chemical, and more than two dozen of them went to the emergency room in one night back in January. It started long before the beating death of an inmate at a correctional facility in December. It started with the adoption of HALT in 2021 that went into effect in 2022. DOCCS's own data has shown the tremendous, undeniable spike in inmate-on-staff assaults and inmate-on-inmate assaults.
Now, this budget, I've noticed, we've allocated $400 million and language that would mandate body cameras be worn by everybody at all times working in a correctional facility, essentially. And that's fine.
But I'll point out that last year seven inmates died of overdose. They didn't get it legally; this is contraband. Now, a couple of years ago we spent $13 million on body scanners. We're about to spend $400 million on cameras -- again, fine. But a couple of years ago we spent $13 million on body scanners, had them installed in every facility.
And I've been in eight facilities in the last couple of weeks, and I've seen them collecting dust. They're optional. Again, they don't have dust on them at the airport. And the ELFA bill, when we authorized them a couple of years ago, said that they're optional. Why on earth would you spend that kind of money, and then make it optional, is beyond me.
Where does this budget address the shortcomings of HALT or contraband? It doesn't. Where is the Department of Labor on workplace safety and safe staffing ratios? We talk about staffing ratios around here. What about some staffing ratios and staffing hours and what's a reasonable amount of time to expect somebody to keep their head on a swivel because they're working amongst people that are convicted felons and most of them dangerous unless they're 22 or younger or 55 or older.
The majority members usually climb over one another to get to a strike line to support these employees. Where have they been for the 14,000 COs that felt so threatened by their safety -- for their own safety that they struck against the provisions -- the very painful provisions of the Taylor Act? Where has Governor Hochul been? Her response to thousands of COs was to threaten them with arrest, strip families of the employees of their health insurance, and ultimately to terminate 2,000 of our employees.
The National Guard is going to be there forever. They're going to be there for many, many months.
It will take years to recruit and train corrections officers to replace these 2,000 people that the Governor says have no place in employment anymore.
And that's of course assuming that this recruitment poster of the last three weeks is going to do good for recruiting future corrections officers.
This budget had an opportunity -- the only place for real movement inside for corrections facilities' safety to have happened was in this budget. And your budget and the Governor's proposed budget are utter failures when it comes to corrections and safety in our facilities. I'll be voting no on this resolution and I'll be voting no on any budget bill that fails to do what needs to be done in our correctional facilities.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Thank you, Madam President.
Just for purposes of time management, there are several members of the Minority Conference on the list to ask questions and speak. We are halfway through the two-hour period, and we do intend to shut down the debate in one hour.
Please continue. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Gallivan.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Thank you, Madam President. I have several questions in the health area of the budget -- of the proposal, and ask if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Rivera will answer your questions.
SENATOR RIVERA:And will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:And he will yield.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:So total state Medicaid spending this year or in the proposed budget will be $35.7 billion. And given all the drivers that have led to this total, it appears that there's a 2.0 billion dollar Medicaid deficit for fiscal year 2026, which the Governor has proposed to make up in a number of different ways. But as we project into the future, we're looking at a $1.6 billion deficit in fiscal year '27, 1.9 billion in fiscal year '28, and a $3.4 billion Medicaid deficit in 2029.
This Senate one-house proposal increases Medicaid spending and eliminates the Executive's proposed Medicaid deficit offsetting measure using the $500 million in funding that the Governor was using towards the deficit from the MCO tax in spending in the various areas. And they're designated, they're lined out, and I don't intend to go to the individual items.
But my question is given the increased Medicaid deficit in this upcoming year and the outyears, according to the financial plan, why reallocate this funding that the Executive meant to help close the deficit, to spend more without proposing additional Medicaid cost-saving measures to offset the action?
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Madam President. So there's a lot there, but let's start with some basics.
The -- what you're talking about is the Medicaid cap. One of the things that you're talking about is the Medicaid cap, which is a fiction that was created by the former administration to act like they had Medicaid costs and Medicaid growth under control.
We never -- well, not never, but certainly over the last couple of years have not believed that the cap was something that we should have. And you are correct, we do away with it in this budget resolution. And I have a bill to get rid of it altogether. But if we're going to talk about Medicaid shortfalls -- and let's remember what we're talking about. Medicaid is an insurance product that is for poor and working-class folks that have not just lived downstate, but certainly live in your districts as well.
What we should be focusing on is the attacks of the federal government and the cuts that are going to come from your friends in Washington that are going to severely hurt New Yorkers all across the state, not just in my district but certainly in yours as well.
So -- but the 500 that -- the MCO tax that you're referring is something that we got approved last year. We managed to get it approved again from the prior administration. I doubt very much we would have gotten it approved under the current one. And this gave us about $500 million that the Governor proposed to use for what they call Medicaid cap relief. Since we do away with the Medicaid cap in our resolution, what we did is we actually shuffled some of that around for reinvestment in different areas that are incredibly necessary. Which again, I will point out, benefit the entire state, not just Democratic districts.
Whether we're talking about hospital investments, safety net transportation programs, nursing homes, hospice treatments, Federally Qualified Health Centers, whether we're talking about assisted living programs, et cetera, there is a breakdown of it and we can certainly go down each one. But what we did with the 500 is that we reshuffled it around and we put it into areas of need, trying to shore up what will certainly be places that are going to be severely struck by what the federal government is going to choose to do in the next couple of years.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Thank you. Would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR RIVERA:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:It should be noted that there are those that believe that there should be a cap on Medicaid spending. But in talking about the federal government, we know that there's been discussion about this MCO tax and the potential for the federal government to rescind its approval of that.
How does -- what is the Senate's plan to make up for this money if in fact the federal government cuts this funding or cuts this approval?
SENATOR RIVERA:Well, through you, Madam President, first things first. The cap is not a cap on spending, the cap is a cap on growth. What the cap proposes, the -- not the -- which we do away with, because we think it's -- in this proposal, because we think it is not a good idea.
But it was a method, it was a calculation that was baked back in 2011, and I think it has remain unmoved since then. So it's a calculation on a year-to-year basis as far as the growth of the program. And we do not believe that that measure is valid any longer, which is the reason why we do away with it.
As it refers to the MCO tax, we have been approved for at least two years. So in this fiscal year, so '25-'26, and then '26-'27, we should receive about 1.5 million -- billion, apologies, 1.5 billion, roughly. So 3.8 billion total over that two-year period.
And as far as making up the shortfall, we will have some very tough decisions to make. And certainly I will speak strictly for myself and not what is in the current Senate one-house, but I certainly believe that we should be taxing the wealthy at a higher rate so that we have more revenue to be able to cover some of the shortfalls that we're going to have from, again, your friends in Washington.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Well, I don't know that we would characterize people as friends, but there are people that are separately elected --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, are you on the resolution?
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Okay, Senator Gallivan on the resolution.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:I don't know that we would characterize everybody in government as friends, but we do recognize and I certainly recognize that people are elected to do a job at every level of government. Our level of government is state government, and that's what I'm focused on, not necessarily what decisions will ultimately be made in Washington by our federal partners, regardless of who is voting for it of either party. And of course unless it has an impact on our New York State policies, budget and our constituents.
I'd like to move on to nursing homes and ask if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR RIVERA:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:We know that New York hasn't updated its methodology to set the rates for nursing homes in close to two decades, and I think that we both believe that this is something that should change.
And my question is, why does the one-house not include language that would require the Department of Health to rebase the nursing home rates?
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Madam President. So there are a few things that we have that are in this proposal, whether it's some rates -- we do have some rate increases that are related to this, just one year. So it's not a permanent thing like the rebasing would do. And we also have a capital rate add-on as it relates to capital expenses that might happen at nursing homes.
But we did not include the language for rebasing on a permanent basis. It's ironic, because although I certainly agree that we should actually do that, that would actually certainly cost us more money, which I think we should do. But we're trying to balance out based on what we have before us.
You will actually see that we did not make -- some of the big additions that were being spoken about by some of my colleagues earlier, weirdly enough, don't happen in this part of the budget. We actually took most of what the Governor proposed and we just reshuffled it around a little bit. So even though we did do increases to nursing homes, we did not include language that would permanently change the rates.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Thank you.
Would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR RIVERA:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:The next question has to do with the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program and that transition -- commonly known as CDPAP, of course. I know we've had tremendous discussion about this. There was significant discussion about this at the Health Budget Hearing and many of us, on both sides of the aisle and in both houses, expressed great concern about this transition and whether or not it was -- well, first, whether or not it was appropriate. But moving past that, whether or not it was feasible that it would meet this April 1, 2025, deadline for the transition to the one fiscal intermediary.
My question is, does the one-house budget address this transition at all? And if so, why not?
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Madam President. I can assure you that it is something that we are deeply concerned about as a conference, and we remain involved in all sorts of conversations about it. We chose not to include it in this particular budget proposal.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Is there separate plans outside of the budget -- will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR RIVERA:Yes, ma'am.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Are there separate plans outside of the budget to deal with this transition, the deadline, April 1st, if it cannot be met?
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Madam President, as I can assure you, there are continued conversations even to -- I'm getting a text right now regarding this stuff.
It is something that we as a conference and certainly me as chair remain deeply involved in because I have the concerns that I expressed last year on the floor right here during this conversation that we had last year, that I've expressed both publicly and privately about this incessantly since the beginning of the year.
So I can assure you that we're deeply involved in conversations to try to resolve the issue, but we chose not to include it in this particular proposal.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:My last question has to do with --
SENATOR RIVERA:And I will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor will yield.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Excellent. I was just going to ask if he would.
The last question has to do with HMH Part S, and that has to do with material transactions. And what that specifically has to do with, of course, is independent medical practices looking to come together.
The Governor proposed significant reporting requirements for this healthcare transaction where somebody might want to merge or bring in different investors. And the Senate one-house actually increases the amount of data that is required to be collected and reported, and then of course there's different deadlines.
The concern, though, is -- well, do you have a concern that the administrative burden presented by the combination of the Governor's proposal and the amendment in the Senate one-house will be so burdensome as to prevent these transactions and these mergers from taking place, which would ultimately lead to the closing of many of the independent practices and the consolidation of the medical providers in hospitals?
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Madam President, no.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:In the proposal it allows for the reporting requirements and a Department of Health response. The Department of Health is permitted six months --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, are you asking the Senator to yield?
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Yeah, I was just giving him a little background information before I did, though.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR RIVERA:Only if he'll provide background information.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Thank you.
For this transaction or proposed transaction after all this information is submitted, the Department of Health has 180 days to review this information and make a decision, of course, delaying the process even further and putting these independent practices in further jeopardy.
If the Department of Health, when they do their review, and at the end of six months has additional questions and they send them back out there to the people involved in the transaction, could this potentially delay this another six months?
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Madam President. The language that we included in this proposal does not lay out a timeline, so I would not be able to answer the question about whether or not it would add six months or not. Hopefully it would not.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:On that particular portion of the bill, Madam President, I have great concern -- you know, we look across the state at our healthcare providers and we know that we struggle to ensure that we have enough healthcare providers that provide quality healthcare to all. And the imposition of this particular provision that would put impediments in the way of independent providers being able to continue as independent providers, I think can lead to an even greater share -- an even greater number of problems as it relates to the availability of providers that are out there and negatively impact our healthcare system.
So of course I too, like Senator Mattera, want to be happy. I'm not -- I don't know that this makes me happy or unhappy, but I think it's problematic. I'll be voting no as well.
Thank you, Madam President, and thanks to Senator Rivera for his responses.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Madam President. I have a few questions in different parts, so I'd like to start with public protection discovery, Part PPGG, Part B.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Bailey will respond.
Senator Bailey, do you yield?
SENATOR BAILEY:Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Senator Bailey.
The first -- the Governor included a proposal that made several changes to the discovery reform laws in an effort to make the laws fairer for prosecutors and victims. Not all of the DAs loved the changes, but thought it was at least a start. And these would prevent cases from getting dismissed for minor errors in discovery disclosures.
Does this resolution include that proposal?
SENATOR BAILEY:Through you, Madam President, the Senate Majority thought that while the Governor's proposal was the beginning of a conversation, we omitted it and put language in there that shows that we are committed to the conversation that says that as legislators we are responsible enough to consider possible changes and that the dialogue will continue.
SENATOR MURRAY:Would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR BAILEY:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Senator.
So is there anything in this proposal that would in fact change the discovery laws?
SENATOR BAILEY:Through you, Madam President, there is no statutory language that would specifically change anything in the discovery laws.
However, this is the one-house and I want to remind everybody that this is on the one-house and this is not changing the law -- nothing in this is changing the law, and that we are committed to an ongoing conversation regarding the discovery laws.
SENATOR MURRAY:Will the sponsor continue to yield, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the Senator yield?
SENATOR BAILEY:I certainly do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
And now a question on the Challenging Wrongful Convictions Act. That act passed both houses and was vetoed by the Governor in 2023 because as she stated, and this is her quote: "A sweeping expansion of eligibility for postconviction relief and relaxation or outright elimination of certain procedural rules would upend the judicial system and create an unjustifiable risk of flooding the courts with frivolous claims."
Does the version included in the one-house budget have any changes from the 2023 version that was vetoed by the Governor?
SENATOR BAILEY:Through you, Madam President, there were no changes to the that bill.
However, in the actual text of the bill that Senator Murray referenced, there is a permissible standard that no court has to act upon with the statutory language. It is permissible. So there is no mandate on there. So we would -- I would respectfully point that out.
SENATOR MURRAY:Would the sponsor continue to yield, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR BAILEY:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:So just for clarification, though, was this proposal that's included here, was it changed at all from the 2023 proposal that was vetoed?
SENATOR BAILEY:Through you, Madam President, the bill that makes it permissible and not required by the courts was not changed.
SENATOR MURRAY:Okay, got it, thank you.
Would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR BAILEY:I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Does this resolution -- and I'm kind of switching gears here, but I want to talk about law enforcement and hiring and recruiting and the shortages that we have, including our corrections officers.
Does this proposal have any incentives or anything to help law enforcement with hiring and retention?
SENATOR BAILEY:Through you, Madam President. In personal conversations that I've had with sergeants and detectives and other members of law enforcement, they've had conversations about a piece of legislation that is in this bill that is not necessarily public protection related. But they indicate that it would assist them in the retention of certain members who hit a certain point -- I think it's past 20 years -- in their service.
So direct conversations with members, high-ranking members of those unions have indicated to me specifically and directly that that would help with some retention, one of the bills in there.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR BAILEY:Through you, Madam President, I've been, you know, informed as to the prior question by the Incredible Avengers assembled behind me --
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BAILEY:-- that there is a Part C that does remove residency requirements for I believe State Troopers as well as correction officers, which would expand the options for possible officers. I just wanted to make sure we clarified that, that we are doing more to make sure for our friends in law enforcement that we can expand the pool.
But I do yield, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Madam President.
So I believe the section you were talking about in regards to that was for NYPD, and it was regarding Tier 3 and changing the retirement -- the 20-year retirement plan. Which does affect, in fact, the NYPD but not necessarily those outside of New York City.
So I ask, is there anything in this resolution to address Tier 6?
SENATOR BAILEY:Through you, Madam President, no.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Madam President.
I'd like to switch gears now -- thank you, Senator Bailey.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR MURRAY:I'd like to switch gears now, and I don't have the actual section in front of me, but it's regarding OTDA -- which actually might be you, Madam President, now that I think about it.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Krueger will answer your questions.
SENATOR MURRAY:Okay, very good.
Would the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I'll give it my best.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Okay. So I was looking at the budget; I believe that we've allocated in this resolution $8.1 billion for the Office of Temporary Disability Assistance. Part of that regards SNAP benefits. There's been an ongoing problem with SNAP benefits being stolen from the EBT cards because of the strips, and we're doing the swiping instead of the chip technology.
Is there any money allocated -- I've had many conversations with the commissioner. She says the cost would be 40 million to make the switch, thereabout. However, we pick up only half of that. Is there any money allocated in here to switch to chip technology regarding the SNAP benefits cards?
SENATOR KRUEGER:So the Governor's Executive Budget does have money to help with the transition to the chip cards on EBT. We did not amend that section or -- so we accepted the Governor's proposal.
SENATOR MURRAY:Would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Is there a time frame for that, and do you have an amount that was allocated for that? Is it basically whatever is needed, or was there a specific amount allocated?
SENATOR KRUEGER:So I know we've also had conversations with the commissioner of OTDA about this, because we share your concern that New York is seemingly becoming a center of criminal activity stealing people's SNAP benefits. And the federal government was helping reimburse for those for a while, but has stopped. So it's really crucial that we address this.
There seem to be some delays in trying to do the contracting for this because not that many states have moved forward yet, and those that have each run into their own issues, including I think there's only one company now that's bidding -- I may be wrong. When you only have one company out there bidding for a contract, sometimes they try to blow up their profit margin beyond what we think is appropriate. So I think there's been some struggle to try to get this contract let at an appropriate amount of money.
But I will assure you that we urge the Governor and her agencies to get this done as quickly as possible because it's a lose/lose. The people who need these benefits aren't getting them, which also means the stores that they go food shopping in aren't getting the revenue and the jobs that they should be getting.
And it's a national issue, as I think you and I both know, and I wish the federal government was doing more to move this more quickly, but unfortunately I don't feel like they are right now.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Madam President.
I'd like to switch gears now and finally go to -- and again, I apologize, I'd like to address the MTA. So Transportation, whatever portion that would be. Would that -- there you go, okay.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR MURRAY:Would the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
Can you give us the current status of the MTA's 2025 to 2029 capital program? What is in this resolution regarding the capital program?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. We made a commitment in our resolution that we are going to work with the Governor and the Assembly to come up with the funding to meet the full MTA capital plan needs for the '25-'29 capital plan. But we didn't put a specific dollar on it, nor the revenue streams, because those are still in discussion between the MTA, the Governor's office, and both houses.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, just to clarify also, we did accept the Governor's ongoing $3 billion commitment which has pretty much been an annual arrangement. So we didn't take -- we neither increased or decreased that amount.
Sorry. Now, yes, of course I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you very much.
I'd like to address the -- first the expansion of the -- Fair Fares program. We're expanding that program. Do you have a dollar amount of how much that expansion will cost?
SENATOR KRUEGER:We put in $40 million to assist with the Fair Fares program, but the rest of the cost, which would be significantly more, would be the obligation of the City of New York.
SENATOR MURRAY:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:So in regards to the Fair Fares program -- and we're putting in $40 million. That means all taxpayers in New York are paying that. But even though the expansion of that program applies to the LIRR and the Metro-North, a resident of Nassau or Suffolk County or Westchester County, would they be able to take advantage of this?
SENATOR KRUEGER:No, not unless those counties came forward and asked to participate in some kind of program where they also pick up the majority of the costs.
SENATOR MURRAY:Would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:So this also expands -- this resolution calls for the expansion of the city's Fare-Free Bus Pilot Program with an additional 15 new fare-free routes. How much would that cost?
SENATOR KRUEGER:An estimated $45 million.
SENATOR MURRAY:Forty-five. Okay, very good.
Madam President, I'd like to go on the bill, please. Or on the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Murray on the resolution.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
A lot to unpack here, so I'll go quickly; I know there are others.
Let's start with the OTDA and the SNAP benefits. So while that answer was nice, in doing some further digging into this, we've lost $40 million since 2002 through stolen benefits.
And while, yes, the federal government said we're not going to start replenishing that, it's because we have the solution. The federal government said, We're not going to continue to throw good money after bad because we have the solution to fix the problem so we won't lose that funding. And yet we're not acting on it.
As for the vendor to change to the chip technology, we had the vendor. We changed vendors. How do I know this? Because the New York State Department of Labor uses the chip technology for their unemployment benefits already, and they go through Conduent. Conduent is the vendor. OTDA had Conduent as their vendor and changed.
The Department of Labor's been using this technology for almost two years. But yet we continue to allow New Yorkers who need these benefits to go hungry, and they will continue to go hungry because we're not acting quickly enough. And the money hasn't been there. We need to do better.
Finally, with the MTA. I mean, year after year after year they're coming asking for more money. We lost nearly $800 million last year to toll and fare evasion, and the answer of the Senate Majority now is let's give away more free rides. Great. I'm sure the rest of the taxpayers love footing the bill.
By the way, the ones that are abiding by the law and are paying their fares, they got hit with a fare increase, just so we know.
And then, finally, the capital plan. Again, year after year we need more money, more money. I've heard the number thrown out 33 billion for the five-year capital plan that we still need. And that is, Well, congestion pricing would cover that. Well, I think that's probably going to be gone.
I don't understand how we're passing a budget resolution that leaves that gaping hole with no explanation of how we're going to fill it. I just want to read the statement that's in here. This is what the Senator was referring to. This is the statement in this resolution addressing that.
"The Senate recognizes the importance of a fully funded MTA capital program to the tristate region and, correspondingly, to the national economy, and fully supports identifying and mobilizing financial resources to properly fund the 2025-2029 MTA Capital Plan in partnership with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, City of New York" -- hold on -- "the New York State Assembly, and the Governor of the State of New York. The Senate also recognizes the importance of the MTA using its resources efficiently and transparently, so that it can instill confidence in the taxpayers and riders who rely on the system."
That's your budget proposal. I don't hear a dollar sign. I don't hear any plan for how we're going to get there. I guess I'll just tell my mortgage lender that I'll get a plan and figure out how to pay my mortgage.
This isn't a full budget proposal if we haven't answered these questions. So for that reason and many, I'll be voting no.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Borrello.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Thank you, Madam President.
I have questions on Rev Part WW, specifically with the Unemployment Insurance Benefit Fund.
Madam President, will the sponsor yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Krueger, do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Oh, so you're handling labor as well now, I see.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BORRELLO:So you are multitasking today. Yes, thank you.
Well, for years now we've known that there is a giant hole in our Unemployment Insurance Fund. It started at $11 billion; it's now down to about 6.5 billion entirely paid by the businesses, small businesses like myself, for largely fraud that was committed during the pandemic unemployment insurance.
I know you have a questioning look on your face because the Department of Labor will not tell us how much fraud we experienced. However, the Comptroller estimated it at $11 billion. So the amount of the whole unemployment insurance deficit equals the amount of fraud that the Comptroller thinks that we experienced here during that.
So most every other state except for New York took the pandemic relief money from the federal government and filled that hole so that their businesses wouldn't be burdened with these additional costs. But New York didn't dedicate a dime to it, not one thin dime.
So as a result, every business right now in New York State is paying the top unemployment insurance rates and a fine assessed every quarter, that to the tune of about $215 per employee. So billions of dollars that are actually being obviously passed along to the consumers here in New York.
Now, in this bill you've added $6 billion -- billion with a B -- to appropriate the Unemployment Insurance Benefit Fund, to subsidize that deficit. Can you please tell me how that money is going to be distributed? Or is it just going to go right into the fund?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. No, this is specifically to go to small businesses, 50 employees or less, to pay the cost difference between their pre-COVID UIB costs and their post-COVID UIB costs. Which have gone up, I agree with my colleague. And so this is specifically to address that issue for the small businesses in New York State.
I do have to take objection to my colleague's description that our costs grew so much because of fraud. I think the national data shows that our cost of unemployment skyrocketed because so many businesses did lay off people during the COVID pandemic. Hence, we drew down more unemployment benefits for people -- and thank goodness we did at the time.
And yes, the state has had a significant obligation to pay back the federal government. I'm advised that I think at the rate it's getting paid back now, we'll be completed in -- three years or two years? '27. In 2027. So in two fiscal years, that will have been completed.
We could also have a further discussion of maybe we didn't have enough money in our reserve fund for UIB because we hadn't been increasing the UIB rates on our businesses for many years, while other states had been. But that's a discussion perhaps either for history to review or for us to discuss in the future about making our UIB trust system more ready to handle downturns.
Let's hope we never have a pandemic like that again, although I worry -- I suspect my colleague also worries about that.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Yes, we both agree that there -- we fear something like that ever happening again, and let's hope it doesn't happen.
The real issue wasn't so much that New Yorkers -- in droves, they were basically forced to be laid off. The businesses didn't choose to. I can tell you that our experience in our businesses was we had a pile of unemployment claims piling up on our desk while we were receiving requests for unemployment for people that could have worked. So the problem was a lot of those people didn't actually work for us, because they were -- there was fraud in the system, a tremendous amount of fraud, because we had a software program for unemployment --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, are you on the resolution?
SENATOR BORRELLO:I'll ask a question based on this. But will the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So you mentioned changing the rules so that it's not just filling the gap, which is what we should do, but we're going to have a tax credit for employers with 50 or less people. Now, is that people or is that FTEs? In business we measure employment by FTEs, which is a full-time equivalent.
SENATOR KRUEGER:So the definition references a worker earning at least $13,000 a year. And so I don't think we tried to go into FTE in the definition because there can be so many different categories of people who work.
So I can try to get better clarification for you, but that's the best I can offer right now. Yes.
SENATOR BORRELLO:All right. Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So every business in New York State that has an employment that pays, you know, unemployment insurance benefits -- in other words, anybody that's not a sole proprietor is paying for this. This is not government money. This is paid for by employees and employers, the unemployment insurance that they pay. And we have funds that were drained because of the -- more money paid out than was going into the system, as you referenced earlier.
So why would we limit this to just this number of people? We owe about 6.5 billion right now. This is a $6 billion appropriation. So you could virtually cover it all. With an extra near half a billion dollars, you could get rid of it entirely. Why would we limit this to just certain businesses?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President, we project this is $490 million a year for two years, so close to a billion of the cost. And, you know, it would be an interesting discussion that my colleagues would want to find 6 billion to pay, which probably would require even further tax increases, which I suspect my colleagues would choose to vote no on, but I can't assume that.
So we actually think we are making a reasonable expansion beyond the Governor to try to address the small businesses who we know often carry the biggest weights on their shoulders when something changes in the economy.
And so we are fairly confident that the larger businesses in this state will continue to be able to make the payments as they have been doing since the end of pandemic. And again, we estimate that it's only two more years till we resolve the post-pandemic obligations to the federal government.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:I will have to respectfully challenge that two-year payoff. The NFIB, the Business Council and others have assumed this would be a 10-year payback, of which we are about four years into it. So to accelerate to two years I think would be unrealistic.
So we did have the opportunity -- and I'm going to get to a question if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Why didn't we spend the federal money like every other state did to help fill that gap the first time around? Because you said we should raise taxes to fill this gap. But we had the money in our hands, and we spent it on other things. In fact, we spent it on creating new programs and new, you know, bureaucratic jobs that we now have to continue to pay for with that federal money.
So why didn't we take the money that we were given that every other state, almost, used to fill that unemployment insurance gap? Why didn't we do it then?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. Budgets are a set of priorities, and you make your decision about what you're prioritizing. I know that post-pandemic California and New York found themselves with the biggest gaps in having to have had borrowing. So we did have a larger obligation to meet during the pandemic than most states, leaving us in this situation.
I'm not sure what it means that we instead used the money for more bureaucrats. So I guess I would need more clarification on that. But every year we come here and we do our best to figure out what revenue we have, what we should be using it for, whether we need to raise more, and how we prioritize our issues for the people of New York State.
And my colleague and I may in fact disagree on how money was prioritized to not factor in a bigger or quicker solution for businesses on their UIB obligations.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Borrello on the resolution.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
I think that the issue here is that the Assembly actually proposed paying off the debt entirely, what's left. Because keep in mind that nearly half of it's already been paid on the backs of every worker and business in New York State.
But this is more of a kind of a -- I guess more for show. Because when you limit it to 50 people or less -- which is great, those are small businesses -- you're also excluding most businesses, all of which paid that UI debt.
So I have a -- I take issue with that. The Assembly I think has a better solution, and it's one that I think is long overdue in New York State.
So then I'm going to switch gears now and would like to talk about TED Part EEE, the HEAT Act.
SENATOR KRUEGER:What are we on now?
SENATOR BORRELLO:It's the HEAT Act. I'm sure you're familiar with it.
SENATOR KRUEGER:I'll give it a shot. I was just checking if it was anybody else's territory.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Will the sponsor yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:We've referenced in a previous debate that we know that our energy costs are up here in New York State. No one disputes that. But one of the key components of this is that we're going to somehow limit what we know is going to be an increase in energy costs with a 6 percent cap. How is that 6 percent cap being funded?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Serrano.
SENATOR SERRANO:Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to remind members to be mindful of time as we have about 15 minutes left in this debate.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. I'll try to get the answers out faster.
In this budget we have allocated 200 million to help pay for those costs to make sure we can hit the 6 percent cap. And the Assembly did as well.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So that's the Energy Affordability Program. But we're estimating this gap to be more like $3 billion. So that's, what, 12, 15 percent of what the cost is going to be? So how are we going to get the rest of it? Is this going to be ratepayers?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I am not aware of any math that shows that number. So I'd be happy to talk to my colleague, perhaps not on the floor today, about that projection of the cost.
But I have been working on this bill and moving it through houses for several years, and I don't ever remember seeing a number like that.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Just a quick answer to your question: This is what utility companies are expecting. And we can have that discussion later.
But I want to move on to the actual policy that we're going to allow the PSC to essentially have the authority to discontinue service.
Why does -- if this is really -- if people are still going to have the option of being able to keep natural gas, then why does the PSC need the ultimate authority to disconnect customers?
SENATOR KRUEGER:The PSC already has authority to make decisions about whether new pipes can be put in the ground or not. That's existing law. What we are saying within this law is the PSC can actually, through a process in community participation, evaluate whether that should be continued automatically for any new buildings, since we have now changed the law to require new buildings to be operated without gas unless there is a necessity to, in which case they can continue to waiver to allow the pipes to be put in.
So I think -- maybe you weren't here when I was discussing it with Senator Mattera. I think we went through this step-by-step.
So yes, if you still need this and you can show that you can, PSC can say fine. Right now PSC can also say no to you. And there will be a formal process by which you participate, PSC with community, to evaluate the options available. And last but not least, gas will not be turned off anywhere unless there is another option available.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:But this is -- you're calling this a transition away from gas. So how can we say it's really a transition if people will still be able to use it? And why would we allow the PSC to discontinue service that already exists?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Again, if there's an alternative that is cheaper and safer and less polluting, I'm a little confused why somebody wouldn't want that option. Because in fact what we know is the alternative options even available today -- and more will be coming -- actually are cheaper per kilowatt hour, are cleaner, and are actually in people's best interests based on those who have already gone through transition who come to our hearings and testify that it's actually working terrifically for them.
So we are supporting transition -- not specifically alone in this bill, but we passed an entire package of energy and environmental transition obligations through the CLCPA. Then we spent two years with experts advising us on exactly the steps we ought to take. And we built into all of this a requirement for reliability so that we're not leaving anybody hanging out there.
SENATOR BORRELLO:On the bill, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Borrello on the resolution.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Just quickly, I'm going to say that this is not about giving choice to customers. This is about discontinuing the most reliable, most affordable form of energy we have -- natural gas.
Also, these alternatives are not cheaper. I mean, no one actually believes that except for the folks that have voted yes on the CLCPA. So the reality is we're already seeing electric costs go up 40 percent -- 40 percent. And we're seeing renewable energy projects being canceled in the droves because they can't afford to build the projects unless they get gobs and gobs more, billions upon billions more of taxpayer dollars to do so.
So I'm not sure where the affordable part's coming from, because we can't afford to build the things now that were already proposed.
So this is a disaster, as my colleague has mentioned before, but it's a disaster that's going to be paid for by the people of New York State. And with that, I will be voting no on this.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Rhoads.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Madam President.
In the absence of Senator Rivera, would Senator Krueger please rise to answer a few questions? On health.
SENATOR KRUEGER:We can wait until he returns.
SENATOR RHOADS:Okay. May not have that kind of time.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR RIVERA:(Rapidly entering chamber.) I got this.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator will yield.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you.
With respect to Part EE in the Governor's budget, I actually found something which I never thought I'd find in the Governor's executive proposal, which is something that resembled a good idea.
SENATOR RIVERA:By the way, I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:I did, yes.
SENATOR RIVERA:The involuntary commitment and assisted outpatient treatment, right? The Senate one-house bill rejects the Executive proposal to allow intervention when individuals are at a substantial risk of harm due to their inability to meet basic needs of food, shelter or medical care. It would improve care for individuals at risk of self-neglect, it would prevent crises by allowing people to get treatment as opposed to being released back out onto the streets, which would assist with our homeless population. It included the inability to meet --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator?
SENATOR RIVERA:Madam Chair, through you. In the sake of limited time, that I will go back to my bagel, since Senator Brouk will actually answer questions regarding this.
SENATOR RHOADS:Okay.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Brouk?
SENATOR BROUK:Hi.
SENATOR RHOADS:Senator Brouk, will you yield to a question?
SENATOR BROUK:I will. I will yield.
SENATOR RHOADS:Did you hear the first part of my question?
SENATOR BROUK:I did. We can pick up where you left off.
SENATOR RHOADS:It would have included eligibility for court-ordered outpatient treatment, and it also would have ensured vulnerable individuals who might fall through the cracks due to inability to meet basic needs were not left without necessary healthcare.
The Senate, in its one-house, put that the Senate remains committed to collaborating with the Executive and the Assembly to develop a balanced solution that helps people experiencing mental health challenges access the care that they need. But what other than sunshine, rainbows and good intentions does the Majority intend to actually propose in response to the Governor's proposal?
SENATOR BROUK:Through you, Madam President. I'd like to start with one fact, that sunshine is a major part of maintaining mental wellness and mental health, so we would add that if we could.
On a more serious note, though, you know, I think this Senate body in particular has really put forward a number of proposals and investments over the last four years when it comes to fighting our mental health crisis. This is the body that started with the first cost-of-living adjustment for our mental health workforce in over 10 years. There has not been a legislative session that has passed without this body taking major steps in addressing the mental health crisis.
And if one were to look at our one-house budget, what they will see is that we have once again really taken major steps forward in not just addressing the mental health crisis but in ensuring that we are bringing in the voices of impacted individuals, of mental health providers, of those who are in the field seeing this crisis on the ground.
Some of the things that we've done are we have increased our investments in peer services. Every study shows that when it comes to really bridging the gap when individuals can't find the care they need or are not in a position to seek that care, having peers creating relationships with individuals with severe mental illness can be a kind of stopgap to get them to bridge over to that care. So we've increased investment in those peer services.
We've also expanded our ability to get voluntary services to those who need them by including the entire bill text of Daniel's Law in this one-house budget. That is one way that we are able to ensure that those who are in mental health crisis are not escalating that crisis, but rather we are sending mental health professionals -- peers, social workers, crisis counselors -- to meet folks who are in that crisis.
And with this budget resolution we have taken this a step further with not only an initial $22 million investment that includes a statewide technical assistance center, particularly for the safety of our first responders and those in mental health crisis.
We also make a commitment for continual funding so that, statewide, we can have, for once and for all, a mental health crisis response system that works.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator.
On the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Rhoads on the resolution.
SENATOR RHOADS:The Governor's proposal would have done all that simply by allowing these facilities to be able to have an involuntary hold, expanding it from 72 hours to 30 days. It would have provided those vital services that those who are facing a mental health crisis would have needed, and would have kept them off the streets.
I also want to comment on the fact that Nassau University Medical Center again receives no funding, despite the request that was made by four members of this body to provide that funding, that critical funding for Long Island's only safety-net hospital, despite the fact that SUNY Downstate has received last year 400 million in a direct allocation and receives another 700 million this year -- over a billion dollars for Downstate. While Nassau University Medical Center, facing its own fiscal crisis, receives nothing.
With respect to public protection and the V-FIRE grant, there's an additional $10 million. But I wanted to make the point that in the V-FIRE grant, Long Island fire departments were excluded. Not a single Long Island fire department was judged to meet the criteria for the V-FIRE grant. And there is nothing within this budget proposal, other than adding additional funds, that corrects that injustice.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you.
Senator Walczyk.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Madam President, how much time do we have left?
SENATOR BROUK:Three minutes.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Madam President, I'll go on the resolution.
Do we have more than three minutes? All right, thank you.
On the resolution. So here's some of the questions I was going to ask.
Disappointed in your conference's proposal because even your Majority Leader kicked off this legislative session saying affordability, affordability, affordability. This increase in spending is not going to make it more affordable for New Yorkers. So one question I was going to ask is what are we doing about the $2.3 million spending per day on the National Guard in our prisons? Didn't see anything in your budget resolution or in the Governor's budget to address how much additional spending we're going to be doing on the New York National Guard.
And the Governor has refused to ask the president of the United States to federalize the National Guard, which would save us that $2.3 million per day.
I was also going to ask about why on earth is automatic voter registration in our budget? And I had some good questions on that one, but that's probably the most poignant.
I also wanted to ask why a public banking commission is worth spending half a million dollars on it and why only Democrats would be appointed to that banking commission. Six appointments from a Democratic Governor, three appointments from a Democratic Majority Leader, three appointments from a Democratic Speaker of the Assembly, and one from the Comptroller, who is a Democrat.
Why is public banking a partisan issue? Why wouldn't you want to have Republican input?
I was also going to ask some questions -- which my colleagues did -- about why the HEAT Act would be included in this budget proposal. You're already doing a lot legislatively to ban natural gas in the State of New York. None of that is going to make energy more affordable in the State of New York. And energy costs continue to go up.
This resolution also increases a special assessment on gas and electric corporations from 28.7 million to 35.7 million dollars. Why do we want the ratepayers and the taxpayers to pay more for their energy?
It also doesn't eliminate NYSERDA's systems benefit charge. It also creates a $1 billion new slush fund for NYSERDA called Sustainable Futures Program. And I had a lot of questions about what the heck that $1 billion is going to go to and why only the Finance chair and the Ways and Means chair would be put on that program. Why no rankers? Why no chairs of the Energy committees in either house? Why no accountability?
And actually, if there's a couple more minutes, maybe someone would yield for a question on the education portion of this resolution.
SENATOR MAYER:Yes, I'm happy to answer.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Mayer will respond.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Thank you. So there's a modification in this Senate proposal to regionalize cost factors, is that correct?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes, there is. Through you, Madam President.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Am I reading this right? That's for New York City, for Dutchess, for Orange, for Putnam, for Rockland, for Sullivan, for Ulster and for Westchester counties only?
SENATOR MAYER:Well, first -- through you, Madam President -- it is increased modestly for New York City. It is increased for the Hudson Valley and for Long Island -- or it remains the same for Long Island.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, that begs the question why not for Long Island, why not for Central New York, why not for the capital region or the Mohawk Valley, why not for Northern New York?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes, I yield.
Through you, Madam President. The Regional Cost Index is intended to reflect the increasing cost or the additional cost of labor in some regions of the state. It's not equally distributed. These are the regions as determined by the Department of Labor, and that's what we used here.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Thank you, Madam President. On the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Walczyk on the resolution.
SENATOR WALCZYK:South Dakota, New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, Delaware, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, West Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Alabama and Maine. You know what all of those and all of those states in the Union have in common? Their budgets, their total state budgets are smaller than what your resolution, than what your resolution proposes in increase over last year's state budget in the State of New York. You're proposing a larger increase to our state budget than all of those states have for their total spend.
The United States budget didn't even reach $259 billion until 1974. They ran the entire country, they fought communism and the Vietnam War on less than what you're proposing to spend here in the State of New York. And you have the gall to say this is going to make it more affordable for New Yorkers.
If you could tax and spend your way into affordability for the residents of the State of New York, we would be the most affordable place to live on earth. But the residents know that is not the case.
So you're including bloat, inefficiency, graft, waste, political slush funds, hundreds in ill-advised policies in your resolution, hidden taxes, fees, non-hidden taxes, and expensive mandates. You say the word "affordable," but your resolution tells me you have no idea what that means.
Madam President, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
The debate is now closed.
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Brouk to explain her vote.
SENATOR BROUK:Thank you, Madam President.
As chair of the Senate Mental Health Committee and as a member of the Rochester community, I recognize that we are in a unique time. This month will mark five years since the death of Daniel Prude, and the mental health of all New Yorkers is still in crisis. The Prude family has been patiently waiting for some semblance of justice for Daniel, and we have to make sure that we deliver it.
As legislators and leaders with the ability to make positive change, I urge us to consider the weight of this moment. I urge us to rise to the challenge of solving our mental health crisis. Last year the Daniel's Law Task Force gathered public input on how to best implement Daniel's Law statewide, and we are now including the initial $22 million investment to make that a reality.
What this means is that we are closer now than we ever have been at providing lifesaving care through Daniel's Law. With a statewide crisis response system, we will see fewer individuals falling through the cracks of our mental health care system. We will see more people getting the help that they need.
The inclusion of Daniel's Law in this budget will help us care for all New Yorkers and make our state a safer place for all of us to live.
Thank you, Madam President. I proudly vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Brouk to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Fahy to explain her vote.
SENATOR FAHY:Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I just rise to note the reasons I am in support of this one-house resolution. And I think there are a whole host of them. I'm just going to briefly mention a few.
I'm going to start here in the Capital Region, where I am grateful that the Governor has included 400 million to focus on our downtown revitalization efforts as well as a dated State Museum as well as transforming the 787 highway that was overbuilt in its time and it's now way overbuilt.
Also very grateful that we have included language to transform the Harriman Campus to bring it into the 21st century. Also very grateful to see the Earned Income Tax Credit included, which will begin to address some of the affordability issues. And it's one of the strongest antipoverty programs since the 1960s. We're expanding it here in this state to really target noncustodial parents who are often young men, and this incentivizes and rewards work.
Lots on education here. Grateful to what the Governor has put in. We are going beyond that and also including additional monies for pre-K which are so critical, as well as expanding the floor that has been such a problem in so many districts.
Same on higher education with operating dollars as well as increased TAP dollars. We know if we encourage students we are reversing national trends by helping to expand TAP, and we are growing our enrollment, particularly in SUNY and CUNY, and also adding in capital dollars that are critical for their energy transition plans and more.
The same on childcare as well as the Child Tax Credit, which is so critical to assisting families and again addressing the critical affordability issues that so many families face these days.
Similarly on the housing vouchers which will be important, as well as Aid to Localities to address additional housing matters.
Transportation, which is always --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, how do you vote?
SENATOR FAHY:I vote in the affirmative, and very grateful for a number of these additions. Look forward to future conversations on this.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Fahy in the affirmative.
Senator May to explain her vote.
SENATOR MAY:Thank you, Madam President.
I rise in support of this resolution because, among other things, it is showing how our conference is standing up for upstate communities.
In the wake of the Congressional Republicans voting to gut food assistance programs, we are increasing the minimum SNAP benefit and providing more markets for our farmers to connect with our schools.
On the day the EPA administrator bragged about getting rid of air pollution protections against acid rain, we are fighting for the health of our lakes and trying to address the harmful algal bloom program that is ravaging communities across upstate.
On the day after the Homeland Security czar came here to threaten farmworkers and home care workers, we are standing up for our farmers by promoting more research and investment in their infrastructure.
In a week when the President deliberately drove up the cost of construction materials, we are investing in building more housing with a revolving loan fund and a number of other funds to really promote construction and reconstruction of homes and apartments.
And in the face of mass layoffs at the federal Department of Education and an all-out assault from Washington on our world-renowned higher education and medical research programs, we are investing in our schools and universities.
I am proud to vote aye for this resolution. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator May to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Mayer to explain her vote.
SENATOR MAYER:Thank you, Madam President.
I'm proud to vote aye on this resolution. I want to highlight two issues.
One, this resolution includes two of the bills I sponsor with many of my colleagues to force changes in the way the Public Service Commission approves sky-high utility rates that benefit utility shareholders and hurt regular ratepayers. We need a change in the way these rates are approved, and my bills would do that.
Secondly, in the area of education, we have shown our direct commitment to public education, particularly in the face of this federal administration's efforts to gut public education. We've added Foundation Aid, we've reflected a true Regional Cost Index, we've continued our commitment to pre-K, and we have really put our foot down that we need continued commitment to career and technical education.
I want to thank the Majority Leader for her steadfast support of public education, which is reflected in this resolution.
I proudly vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Mayer to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Skoufis to explain his vote.
SENATOR SKOUFIS:Thank you very much, Madam President.
I'm surprised to hear comparisons to other states from some of my colleagues across the aisle in terms of what we spend here in New York, with the increases here in New York, compared to states like West Virginia was on the list that was rattled off before.
You know what the life expectancy here in New York is? Seventy-nine years old. You know what it is in West Virginia? Seventy-one. You live eight years less in West Virginia than you do here in New York.
Let's compare air quality. Let's compare teacher pay. They had a teacher strike in West Virginia just a few years ago. Maybe, just maybe there is something to be said about investing in your people in a state government. And so that's what we do here in this one-house.
And I didn't hear anything in the questioning about the actual affordability that is advanced here in this one-house, from the Working Families Tax Credit to the reduction in your PIT if you make under $300,000 a year, to free breakfast and lunch for all. That's going to save most families over a thousand dollars a year.
In Orange County, toll relief on the Thruway, toll relief on the Tappan Zee Bridge, and so much more. Senior citizens, three years of checks.
It's disingenuous to suggest there is nothing that speaks to affordability in here. This is chock-full of affordability. I proudly vote yes.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Skoufis to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Hinchey to explain her vote.
SENATOR HINCHEY:Thank you, Madam President.
I too rise to celebrate what is in this one-house resolution today. There is a lot to be proud of. The week that the federal government is actually disinvesting in our farmers and our ranchers across the country by cutting multiple programs that help get farm-fresh food into our schools for our kids -- the weak they are disinvesting and cutting those programs, we in this resolution not only are continuing our expansion of universal school meals for all kids across the state, but we are also expanding, expanding the Farm to School program to include all meals -- breakfast, lunch and snacks -- because we know that kids in every single community in every corner of the state -- and, quite frankly, the country -- deserve to eat locally sourced healthy food.
We are investing in our upstate communities at a significantly higher rate than we have historically by expanding housing programs that work for smaller communities and rural communities like ours across the state.
We're also making sure that we're looking at public transit. And I celebrate the study for the Mid-Hudson Transit Authority, and hopefully we make it into the final budget, because we actually in upstate deserve public transit too, and that's something that we are investing in here.
And I celebrate the investment in our education, specifically looking at the cost of living in our Hudson Valley communities that have skyrocketed since the pandemic. Our budget takes that into account to make sure that we're actually supporting our children and recognizing the cost of living where we live in the Hudson Valley.
So I am proud to vote aye on this resolution, and I encourage all of our colleagues to do the same.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Hinchey to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Brisport to explain his vote.
SENATOR BRISPORT:Thank you, Madam President.
I'd like to start by acknowledging that for decades, nationwide, the Democratic Party has traded away its credibility as a stronghold for working-class people, accepting corporate campaign donations and becoming increasingly relying on them, underregulating entire industries and enabling the resulting monopolies to raise prices and drive inflation. Making repeated cuts to social infrastructure like public education and transit, robbing the working class of stability and quality of life.
These were only Republican strategies, but in following their lead, the Democratic Party neutralized itself and normalized empty rhetoric. The consequence was widespread disillusionment and vulnerability to a billionaire con artist.
To recover, we must rapidly and fully divorce our party from the ultra-rich and their corporations. Our Governor has so far lacked either the will or the courage to do so.
On the other hand, our Majority Leader has put together a budget proposal that would move us in the right direction. By rolling back tax breaks on millionaires and billionaires, we can implement bold policies to transform the lives of working-class families and rebuild a viable economy.
Universal childcare offers us the chance to show the nation what genuinely left-wing policies can do for them. On top of resolving the childcare crisis that's crushing families, funding universal childcare is one of the most cost-effective ways we can strengthen our economy.
Notably, though, while the Governor claims to support universal childcare, her budget proposal was absent of the actual funding for it. Our Majority Leader thankfully has included $500 million in this proposal to grow and invest in our childcare workforce, an absolutely essential step in building universal childcare.
Stronger messaging that we care about working-class struggle will not turn the tides against President Trump. Funding real solutions will. As the final budget is negotiated, Governor Hochul must hear this from all of us in this room and across New York.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Brisport to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Webb to explain her vote.
SENATOR WEBB:Thank you, Madam President.
I first want to thank our Senate Majority Leader and our entire staff for working diligently to put forward this one-house resolution.
In this moment, this one-house resolution reflects the conversations and investments we've been making in our chamber, most certainly in my time of being here, but beyond. And that is this moment we find ourselves in of continuing to push for more equitable investments for working families -- and also meeting the moment that no one wanted to see and that we are continuing to reel from, and that is the drastic and devastating cuts and proposed cuts that will create disparaging impacts on everyone.
This one-house resolution reflects our intentionality in making sure that no New Yorker is left behind. When you talk about the investments we're continuing to make in education, healthcare, our communities are still reeling, as the chair of Women's Issues, from the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Yet we are continuing as a state to make investments in reproductive health and maternal health as we deal with the very real crisis of maternal mortality in our state.
This one-house resolution reinforces all those things and more. Madam President, I proudly vote aye on this resolution and look forward to our final budget that will continue to center the needs of our working families across this great state of ours.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Webb to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Baskin to explain her vote.
SENATOR BASKIN:Thank you, Madam President.
I rise to also thank the leader for this resolution before us today. I want to thank the leader and our staff for increasing funding for lead service line replacement by $100 million in the Clean Water Infrastructure Act.
The federal government last year implemented a rule that all lead service lines across the country must be replaced by the year 2037. And my district has a disproportionate number of lead service lines, particularly in the City of Buffalo. So this funding will go a long way to replace this dangerous source of lead poisoning and ensure that our children and our facilities can safely drink water out of their faucets without worrying about its potential impact on their health.
Also, Madam President, in this budget I want to thank the leader and our staff for improving resources for our small businesses community. In this budget particularly we have emerging entrepreneurs, minority and women-owned business enterprises, and service-disabled veterans, who will receive an immense amount of resources.
This budget proposal increases technical assistance and mentorship for our small businesses across the state, and it also creates a pathway to get more small businesses into the pipeline of contracting with New York State. If a small business can add to their resume that they have worked with the State of New York on a project, it can be a launch pad for them to take the next step and grow their business, which will ultimately help our economy.
This is why it is important to holistically improve discretionary buying, which is also what this budget proposal does, to ensure that our discretionary buying policies are resulting in a variety of business types, benefiting those who engage with state contracting.
Madam President, I proudly vote in the affirmative. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Baskin to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Cooney to explain his vote.
SENATOR COONEY:Thank you, Madam President.
You know, at a time when our country and our state is so divided, transportation brings us together, both literally and figuratively. You know, I've heard the debate over today's session, and we didn't have a lot of debate around transportation, because this budget delivers big across our state -- whether we're talking about a record investment in upstate public transportation, increasing that frequency and that opportunity in upstate cities, or whether we're talking about our neighbors in New York City and our commitment to fully fund the MTA as it should be.
We are also doing two particularly interesting things by looking at transportation through the lens of equity. So we have proposed, as the Senate Majority, a new fund of $10 million to connect workforce opportunities that are coming to our communities that don't have access to public transportation, so that all New Yorkers can access these good-paying jobs.
We've also continued to advance -- to dream bigger about public transportation, to dream bigger about how we better connect upstate to downstate, and we do that through high-speed rail. And in this budget we make sure that we are committing the dollars to study an alternative route to connect Toronto to New York City.
That's the type of big thinking that this Senate Majority continues to deliver. And I'm grateful for the leadership of Andrea Stewart-Cousins as our Majority Leader, and I will be voting in favor of this budget resolution.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Cooney to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Krueger to explain her vote.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you, Madam President.
First, I want to thank my colleagues for their participation here today from both sides of the aisle. I particularly want to thank my colleagues in the Democratic Conference for their incredible work over weeks and weeks and weeks of hearings, workgroups, intense discussions going to late at night, fighting out amongst ourselves what we felt the priorities for the State of New York should be.
And I hear my colleagues on the other side say, But this is a big budget, it keeps going up. And they're right. New York State is an expensive state, because we make investments that are paying off. We make investments in our education, in our infrastructure, in our clean water and air, in our training of people to be able to compete here for jobs in New York and to compete with the world economy. Because we are the center of this country's world economy.
A new study that just came out evaluating the 50 states on 28 economic metrics said that New York State is the highest ranking and best economy contributing the most to the country's economic growth. The analysis looked at all 50 states, evaluating GDP, unemployment rate, fiscal health, to determine ones that are pulling the most weight when it comes to moving the U.S. economy forward.
And there's data point after data point -- yes, our budget costs go up, but nothing in comparison to how rapidly our GDP has been going up over the last decade. Our statewide GDP now is over $2.3 trillion -- $2.3 trillion in economic activity in this state.
So despite the fact that we have some higher costs than other states, people are coming here, staying here, doing business, frankly being incredibly successful in their businesses. We are considered the global hub for finance, tech, advertising, media, fashion. We have seen strong growth and recovery since the pandemic -- under Democratic leadership at the federal level and the state level. Interesting.
We have seen a rebound of our GDP after everyone's plummeting during the pandemic. And New York State alone is one of the largest exporting states in the country, sending nearly $1.63 billion worth of goods to overseas markets in 2022, a critical issue for us particularly now in light of the strange tariff wars we are facing that will no doubt drive up our costs and probably result in unemployment.
And this budget is a reflection of those values and those goals to continue New York on the path of being so effective and successful in translating our government priorities to the programs and services that the people of New York need.
And as you heard already from my colleagues, even though the questions weren't asked of us, we've built in all kinds of new improvements of affordability for the New Yorkers who need the help, which is many. And so we are investing in child tax credits. We are investing in expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit for those without children. We are investing in rebate checks for older New Yorkers who find themselves very often in housing problems because their costs of property taxes are growing as their fixed incomes are not.
We are making investments in affordable housing. In fact, the Governor proposed a $1 billion fund for the City of New York, City of Yes. We took a look and said: But we know exactly where that money should be spent and how it could be most effectively used. So we outlined in our one-house exactly where that billion dollars should be spent.
And then we said, but we need to do more for upstate housing as well, so we invested in expanded programs and new programs for affordability in housing -- not just for the City of New York, where they were already putting 4 billion in and we were adding a billion, but also for the rest of the state.
We understand that mass transit is the future of the economy not just of the City of New York, not even just of the MTA region, but the entire New York-Connecticut-New Jersey-Pennsylvania region. We understand that those kinds of investments -- which create great jobs, by the way, all over the State of New York -- are the kind of investment we need to be making so that we continue to be the leader in the 21st century for our state and our country.
And the data's clear. So my colleagues like to talk about some increase in costs of -- I think they said 28 million to 35 million specifically for one issue in utilities. So that's like $7 million. I think the Con Ed president just gave himself a bigger salary increase than that for one person.
There's a lot of questions that need to be asked, and they should be asked here and other places. But I am incredibly proud to be a member of this Senate, of being given the honor of being the Finance chair of the New York State Senate. And I'm very, very proud of the work we've done and what we've delivered, and I proudly vote yes.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Krueger to be recorded in the affirmative.
Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins to close.
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:Thank you so much, Madam President. And thank you for presiding over this very important discussion around our budget resolution.
I also want to thank Deputy Leader Mike Gianaris as well as our chair of our conference, Senator Serrano, for helping us get through this debate.
Of course to our Minority Leader, Robert Ortt, and Senator Gianaris's counterpart, Senator Lanza. I am sorry I missed your birthday yesterday, but a belated Happy Birthday. I'm sure you'll be celebrating; we're going to get you out of here soon.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:And of course to the Finance ranker Tom O'Mara and all of our colleagues across the aisle for your constructive engagement.
And of course a special acknowledgement to my Finance chair. You did a great job of doing part of my speech. I don't even --
(Laughter.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:Sorry.
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:Yeah, that's good.
-- who, you know, tirelessly -- you know, she always threatens to -- I'm glad you said you were honored. I will make sure to tell you every time you say "Oh, why me?" that -- but I really, really thank you for your tireless commitment to getting it done and getting it right. And, you know, your expertise and experience really helps us in so many ways. So I thank you.
And of course I want to further extend my gratitude to Governor Hochul and to Speaker Heastie for their year-round partnership.
And as I always say, I am grateful to be engaged in a rowing exercise where we are all usually rowing in the same direction, and the same is here in this budget.
Also I want to offer deep gratitude to the staff on both sides of the aisle. But I do want to give a special thank you to Jonathan Lang, secretary of the Majority Counsel Program; to Dorothy Powell -- yeah, give a little applause --
(Laughter; applause.)
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:To Dorothy Powell, counsel; to David Friedfel, finance secretary; to Mike Murphy, communications director; Leah Goldman, director of intergovernmental affairs; and all the staff members whose hard work and dedication have made today's one-house budget possible. So again, thank you to you all. Thank you.
(Applause.)
SENATOR MAYER:And of course I want to thank my own Senate Majority colleagues for your unwavering dedication, your hard work, your advocacy not only for your districts but for the entire state. You know, and a real shared vision for the prosperity of the state and everyone in it.
Today we come together at a unique, chaotic and arduous moment in the world outside these chambers. As your Senate Majority Leader, we're honored to present our one-house budget resolution, a bold, compassionate and fiscally responsible plan that directly addresses the most pressing concern for New Yorkers: Affordability.
We hear a lot about affordability across the aisle, yet my same colleagues stood silent when the Trump administration and Republican congressional majorities proposed massive tax breaks to the ultrawealthy while hardworking lower- and middle-class New Yorkers are paying more for less support, beginning with cuts to Medicare, housing, now Social Security, even food.
In stark contrast, this Senate Majority has delivered and expedited the lowest middle-class tax rates New York has seen in over 70 years. And now we're even ending the luxury yacht tax break our colleagues across the aisle handed out during your last majority.
As I've always said, budgets are priorities. Our budget modifies the Governor's rebate proposal, ensuring long-term financial support for seniors as well as an expansion of the Working Families Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, delivering sustained relief to low- and middle-income families. The Earned Income Tax Credit is expanded to younger workers by lowering the eligibility age from 25 to 19, and increasing refunds for single working people to help cover essential costs like rent and groceries.
Housing remains a cornerstone in our budget. We commit 250 million to the Housing Access Voucher Program to prevent homelessness and ensure rental assistance. We invest 75 million in public housing authorities outside of New York City, 50 million to rehabilitate vacant rental units. And as part of the City of Yes proposal that my colleague just mentioned, we provide a billion dollars for housing, including $500 million for public housing. And we also provide funding to help homeowners remain in their homes across the state. Every New Yorker deserves a safe and stable home.
We continue our historic commitment to education by fully funding Foundation Aid, expanding universal pre-K with $150 million, and investing a half a billion in childcare workforce stabilization to increase childcare availability. Additionally, 25 million is allocated to expand nontraditional-hour childcare.
We build on the Governor's proposal for universal free school meals by expanding Farm to School programs, ensuring children receive nutritious, locally sourced food, and providing a boost to our New York family farms.
Our budget also significantly expands support for higher education with an additional 74.3 million for SUNY, 114 million for CUNY. We create a five-year $1 billion annual capital plan to modernize campuses and hospitals, increase support for student mental health, and expand financial aid.
With looming abhorrent Medicaid cuts slated by Republicans in Washington, we safeguard healthcare access with 1.5 billion in new investments, including $355 million for hospitals, 250 million for nursing homes, and 100 million for New York City Health + Hospitals.
We strengthen reproductive healthcare with 35 million for the Reproductive Freedom and Equity grant program and expand Medicaid protections for vulnerable communities.
Additionally, we invest $100 million in children's behavioral health clinics and allocate 22 million for crisis response teams under Daniel's Law.
Public safety remains a priority, with 46 million for violence prevention and other public safety programs, $20 million for Family Court access, and expanded support for jail-based medication assisted treatment to combat opioid addiction.
Our small businesses, the backbone of our economy, receive targeted support, including new unemployment insurance tax credits for small businesses with 50 or fewer employees, helping offset some of their costs. We also increase MWBE funding and support for Main Street revitalization.
Our commitment to affordability and economic security extends to the hardworking people who keep our state running. That's why this budget takes significant steps to support workers across industries. We expand temporary disability insurance to ensure that more New Yorkers have the financial support they need during health challenges. Construction workers will see stronger prevailing wage protections, guaranteeing fair pay on publicly funded projects.
This budget reflects our fundamental belief that when we invest in workers, we strengthen New York's economy, families and communities. We take bold steps to address the climate crisis by expanding clean water funding to $700 million, increasing funding for energy affordability programs by 200 million, and creating a $2,000 rebate for used zero-emission vehicles.
Despite misinformation from fossil fuel interests, states like Texas have demonstrated that renewable energy can provide the cheapest electricity in the nation. Our budget meets this urgency with an additional $100 million investment in the Environmental Protection Fund, funding for clean water projects, incentives for zero-emission vehicles, and accelerated renewable energy infrastructure.
Additionally, we establish the Office of Climate Resiliency to coordinate state responses to climate threats and invest in floating solar incentives.
Finally, as the daughter of a combat veteran who bravely served despite discrimination, I was really outraged by a recent Congressman -- a Republican Congressman whose dismissive remarks about veterans employment rights not being God-given. Our budget honors veterans with an increase in veterans' services funding, a new property tax exemption for 100 percent service-disabled veterans, and expanded Gold Star annuity benefits. This includes additional funding for the Federal Defense Program and $300,000 for New York Helmets to Hard Hats to support veterans transitioning to trade careers.
Our budget provides nearly $4 million more for veteran housing, job training, legal assistance and mental health care. Our veterans fought for us. We must fight for them.
As we progress, I welcome the challenging yet necessary conversations and negotiations with the Executive and the Assembly. Though the road ahead may be difficult, through collaboration and our shared commitment, we can create greater opportunities and build a stronger New York even in these perilous times for our nation.
Today is about more than the budget. It's about our collective promise to every New Yorker. It's about reaffirming our shared values of fairness, equity and resilience, and our commitment to a brighter, stronger future for our state. We have repeatedly proven that when we invest in our people, we strengthen our communities, our economy and our state.
So I look forward to the work ahead and delivering on our shared promise to build a New York that truly works for everyone.
Thank you, Madam President. I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you. Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins to be recorded in the affirmative.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Resolution 488, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik.
Ayes, 36. Nays, 21.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The resolution is adopted.
Senator Serrano.
SENATOR SERRANO:Is there any further business at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:There is no further business at the desk.
SENATOR SERRANO:I move to adjourn until Monday, March 17th, at 3:00 p.m., with the intervening days being legislative days.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:On motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Monday, March 17th, at 3:00 p.m., with intervening days being legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)