Gaveled in 10:32 AM · Albany, New York · 2025–26 session
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 8, 2025
10:32 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, May 7, 2025, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Tuesday, May 6, 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.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Good morning.
SENATOR GIANARIS:On behalf of Senator Fernandez, I move to amend Senate Bill 1814A by striking out the amendments made on February 18, 2025, and restoring it to its original print, Print Number 1814.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The amendments are received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:We're going to simultaneously call an immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in Room 332 and take up previously adopted Resolution 908, by Senator Fahy.
Please call Finance and then recognize Senator Fahy on that resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:There will be an immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in Room 332.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Resolution 908, by Senator Fahy, recognizing May 8, 2025, as a day to honor the work of Girls Inc. of the Greater Capital Region.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Fahy on the resolution.
SENATOR FAHY:Good morning, Madam President.
Thank you for allowing me to introduce this resolution and to recognize Girls Inc. of the Greater Capital Region.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, can you hold a minute, please.
May we have some order in the chamber, please, so that Senator Fahy can speak.
SENATOR FAHY:Thank you, Madam President.
And if they'd like to rise -- well, they're the only ones in the chamber today, so I guess it makes it easy to see those red shirts.
Girls Inc. is a nationally recognized nonprofit dedicated to inspiring young girls to be bright, strong, bold through their direct service and advocacy. They have been incorporated for over 85 years and have served thousands of girls and young women throughout the Capital Region with life-changing programs on education, health, leadership development, and equipping them with the skills and confidence to succeed. Their mission is to inspire all girls to be strong, smart and bold.
They've been in existence in Schenectady since 1937 -- really ahead of their time -- and in Albany since 1961. They're now in Poughkeepsie, and I'm forgetting one -- oh, and Troy, of course.
So it's really grown and, again, serving thousands of young girls with STEM education, again the leadership opportunities. They serve a very diverse population. And they particularly target underrepresented and low-income neighborhoods to serve as many as possible.
Last year they were selected by Anthem Blue Cross as the 2024 Whole Health Heroes for the holistic services that they provide.
So today, again, proud to honor Girls Inc. and recognize today as a day to celebrate the work of Girls Inc. of the Capital Region and its ongoing commitment to strengthening communities and investing in the potential of girls and young women throughout this region.
Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me this honor to introduce this extraordinary group, who is a small representation of the thousands who have been so successfully served over the decades.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you.
To our guests, Girls Inc., I welcome you on behalf of the Senate. We extend to you the privileges and courtesies of this house.
Please remain standing and be recognized.
(Standing ovation.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, let's stand at ease while we await the Finance Committee's return.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 10:37 a.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 10:48 a.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senate will return to order.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, there's a report of the Finance Committee at the desk. Can we take that up, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Senator Krueger, from the Committee on Finance, reports the following bills:
Senate Print 3004D, Senate Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government, Capital Projects Budget;
Senate Print 3006C, Senate Budget Bill, an act to amend the Education Law.
Both bills reported direct to third reading.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the report of the Finance Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:All those in favor of accepting the report of the Finance Committee please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The report of the Finance Committee is accepted.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Take up the supplemental calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 972, Senate Print 3004D, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Is there a message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:There is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The message is accepted, and the bill is before the house.
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The bill will be laid aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 973, Senate Print 3006C, Budget Bill, an act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Is there a message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:There is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the message of necessity.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The message is accepted, and the bill is before the house.
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Lay it aside.
Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of the calendar.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Let's move to the controversial calendar, beginning with Calendar Number 973, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Secretary will ring the bell.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 973, Senate Print 3006C, Senate Budget Bill, an act to amend the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Palumbo, why do you rise?
SENATOR PALUMBO:Good morning, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Good morning.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Would the sponsor yield for a few questions on Part LL, please? Or anyone other than the sponsor who'd be interested in doing so.
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Myrie will yield.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Thank you, Senator Myrie. Good morning.
SENATOR MYRIE:Good morning.
SENATOR PALUMBO:How are you?
I've been reading some news accounts that there were discussions regarding these changes to discovery with some district attorneys. And I only saw that they were within the five boroughs. Do you know if there was any consultation regarding any amendments with any of the other district attorneys around the state?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, there was extensive conversations with district attorneys from all over the state.
As you may have also seen reported, these changes to the discovery law have support from the president of the District Attorneys Association, and our discussions were also inclusive of other stakeholders. So there was extensive discussion around the changes.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Thank you, Senator.
And from looking at the bill itself, it looks as though the only real substantive changes -- I know there were some changes regarding timing of disclosure to -- regarding the defendant testifying in the grand jury, and that there were also some changes to the language that the items that relate to the subject matter and that -- those items that are also relevant to the subject matter.
But the way I see this, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the only substantive changes seem to be that there was a time limit for motions, that the motion to challenge the certificate of compliance is 35 days -- with exceptions that we'll get into in a little bit -- as well as codifying essentially the due diligence standard that was established by the Court of Appeals in People v. Bay.
Is that accurate?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, those changes were made -- I think it's subjective what you might consider substantive or technical.
But in addition to some of those changes in the Bay factors that were codified, there was also the inclusion of a factor for consideration regarding whether the evidence might prejudice the defendant and impede the ability for them to investigate and mount a defense.
There was also an inclusion that would make clear that prosecutors are still required to meet their constitutional disclosure duties. As you know, as a former prosecutor, we wanted to make that clear as well.
And I think we're going to get into some of the COC challenge exceptions that I think, you know, some might argue are substantive as well.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Thank you.
So in addition to that -- just so I'm clear and so our colleagues are clear, because we're a little bit in the weeds here and I know that's what I always enjoy having these debates with Senator Myrie -- the addition of prejudice to the defendant is something new, that there was otherwise compliance and several factors to consider, but we also added whether or not there was prejudice to the defendant.
Is that true?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, that is correct.
I also want to note that we made clear in the statute that no single factor is determinative, that the court must adopt a totality of the circumstances approach so that they could be taking into consideration everything and not merely automatically dismissing for one fact or the other.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Thank you, Senator.
Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:So now as far as noncompliance with discovery, was that decoupled from the speedy trial statute, from the 30.30 statute in this new change?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, it was not.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:If we could get into the specifics, Senator. Through you, Madam President. On Section 4 -- I need my glasses for this. But essentially the 35-day time period to challenge a certificate of compliance, it can be extended for good cause shown on the prosecution's part, but the request shall be made essentially within the 35 days by defense counsel after consultation with the prosecutor to cure any known defects to the certificate of compliance.
Is that accurate?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, that is correct.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:However, there's also a carveout that says, at line 42: "Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision, a party may challenge the validity of the certificate of compliance after the expiration of the 35-day period where the grounds for such challenge are based upon a material change in circumstances, including but not limited to the belated disclosure of discoverable material pursuant to Section 245.20 of this article, or where the party entitled to disclosure could not with due diligence have known of the specific and particularized matters forming the basis of the challenge prior to the expiration of such period."
So with regard to that section, I actually can't think of a situation where, if the defense attorney was unaware of it, that they wouldn't be able to make this motion or whether or not it was -- or, in the situation of belated disclosure, how they wouldn't have the opportunity to file that motion.
So really my question to you is, Senator, am I reading this improperly? Or is it essentially of course they can make the motion at any time? Because what triggers typically these motions currently, before these changes, is belated disclosure of discovery. So if discovery is given late, how does this 35-day rule even apply?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President. So just to contextualize, the -- we changed the time limit for bringing the motion, and this was to address some of the concerns from prosecutors that they were receiving these challenges belatedly or that there had not been a conferral and discussion on some of the items that were missing prior to involving the court in making a decision.
This speaks to an exception, and the material change in circumstance is meant to incorporate instances where the prosecutor, even after conferral, said this particular batch of evidence was not available, and a couple of days later that somehow becomes available.
There should still be an opportunity for the defense to make this motion, but it should be based on a material change in the circumstance and not simply an exception to the rule that ends up swallowing the rule.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Thank you, Senator.
Now, moving on to the next page and the People v. Bay factors. And just for our colleagues I'll just generally say there -- essentially, Judge Halligan in 2023 read into the statute that when we look at this as a whole, that there was essentially a due diligence requirement of the People.
Is that accurate, Senator?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, are you asking me to opine on what the --
SENATOR PALUMBO:Sure, just -- I just want to -- I don't want to -- I want to make sure we're on the same page, that generally that the Court of Appeals case said that there was a due diligence requirement, to an extent, and listed some factors by the People when it comes to providing discovery.
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, I'd say both due diligence and good faith.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Yes. Thank you. And good faith, thank you.
And would the sponsor continue to yield, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:And in that case Judge Haligan still dismissed the case, but then ultimately read that into that case. And it looks -- so it was currently law in New York state, and it looks as though those factors were incorporated within these changes within Part LL.
And then we read here, on lines 13 through 16: And whether the prosecution has delayed discovery or discovery was prejudicial -- excuse me -- delayed disclosure of discovery was prejudicial to the defense or otherwise impeded the defense's ability to effectively investigate a case or prepare for trial, as you mentioned earlier.
So that is something that was not currently in law, based upon the Bay case, and that's something else that was added, is that true?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, yes.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Thank you, Senator.
And I will have some questions on one other section, if I may. So if I may just go on the bill regarding this section now, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Palumbo on the bill.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Thank you. So -- and look, I know this was lauded to be, you know, some drastic, dramatic fix. But unfortunately I have spoken with many assistant district attorneys in the past 24 hours -- in fact, district attorneys of very large counties as well, and they're wholly unimpressed. Because this has virtually done nothing but codify current law and actually add a prejudice standard.
And quite frankly, Madam President, I -- those days when I was practicing, with even colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, and I practiced on both sides of the aisle, we would joke when you say that, oh, this is prejudice to my client. Well, of course it is. That's your job. A confession, for example, is very prejudicial to a defendant. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be in evidence.
So any late disclosure is prejudicial. So any late disclosure will allow a motion to strike the certificate of compliance. The problem here was connecting it to speedy trial.
And there's some language in here that's saying that this should be the last consideration to dismiss the case, this should be the last remedy. But that's currently the law. And the due diligence standard is currently the law as of December of 2023 when the Court of Appeals said so.
So this is unfortunately a nothing burger. And quite frankly, during these deliberations we saw many of our colleagues on the other side say, we don't want any changes to discovery. We're not doing it. Well, that's what happened. This is not a change. This is nothing. This is codifying current law. And this is creating a few nuanced, really insignificant changes in my opinion, still allowing the court to strike the certificate of compliance for late disclosure, even if it's unintentional. Because now we're adding a new factor of prejudice to the defendant. Check that box on every single late disclosure of something not significant, period.
So if it's a body camera which is of the seventh police officer at the scene: You didn't disclose that. Well, that's prejudicial. It may have something that I really feel is important, Judge. I want to make the motion.
Okay, great. In fact, it's ineffective assistance of counsel, in my opinion, if you're not making that motion.
So right now we're going to be right back to where we are currently today with cases being dismissed on hypertechnical issues and justice not being served.
So I do appreciate this. And I would hope that my colleagues, when the dismissal numbers are roughly what they are today for technical violations of this, that we can actually revisit this and actually do something that will make it fair and balanced for both sides. That's really the importance. Justice has a scale in her hands and a blindfold. So the scale is really tipped in the wrong direction right now that it's not fair. It's not fair to everyone. So we need to fix it. This is not a fix.
So that being said, Madam President, I'll go back to the nice Senator Palumbo, and I wonder if the sponsor would yield for some questions on Part DD, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield to the nice Senator Palumbo?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MYRIE:I yield to the nice Senator, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Well, good morning, Senator Myrie. What a pleasure.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PALUMBO:So nice to see you. Yes.
With regard to this Part DD, so we've created a new crime, evading arrest by concealment of identity. And the elements of this crime -- it's a B misdemeanor, so you can get three months in jail. And a person is guilty of evading arrest by concealment of identity (reading) when in the course of the commission of a felony or Class A misdemeanor or in the immediate flight therefrom, such person wears a mask or facial covering or otherwise obscures their face completely or partially for no legitimate purpose with the intent to prevent their identification, apprehension or arrest for such crime.
So based on that language, Senator, my question is, can someone be charged with this new crime if they are not -- and this is somewhat rhetorical -- committing another A misdemeanor or higher, and they're doing -- they're wearing the mask during the commission or immediate flight therefrom.
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, they cannot.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:the sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Thank you, Senator. So if someone's on a college campus wearing a mask, screaming, cursing and shouting antisemitic comments, they can't be charged with this crime because that would essentially be harassment, which is a violation. They're not in the commission of a crime, but they are in fact still wearing their mask, with the intent to prevent their identification, apprehension or arrest. They still couldn't be charged with this new crime that has just been created, isn't that fair to say?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, they would not be charged with this new crime. They may be charged with an underlying crime in this hypothetical that you've described.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:And that's understood, Senator. And I think if the underlying crime were not an A misdemeanor -- say, it were a class B misdemeanor, like this offense, if it wasn't an A misdemeanor or felony, then they couldn't be charged, though, is that fair to say?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, that's correct.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PALUMBO:So, Senator, just to get a little bit more specific, somewhat technical, under the Penal Law Section 70.35 there's a merger doctrine where determinate sentences merge with indeterminate sentences.
So for example, if someone were committing a robbery with a mask, in full violation of this charge, and they were convicted of robbery and sent upstate, isn't it true that this crime, the evading arrest by concealment of identity, would have zero effect on their sentence because, under the sentencing guidelines, you can't run it consecutively because it's a misdemeanor, and because it's a maximum of 90 days, if they were maxed out, it would just simply merge and run concurrently so there would be no additional penalty for committing this offense?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, that's correct.
And I understand where the nice Senator is going on this hypothetical, but I think it's important to point out that that underlying robbery charge would have a consequential sentencing. And this is not seeking to address that underlying, but to get very specifically at the activity prescribed in the statute.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Thank you, Senator.
Madam President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Palumbo on the bill.
SENATOR PALUMBO:Thank you, Senator Myrie. And I appreciate that, and I appreciate your candor.
And that's what we all need to understand here, that once again, this was lauded to be saving New York. It does anything but.
This is a crime that can't be charged standing alone. It cannot -- someone is wearing a mask and broadcasting that they're wearing it to conceal their identity, they're wearing it to avoid arrest for some action that they may commit in the future, criminal conduct -- they can actually admit all of that, and a police officer doesn't even have probable cause. The police officer cannot charge them with anything.
So quite frankly, this new Part DD is telling the world, you know what you should do, you should wear a mask if you're going to commit a crime. Because nothing's going to happen to you unless you get caught for the crime. Then, so what, it just merges and there's no additional penalties.
The smart thing to do would have been to create an enhancement, like we do in our Penal Law every day. You commit a robbery, acting in concert with someone, it becomes a higher elevated robbery. You have a weapon, it enhances the penalty for engaging in additional unlawful conduct.
This doesn't do that.
So sadly, Madam President, this again, to repeat my last comments, this is a nothing burger. Unfortunately, this is nothing. Because the level of offense that needs to be committed in order to even be charged with it is, under our law, a mandatory concurrent sentence with whatever happens here. Meaning that they run together, for those of you who don't know what we're talking about.
So, Madam President, this was well-intended, I'm sure, but it doesn't get us to where we need to go.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Rhoads, why do you rise?
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Madam President. I was hoping that Senator Myrie might yield to a few more questions on Part DD.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the Senator yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator Myrie. Thank you, Madam President. Through you, of course, Madam President.
Through the questioning of Senator Palumbo it appears as though there is no ability for a police officer to effectuate an arrest based simply upon the fact that an individual is wearing a mask for the purpose of concealing their identity. Is that correct?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, this is an additional criminal charge that requires for there to be the commission or the evasion of a crime happening separate from wearing a mask.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:But so I'm correct in my understanding, another crime has to be committed in order for that first crime to even be charged, correct?
SENATOR MYRIE:I'm sorry, could you just repeat that?
SENATOR RHOADS:Sure. Another crime has to be committed in order for that first crime of wearing a mask for the purpose of concealing your identity to even be charged, correct?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, that's correct. Concealing your identity in and of itself is not a crime.
SENATOR FELDER:So -- will the sponsor continue to yield. Sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:So in the case, for example, just looking to a few examples over the course of the past year, an attempted robbery and assault of a female student on the campus of Oakland University by a group of masked individuals, a slashing which occurred at Hofstra University by another group of masked individuals, a man attacked last June on the 45 train in the New York City subway system -- again, by a mob of masked individuals -- would any of those individuals have been able to be charged if they were never caught because they concealed their identity?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, I just want to make sure I understand the hypothetical.
Someone having --
SENATOR RHOADS:Well, it's a reality. These things actually happened --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Rhoads. Senator Rhoads.
SENATOR MYRIE:I just want to make sure I'm --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor has the floor.
SENATOR MYRIE:Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand what you're asking.
Could someone be charged in any circumstance if they were not caught? Is that what you're asking?
SENATOR RHOADS:Correct.
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes. If you're not caught, you will not be charged.
SENATOR RHOADS:If the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:So if a prospective criminal, someone who intends to do harm, is wearing a mask for the purpose of concealing their identity and then goes ahead and commits the crime, but because they're wearing a mask to conceal their identity, this bill does nothing to allow the police to try and prevent that crime from happening.
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, the -- so first I think you're asking a law enforcement question about their ability to get someone who is either committing a crime or trying to evade one.
But it's important to note here that if you look to lines 6 and 7, that it talks about not just the commission of a felony or Class A misdemeanor but -- or in the immediate flight therefrom. And that is added to I think get at what you're trying to say, in that if you are not able in the immediate instance to catch someone in the commission of a crime, this also catches activity for someone trying to evade a crime. And it allows for them to bring their charge just like all of our criminal statutes. If someone is not caught, they will not be charged. But this is meant to -- if someone is committing a crime and concealing their identity with the purposes of evading being arrested, then that is an additional charge that can be brought by the prosecution.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator Myrie. Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:But if the purpose of wearing the mask is to conceal one's identity, why wouldn't we make that a crime in and of itself?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President. I think the Senator is suggesting that we criminalize the mere concealing of your identity. And that is not what this bill does.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:I'm aware of that fact. But if someone can only be arrested upon the commission of a crime if they can be identified by the victim, why wouldn't we make the wearing of a mask for the purpose of concealing your identity itself a crime, to try and prevent that or to try and help the victim identify who it was that actually committed the crime?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President. We believe that there may be constitutional issues and that that may be overly broad to criminalize merely the wearing or concealing of one's identity.
And the statute also points out that there is a legitimate purpose -- analysis that has to be undergone and there are legitimate purposes of why someone might be wearing a mask.
So the coupling of that with the intent to prevent their identification or apprehension or arrest for a crime is I think the narrow behavior, the narrow activity that this is aimed at.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Well, I know you mentioned prospective constitutional challenges, but we really don't have to reinvent the wheel. We had a law, Penal Law Section 190.90 and 190.91, which was on the books for 175 years before that law was repealed back in 2020 under the guise of the COVID pandemic, which would have made it a crime to wear a mask when you're in a group of three or more individuals who are congregating in a public place.
Why wouldn't we simply put that back, that law, which withstood constitutional challenges and was found to be perfectly legitimate -- why wouldn't we put that back in place to give victims the tools that they would need to be able to actually help the police apprehend people who are assaulting them?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President. That law cited by the Senator was actually a violation. And what we are discussing today is a stronger penalty. This is now in our penal statute and gets to the specific behavior of trying to prevent criminal activity while someone is concealing their identity for purposes of committing that crime or evading that crime.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:I beg to differ, Senator Myrie.
That previous statute actually made it a Class B misdemeanor to wear the mask for the purpose of deceiving {sic} one's identity and a Class A misdemeanor to commit another crime while wearing the mask for the purpose of concealing your identity.
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President, I believe my colleague is referencing the wrong statute. You mentioned the one that was initially instituted in 1845 here in the State of New York, and that was suspended for purposes of COVID in 2020. That was a violation. This is a crime.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:I've just been advised that there may be a separate loitering statute, 240.35, which accomplished what I was talking about.
I do have a --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Are you on the bill, Senator Rhoads?
SENATOR RHOADS:No, no, no.
I do have -- I do have legislation, S723, which actually reestablishes the former Section 190.90, 190.91, which establishes the crime of deceptive wearing of a mask and aggravated deceptive wearing of a mask, making those crimes respectively a Class B and Class A misdemeanor, which was a restatement of the law which was repealed.
Would that not be a more effective method in comparison to the legislation that is advanced today as Part DD, which would actually assist in identifying those who are committing criminal activity and making the public safer?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Madam President. As you know, we are a legislative body where we all have the ability to introduce and discuss legislation. And I'm not going to opine on the efficacy of a bill not yet before the house and not yet on the precipice of being signed into law. But happy to discuss the bill outside of this context.
SENATOR RHOADS:I appreciate that, Senator Myrie.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Rhoads on the bill.
SENATOR RHOADS:Madam President -- and I want to thank Senator Myrie for his comments.
The sad reality is that any of the crimes that I referenced previously and any of the hundreds of crimes that have taken place since the repeal of the mask statute as a result of COVID in 2020, the legislation that's being advanced today as Part DD will not assist in preventing any of those crimes.
The whole idea, the whole purpose of wearing a mask to conceal your identity is to conceal your identity. If that in and of itself is not a crime, if it's not legitimate, if you're not wearing a mask for the purpose of health reasons, if you're not wearing a mask as a result of participation in some masquerade activity, if you are truly wearing a mask for the purpose of concealing your identity and then go out and commit another crime, but the victim can't identify who it was that assaulted them, who it was that stabbed them, who it was that robbed them, what's the point of the legislation at all?
You can only charge someone with Part DD if they're caught. But wearing a mask to conceal your identity makes it much, much harder for the victim and for law enforcement to be able to identify you for the purpose of being caught. So what in fact is the point? If the point is to try and keep people safe, Part DD accomplishes nothing in helping to keep people safe.
I'd like to turn, Madam President, if you would permit me to do so, to -- I'm actually not sure what the part section is, but to the issue of zero-emission buses.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Before I ask the sponsor to yield, I'd like to remind the members to please direct all comments and questions through the chair.
Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MAYER:And I believe you mean Part A, Senator.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Senator Mayer.
Is this legislation an acknowledgment of the fact that school districts and bus companies are going to have a difficult time complying with the electric school bus mandate?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, this -- these provisions dealing with electric school buses reflect our continued commitment to ensure that we move towards full implementation of the requirements of electric school buses for schools, with acknowledgment of the challenges that we hear from our districts about some of the problems they face in meeting that requirement.
So to the extent that we hear and respond to our school districts, yes, that's what we're doing here.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you. And through you, Madam President.
Can you articulate what some of those challenges might be for school districts and bus companies?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, I can tell you what's in this section of the bill, which intends to respond to them. And one is a modification of the extension that is permissible for districts that are having challenges.
Current law allows one extension up to 24 months for the compliance. This law will allow two 24-month extensions. Basically, you get an extra four years to comply with the law. That is one of the provisions in here.
And in order to get that extension, you have to show good faith in having worked with NYSERDA through the process of trying to comply with the law.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator.
And through you, Madam President, some of the challenges that have been brought to my attention were the supply of buses, that school districts and bus companies are having a difficult time getting buses from the two companies that actually provide those buses because we've created an artificial demand.
Another concern that's been raised to me is the bus cost. Right? Those buses cost anywhere from two to three times what a diesel bus would cost, and districts have to come up with the money to be able to afford that.
Infrastructure costs. Right now the mandate is that by June 1st of 2027, no school district is allowed or bus company is allowed to purchase a non-electric school bus.
Battery danger. One of the concerns that I've raised on this floor before is the fact that fire suppression systems do not exist on these buses to date, which would eliminate the danger of electric bus fires and those batteries -- the sudden combustion and the rapid spread of the intense fire.
There are concerns about the safety of students on those buses. And the cost of the electric grid and the capacity to be able to handle some of these.
With those concerns having been raised -- and I don't know if you've heard some of those same concerns, but I can't imagine that we haven't -- why wouldn't we simply extend the effective date of the statute as opposed to requiring each school district and each bus company to jump through the hoop of having to apply, having to demonstrate an attempt at good-faith compliance to problems that we already know exist?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. Let me first clarify that on the issue of cost, yes, we have heard it. And I would point out that the Environmental Bond Act has $500 million allocated for the cost of electric school buses. And there's an additional $100 million in this year's capital bill, which we hopefully will vote on later today, for this purpose.
So I think that the arguments of school districts, some of which are legitimate and others of which I think are less authentic, can be met by the fact that the state is putting a substantial -- hundreds of millions of dollars in to help districts meet this requirement.
Now, on the second point of why we don't simply have an extension, the point is we know that both students, staff and the community at large will benefit by moving towards electric school buses. And we care about those issues. And we're not willing to defer them forever. We have a requirement that new purchases at 2027, but ultimately 2035. We have built in substantial time for districts to comply. We continue to work with them.
And the other point I'd like to make is that we have also included in this bill an independent range verification to require that any of the sellers of these buses provide a third-party range estimate to address other concerns.
So we have heard what school districts have said. We've worked cooperatively with them multiple times. And I think we'd made huge strides here by putting so much money in as well as additional flexibility for districts, because we want this requirement to be met.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator.
Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:So in the capital plan it's the intention of the Majority to provide $100 million for electric school bus purchases, is that correct?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes. The answer is yes. There's a hundred million dollars for electric school buses within other provisions of the capital budget.
SENATOR RHOADS:And will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Through you, Madam President. A hundred million dollars at a cost of $400,000 per bus, do you know how many buses that actually provides?
SENATOR MAYER:I'm sure someone can do the math for me. But I would say that is not the only source.
These are reimbursable purchases. As you are well aware, when a school purchases a bus, a percentage of it is reimbursed as a capital expense. So that 100 million, coupled with the 500 million, coupled with the reimbursable cost, coupled with the fact that we hope to be able to negotiate with bus companies to get a fair price -- not an excessive price -- I'm very confident that school districts can meet it, and in fact a number of districts have already gone ahead and done so.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:I believe that the answer to the question is 1500.
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, I think our math is not the same over here. That being said --
SENATOR RHOADS:(Inaudible.)
SENATOR MAYER:That being said, I stand by my answer to the question before. There is adequate money to meet the needs of these districts. We will continue to work with them and be partners with them in order to comply.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you.
Through you, Madam President. You mentioned a $100 million fund that's provided in capital spending this year. You've mentioned a $500 million fund that is available through the Environmental Bond Act, I believe.
The complete cost at $400,000 per school bus is in excess of $20 billion to replace the 45,000 school buses, according to NYSERDA, that will have to be replaced as a result of this plan.
Where is that additional money supposed to come from?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. As I've mentioned, one, some of the purchase cost is reimbursable from the State Education Department, under current law.
Secondly, there is the opportunity to get extensions on the purchase of these buses that we've included here.
Thirdly, for some period of time there was federal money which a number of districts have used in order to do studies and for purchase price. And if the federal government doesn't modify some of those rules and continues to extend that money, that would be another helpful source.
But I don't think we're going to walk away from the safety of our children, the staff, the school bus driver, and the communities in which these buses operate in order to simply say we can't afford it. We will -- we have and we will continue to find a way to afford these buses.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator Mayer.
Through you, Madam President. What I hear, unfortunately, is -- seems to be a lot of hope and a lot of planning and a lot of "we intend to," "we hope that."
Has the state provided the State Education Department with $20 billion to fund the buses?
SENATOR MAYER:I'm sorry, would you repeat that?
SENATOR RHOADS:Well, I know you mentioned that the State Education Department would be providing some assistance. Is there anywhere in this budget, anything providing $20 billion to the State Education Department to cover the cost of these buses for individual school districts and bus companies?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. As I think my colleague knows, expenses that are legitimately reimbursable through the State Education Department are subject to the district supplying the necessary documentation, and they are reimbursed for a portion.
I don't believe that there is an additional amount that has to be put in the budget. Those costs are reimbursable on an annual basis. You will see it in the school aid run.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you.
And through you, Madam President. But does the State Education -- you're putting a mandate on schools right now. Does the State Education Department right now have the ability to reimburse school districts the cost of $20 billion if every school district complied immediately?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. The State Education Department applies the money that is required under the law, which is a partial reimbursement based on their rate of reimbursement. The money is not allocated to the State Education Department. It comes from the Division of Budget.
And yes, I don't believe there is any shortfall in reimbursing for mandatorily included expenses like purchase of a school bus.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Well, you spoke about partial reimbursement and you mentioned that the State Education Department has the resources to be able to reimburse school districts. So those two things seem to be competing. Right?
So what do you anticipate the actual cost to a district being to replace their school buses?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. It would depend on the purchase price. And our hope is with the increased demand by virtue of the existing law that school bus -- the companies that manufacture and distribute these buses will lower their prices at the rate of demand here in New York State. And in fact I know I have met with a number of bus companies that are very anxious to get into the market and have a competitive price here in New York.
So I'm confident that the market will respond in a way that actually facilitates the purchase of these buses.
SENATOR RHOADS:And will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Again, we're using the terminology "hope" and "confidence" and we think that this will all come together. Do we know right now whether there's even the capacity to be able to construct 45,000 electric school buses in the next four years?
SENATOR MAYER:Well, through you, Madam President, as you may recall, I believe it was last year we directed NYSERDA to take an even more assertive role in assisting school districts in the purchase of these buses -- identifying vendors, giving them instruction on reimbursable expenses. They are the partner that has been named to help assist in this.
The issue of the funding, which I believe is well addressed in this budget and in the Environmental Bond Act, we will continue to deal with. But there's also an external market of the producers of these buses. And we are confident that as the demand increases for all of New York State -- and by the way, other states have done this -- the cost will not be prohibitive and districts will be able to move forward as, I would note, a number of districts already have.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Senator -- through you, Madam President -- we keep referring to the $100 million that's in this year's capital plan, in comparison to a $20 billion cost. That is a $200 expense to a school district, with a promise that we're going to pay a dollar.
How does that equate? How is it possible that the taxpayer in individual school districts is not going to wind up bearing the brunt of this mandate that we've created?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. One, I think the idea that this is half of cost, or whatever you are actually suggesting, Senator, I think is inaccurate.
SENATOR RHOADS:(Inaudible.)
SENATOR MAYER:Excuse me. There's a range of reimbursement available for the purchase of these buses. I've mentioned that. Environmental Bond Act, the money in this budget, reimbursement based on existing law. When you buy a bus now, a portion of it is reimbursed. That is the same when you buy an electric school bus.
And the cost of operating these buses over time is going to be far less than a diesel bus that you currently have.
So it is not accurate to say that half of the cost, by this 100 million, will be met and the balance will be met by the local school district. There are a range of resources available -- I think I've made that very clear -- that are available to every district in order to meet this requirement. And if they have additional problems, they can get up to a second extension of time.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator.
We've identified a -- so far you've identified a potential pool of $600 million in available aid versus a $20 billion cost to -- potential cost to school districts and to bus companies who then contract with our school districts. What happens if a school district cannot afford it?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, this law gave a very long runway for schools to comply. And the point of that long runway was to allow schools, one, to look at every option to ensure the state assisted as necessary. If there were technical issues, that we would deal with them through NYSERDA. And that there is funding available through traditional reimbursement sources.
As you would say today when a school needs to buy a new bus, when some portion of it must be borne by the district and another portion is reimbursed, this is far in excess of what currently occurs for a diesel school bus.
So again, I'm confident that the money is there. The school districts on balance want to comply with this. They look forward to having healthier school buses for their children and those that are on the bus and the communities in which these buses travel.
So I am very confident that we've given enough time for districts to comply.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator. Through you, Madam President.
Let's take, for example, a school district like the Levittown School District, which owns a fleet of just over 80 buses. The projected cost to that school district will be $38 million, not including the infrastructure cost of building a facility that can actually maintain those buses. Not to mention that 20 percent of those buses may be out of service at any given time, so they will have to purchase additional buses to make up for the ones that are out of service.
There is no district that can absorb that as part of their regular operating expense. It will have to be done through bonding. How does this law account for what happens if the voters simply don't approve the bond?
SENATOR MAYER:This bill does not deal with what happens in that circumstance. That would be the same as currently what would happen when a school wanted to have an expense that was not passed by the voters. Either they have to come to the Legislature and look for additional assistance, which is always a possibility -- and in fact, as I think you know, Senator, we assist many districts with district-specific needs.
And as well your calculation omits this fact that a portion of their existing reimbursement is already covered by state law.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Would there be a penalty to a school district like Levittown that didn't comply by 2035?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. If I am standing here in 2035, I will know better. But I hope not to be standing here in 2035. And I do not anticipate there will be a penalty. I suspect in the intervening years, to the extent that there are additional problems, the Legislature will continue to respond to them.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Rhoads on the bill.
SENATOR RHOADS:We have the latest example of this state attempting to mandate something into existence, recognizing that what they've mandated can't be accomplished in the time frames, yet continuing to beat our head into the wall and ignore reality.
The simple fact of the matter is that districts cannot absorb a $20 billion cost in and of themselves. And it's $20 billion, by the way, today. Because we've now created an artificial demand for these electric buses, the prices, based on market forces, will not be coming down by magic. Those prices will be going up. Meaning that the ultimate price tag is going to be more expensive.
And as much as we try to legislate things into existence, these companies only have a certain capacity to be able to build these buses. So supply is an absolute problem. Which again this legislation, by making districts jump through hoops rather than recognizing the error of our ways and simply extending the deadline, continues to ignore.
We have issues with respect to bus cost, the financial demand upon these districts. We've identified a bunch of sources, right -- we've spoken about the $100 million, as I equated it to a dollar in exchange for the $200 expense that these districts are going to have to bear. That's what a hundred million dollars equates to.
The Environmental Bond Act fund of $500 million, which probably at this point has been spent five times over on different things. But let's assume that that pool of money is there.
Districts are going to be the ones that are going to have to absorb that cost. And if your district doesn't own a fleet, trust me, your district is still going to have to pay that cost when they contract with a private bus company who is going to have to pay that cost, who probably doesn't have access to the funds that we're talking about that the state is supposedly providing.
We have infrastructure costs. It's not enough to simply buy the buses. You have to be able to charge the buses. You have to be able to service the buses. You have to have employees who -- mechanics who are going to know how to work on these buses. Nothing's been done to address those costs.
You have the battery danger, which we continue to whistle past the graveyard on this issue. We are all aware of the prevalence of e-bike fires. We have all seen the videos of what a small battery pack --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Excuse me, Senator Rhoads. You have exceeded your debate time limit.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thirty minutes?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Yes. By much. Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR RHOADS:Oh, I apologize.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR RHOADS:And grid cost.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR RHOADS:I would encourage my colleagues to vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you.
Senator Borrello.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Why do you rise?
SENATOR BORRELLO:Just because we haven't beaten this horse to death yet, could we have a further conversation on Part A, zero-emission buses?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes, happy to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Through you, Madam President. New York State is a vastly different place -- the five boroughs, Long Island, upstate New York. Where I live, school bus routes can be long and in subzero temperatures.
So I guess my question is, we all know that there are school districts that just cannot afford this currently. But more importantly, we don't know if it's feasible. Why would we not have a pilot program to test this in urban, suburban and rural areas to actually see if this is viable? Why can't we take that commonsense step?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, in the first place, I do want to reassert this independent range verification that was added specifically to address the concerns of rural communities that somehow buses -- there would be misrepresentation of their ability to handle hills, long distances, snowy weather, all the things that are particular concerns of rural communities. We've heard them loud and clear. That's why we added this provision, Part A, Section 12(c).
Secondly, again, let me just say that our Majority has a commitment to the long-term health and safety of these students and our community. The decision to require electric school buses over a lengthy period of time was done because of our commitment to a cleaner environment for these students, the people that work on the buses, and the communities they serve.
So we're not backing away from that. We're showing flexibility in the implementation. And I think the flexibility reflects the particular concerns of districts like yours, Senator, that have raised some issues about the ability of buses to meet this need.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So what happens when a manufacturer says, We cannot provide a bus to this particular school district to meet this particular demand? What will happen?
SENATOR MAYER:Well, through you, Madam President, I would point out that my experience with the bus companies is that they are anxious to come in this market and meet the need. If they have to modify some of the provisions of their bus in order to get the money for selling their buses in New York State, which is going to have basically an entire state move to this, they're anxious to do so.
So we have met with companies that are in other states that are anxious to get into the New York market. I hope NYSERDA and OGS work to develop model contracts for school bus companies to use to achieve both the best price and the best product for every district.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Yeah, I didn't hear an answer to my question. When a school bus company that provides a school bus says we do not have a bus that has the range under these conditions to meet the need of the school district, what will happen?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, the district would have to find another company that has a bus that can meet the range.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So you're saying we have to find something that doesn't exist in order to meet the mandate from New York State. If no one has a bus that can meet the demands of a particular district, what's going to happen?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. The waiver that I described, which is extended here, does provide an explicit provision that the waiver can be granted if there is not availability within the marketplace.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Before the sponsor yields, Senator, I would like to remind you to address your questions at the chair and not directly at the sponsor.
Thank you.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Thank you. Through you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you. Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Through you, Madam President. What are we going to do for a technology that does not exist in order to meet a mandate that cannot be met?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I believe I've answered that quite clearly.
One, if the actual bus is not obtainable for the reasons that my colleague is suggesting, the district would seek a waiver and a second waiver if necessary.
Secondly, I am confident that in our market-driven economy, the bus manufacturers have and will continue to perfect their product so that it works for every district, as it has in other parts of the United States.
New York is not the only state in the union that is moving towards electric school buses.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So those two extensions total a total of 48 months, two years?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Are you asking the chair a question?
SENATOR BORRELLO:Yes, I am asking you to ask her, if she doesn't mind.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:So through the chair --
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, what happens after 48 months?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. The law we are enacting today will allow a second 24-month extension. That is two 24-month extensions. That is 8 years of an extension, if I'm -- 24 months is two years. Four years of an extension in order to comply.
I'm confident that if we are not able to comply within four years of finding buses that can meet every district, we will revisit that issue. Our door remains open, as it has. We've met with districts throughout the state that have challenges. I believe we are responding to them.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So we have a district that says I cannot meet the demand of this mandate, we don't have the infrastructure, we don't have the money, and the technology does not exist for us to be able to safely transport our children in particularly dangerous conditions like the middle of winter.
But we're going to just say we hope that something else will come up in the next four years, technology will change. And then maybe we'll reconsider giving them another waiver? What's the choice here?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. It's been pointed out to me that states like Maine, which have an environment that is probably colder and more mountainous than most parts of New York State -- other than, I would say, the Adirondacks and the Catskills -- have managed to do this.
I am confident that if in four years we do not have the technology that can meet the needs of every district, those who are in the Legislature will adopt additional changes in order to encourage and provide the opportunity for districts to comply.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So I know that sometimes the laws of supply and demand evades --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Are you on the bill, Senator?
SENATOR BORRELLO:No, no, I'm questioning. This is a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Okay. Because you didn't ask that.
SENATOR BORRELLO:What's that?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:You didn't address that.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Did I ask if I could ask a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Good. Go ahead.
SENATOR BORRELLO:May I ask a question? Thank you.
So the law of supply and demand already often evades people. We already have a backlog of a couple of years for school buses right now. When you mandated something I have yet to see it ever make it cheaper. When the government demands that you have to buy something, it never gets cheaper or better.
So what makes us think in four years we're going to have cheaper, better, more reliable electric school buses when we can't meet the demand that we have right now because of this government mandate?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I appreciate my colleague's views of how the economy works.
I think that the evidence is pretty clear, when there is widespread purchase that is going to be required, the market will lend itself to lower prices and better vehicles. And in general, that has been the way this process has worked.
And again, to the extent that it does not work that way, every year we adopt a budget this Legislature can modify it. We believe we've made substantial modifications here to address these concerns. And I'm not sure that restating them multiple times will change that outcome.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Madam President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:On the bill. Go ahead.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Thank you, Madam President.
So to address the question that was brought up about the State of Maine, which I agree with you would have similar conditions, they're only mandating 75 percent of their buses by 2035, not 100 percent. Because they know that there's going to be places where it's just simply not going to work.
But not us here. We haven't figured that out yet.
But what concerns me is we don't really have a plan here. A goal is not a plan. The safety of our children is probably the most important thing. I haven't heard anything about a safety plan for these electric school buses. We know they burn fast, they burn hot, and we've seen it happen with EV -- electric vehicles across the country.
We know that in cold conditions the reliability drops, the range drops, and we're going to have children sitting somewhere in districts like mine in a dead school bus in the middle of winter. That's not something I think any of us want to sacrifice to reach whatever ridiculous goal we think we're reaching here.
But let's talk about the costs. Forty-five thousand school buses in New York State. We've allocated enough for about a thousand. I know the math was kind of difficult earlier. It's about a thousand of 45,000 that we've allocated enough funding for. That's before we start talking about making substantial changes to the electrical supply needed.
Some districts are being told it's going to be a few million dollars to put in a new substation. And by the way, we've got a backlog of a couple of years to do that. We haven't made any accommodations for that.
We haven't made any accommodations for the fact that right now insurance companies are waking up to the fact that this is going to be a disaster. And they're telling school districts that have electric school buses: You can't keep them inside a building, because the building might catch fire. You have to keep them outside. What happens if you keep them outside? Well, it takes longer to charge and costs more money to charge. And of course in the middle of winter we're going to have to clean those school buses off before they pick up our kids.
So we haven't thought this through, not even a little bit, quite frankly. We just know that it sounds really good -- we're going to put our kids on electric school buses. That sounds fantastic. But the cost is not even close to being covered. And the sacrifice could be the safety of our children to meet this ridiculous boondoggle mandate.
This should not be done, and this extension isn't enough. The money's not there. And we don't have a plan.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Tedisco.
SENATOR TEDISCO:Thank you, Madam President. Would Senator Mayer yield for a couple of questions, a small discussion?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the Senator yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR TEDISCO:Senator, as the ranking member on the Education Committee, I really appreciate the opportunity to serve on such an important committee. And I appreciate always working with you. We don't always agree, but I appreciate your leadership on that committee. It's challenging, as all the committees are, in some of the concerns we have in New York State.
And many of us in this room, I don't know how many, have had some experience in the field of education. And I know you've heard me say before I had two jobs, primary jobs in my life, one -- and both of the jobs I loved extremely, loved them a lot. I loved being the Assembly representative there, loved being here in the Senate.
But on days when we're troubled with important things like the budget, you've heard me often say -- and I say this tongue in cheek -- I had a real job at one time. I was an educator, I was a teacher. And they're important people in our state, and we appreciate them. I just got my degree in special education down the road and taught a little bit beyond that at Bethlehem Central. I ran a resource room and I did team teaching in a program called Excel. And I think if anyone in this room is honest and they talk to their constituents, one of the top priorities, if you ask them, What do you think about education, it's a big part of our future. Our kids' education, a big part of our future for them, but a big part of our future for all of us. It starts right there with a great education for them.
And ask them about funding, they don't mind if we fund education. But they have a caveat. They want the test scores to be good, to go up, they want the graduation rates to be there. And you can't blame them for that, and we have an obligation for that.
So in looking at it holistically here, one of the real concerns we have in this state, we've got a shortage of nurses, we've got a shortage of doctors, we have a shortage of welders, we have a shortage of electricians. Plumbers, important. But we have a pretty good BOCES program. But you know what we have a shortage of for that program? Educators. We have to stimulate an interest in people staying in New York State to begin with, but getting some educators there, and I think you agree to that.
For a long period of time we've had a cap on the salaries for BOCES teachers. We're trying to incentivize to get into that field, to train our kids in these areas. And we did something about that. Would you just explain to us what that cap is all about, how it's been changed and what the new guidelines will be in the future for the salary extensions for those jobs?
SENATOR MAYER:Thank you for that question very much. Through you, Madam President. In the first place I do want to thank my colleague, the ranker on the committee, for being really someone who's very committed to public education and to teaching. And I appreciate the spirit with which we work together.
This year we're very proud that after many years, we were able to change the reimbursement for our BOCES salary cap as well as Special Services Aid for those schools that do not use BOCES. For BOCES, this year, for the first time after I would say at least 10 years that I have been working on this, we are increasing the aidable salary cap from 30,000 to 60,000 over three years. And the first increase will be payable in the '26-'27 school year.
This means, to my colleague's point, that we will continue to be able to employ people who need to make more money, and more of that cost will be reimbursable by the state so that our BOCES can continue to employ and build with talented teachers and others who can provide particularly career and technical education, which you and I agree is so important. We are truly investing.
And the other is Special Services Aid, which is for those districts like the Big 5 that do not participate in BOCES, as well as Albany, Newburgh and Hoosick Falls -- and I believe Mamaroneck, and obviously including New York City -- those districts are now going to be reimbursed for career and technical education in ninth grade. Over the years they've provided it, but they did not get reimbursement.
These are very substantial investments that we are applying to career and technical education, which I think we all agree in this chamber are areas that have not been adequately addressed over the years.
And so thank you for your support on that. This is a very important investment, and we're thankful that it's made in this budget.
SENATOR TEDISCO:Thank you, Senator.
Will the Senator yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TEDISCO:Yeah. You know, I just built a house because we had another adventure, and that was redistricting. And I had to sell my house and I had to build a new one.
And I'll tell you something. Not only me, but my constituents, when they say, Senator, I can't get a plumber to come to my house. When they do, the cost of that. Because they're so scarce, I can't get an electrician. So the fact of the matter is we have to incentivize people through a whole variety of ways to come, stay and live in New York State, but we have to incentivize them to take -- be here and take the jobs that are going to be provided for our constituents.
So that's why I think that is very important to incentivize them.
I want to ask you about the English language learner weight, which was increased in the Foundation Aid formula. And I think I know why that was increased, but could you explain a little bit about the increase in that and what that was all about?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes. Through you, Madam President. In the Foundation Aid formula, as we learned if we made it through the Roosevelt report, there are all of these component elements that go into determining how much each public school should receive for the costs of educating the students that they educate given the community in which they are located.
One of the recommendations of the report is that English language learner weighting, which is a component of the Foundation Aid formula, be increased to reflect the additional costs that every district that has English language learners is incurring.
And I would say, from my visits around the state and talking to my colleagues, that so many districts have a significant additional number of English language learners than they had 20 years ago when the Foundation Aid formula, approximately 20 years ago, was started. The weighting is increased to .53. It is currently .50.
And this benefits -- and I want to clear up any misconception -- not only urban districts or suburban districts, there are rural districts throughout the state where the number of English language learners and the needs of those English language learners has increased, particularly as we have young people who are older enter our school districts, they need to learn to read and write in English at Grade 6 or 7 as opposed to in kindergarten.
So this increase in the English language learner weighting is a very good development for all the schools in New York.
SENATOR TEDISCO:Thank you very much for that.
Will the Senator yield for one last question.
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:the Senator yields.
SENATOR MAYER:Happy to yield.
SENATOR TEDISCO:Just wondering about the expected result for updating the formula by moving from the 2000 Census data with the small area income and poverty estimate data.
What will -- what are we looking for in that? We've had data that we've used over the years, but now we're bringing it in and updating it, and I think this is an important part of that.
SENATOR MAYER:Thank you. And through you, Madam President.
We are currently using 2000 Census data to measure poverty, and we are in 2025. So we are way out of date, as you know. And we are replacing it with what's called SAIPE data, and that's basically families that receive some kind of public assistance will be deemed to be much in common with the old poverty measurement which is no longer used in the census data. So we're using current data of income needs of the families in the community in a more current and more correct way than using 2000 Census data.
In fact I know in my district people wrote me absolutely -- completely unable to accept that we were using 25-year-old data to measure their districts. Now we're going to use current data. In some districts it's helpful to getting more money; in some districts it's not. But it's current, it's accurate, and it's data-driven.
SENATOR TEDISCO:Thank you very much, Senator. Just to close on this part of the budget.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Tedisco on the bill.
SENATOR TEDISCO:You know, we're challenged in this state. We have to face that we have population loss. Nothing is going to keep them better if we develop and keep increasing the best education system we possibly can. And it's important to do everything we can by funding it, but making sure that funding answers those questions about graduation rates and those test scores and we get kids and their families to stay here.
Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator, for your leadership.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, I want to take the prerogative to interrupt this debate for a moment to introduce some special guests very quickly that we have here in the chamber.
Today is the Second Annual Nepali Community Day here in Albany, and they chose this day long before they knew they would be sitting here debating the budget. But they got an interesting education in state government, they are here in the gallery with us.
I have the good fortunate of representing much of the Nepali community in New York because between Senator Ramos's district and my own in our parts of Queens -- Sunnyside, Woodside, Elmhurst, and Jackson Heights -- the population of the Nepali community has doubled over the last decade. They are an important part of the fabric of New York. And we're so pleased that they have joined us here today.
I also want to mention that they have invited me to climb Mount Everest with them --
(Laughter.)
SENATOR GIANARIS:-- and I think I'm going to pass them off to Senator John Liu about that, because he would be happy to do it with them and could probably handle it a lot better than I could.
But if you could please take a moment to welcome them to our chamber, extend the privileges of the house, and then we can return back to the debate.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you.
To our guests of the Nepali community, I welcome you on behalf of the Senate. We extend to you the privileges and courtesies of this house.
Please rise and be recognized.
(Standing ovation.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Weber. (Pause.)
Senator Martins, why do you rise?
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Madam President. If the sponsor would yield for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:What section, Senator?
SENATOR MARTINS:Section A. Part A.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Part A?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MAYER:Yes, happy to yield.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Madam President, through you. Senator, can you tell us whether or not there's a difference in the amount that we're being asked to approve in this budget from what had originally been proposed by the Governor?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. Are you asking about the Foundation Aid numbers?
SENATOR MARTINS:I'm asking about the Foundation Aid number.
SENATOR MAYER:Yes. Through you, Madam President. The total school aid over the Executive's original proposal is a 140 million school-year increase, 100 million in the fiscal-year increase -- so they're different. And Foundation Aid is a 119.2 million increase over the Executive in Foundation Aid.
SENATOR MARTINS:What is the total amount of --
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Are you asking the sponsor to yield?
SENATOR MARTINS:I'm sorry. Madam President, through you, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:What's the total amount, Senator, of -- in this budget for pre-K through 12 education that we're being asked to fund?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. Just to clarify, are you asking solely about pre-K dollars?
SENATOR MARTINS:Pre-K through 12 public education dollars, all in, how much are we being asked to put on the table to fund education in New York State, not including higher education?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. Thank you for the clarification.
Total school aid in this budget is $37.1 billion.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Senator, if you know, where does that rank nationally with regard to overall spending and per-pupil spending?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. My understanding is we're one of the highest states in per-pupil spending.
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Senator, would it surprise you if we are actually the highest per-pupil spending of any state in the country, and we are by quite a margin, would that surprise you?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I don't -- I will look at the numbers myself, but as I said, we're among the highest. I accept that.
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Madam President. Would you know how much we spend on average per student in New York State?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. According to the staff -- and I don't think these numbers are verified -- approximately 30,000 per student per year.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Would it surprise you if it's closer to $36,000 per year per student in New York State?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, I don't know the number. I defer to my colleague if he knows -- if he has some data that shows that's the number.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:I want to ask you about the Foundation Aid and the Regional Cost Index. Are you familiar with that?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, yes, I am.
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:And so Regional Cost Index, as I understand it, is based on financial information through various regions across the state. Can you tell us what years we are relying on for purposes of establishing the Regional Cost Index?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, 2006 data that set the existing Regional Cost Index numbers.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:I understand that other portions of the Foundation formula have been brought current, understanding that we all had concerns about the use of old or stale data.
Can you tell us why we're still relying on data from nearly 20 years ago for the purposes of establishing regional cost indexes?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I don't disagree with my colleague's point that a more current number is a more appropriate number.
Our house pushed very hard to have a more current Regional Cost Index reflected in the Foundation Aid formula, as we pushed for many other increases in the way Foundation Aid is calculated. We were unable to achieve that.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Senator, can you tell us who refused to use more current data amongst the parties who were negotiating this budget? I think we all understand -- I think we all hope that data and current data is more reflective of our own communities and reality, and so the reliance on older data seems to be counterintuitive. Perhaps you can share with us who amongst our colleagues wanted to use this older data.
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I think that's not quite the way to characterize what happened.
We, as you know, in our one-house suggested that even those schools that were in the save-harmless should get 3 percent more. We were unable to get that. We proposed other additions, all of which add to the total amount that the state has to pay for Foundation Aid.
At the end of the day, we got the best we could out of the money that I suspect the Division of Budget was prepared to spend on this. And we did get some real wins, as I described previously, including career and technical education. We got some other additional money. We certainly got some changes in the tier of the state sharing ratio, at English language learner. All of these cost more.
So at the end of the day we were simply limited by the amount of money that was available to increase education funding.
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Senator, would you agree that in setting these ratios in the formula we're not dealing with adding money, we're dealing with how existing money and money that's allocated will actually get distributed. And so by having different ratios and if those ratios change, we're not adding money to the pie, what we're doing is we're deciding who will get more and who will get less based on actual current data and that older data. Wouldn't you agree that that's actually the case and we're not talking about additional money but how it gets distributed?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. No, I would not agree with that at all.
Every district in the state got money more than they got last year in Foundation Aid. We did not reduce any district's Foundation Aid. Nor did we leave it at zero, which was a fear this year, as I think you know, Senator.
So in fact it is not a redistribution. Additional money was allocated for school aid and for Foundation Aid that allowed us to make certain modifications that benefit every school district.
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:I apologize to the sponsor. Perhaps you misunderstood my question. These ratios for the formula, the formula, as I understand it, is a way of allocating resources to different districts. It doesn't in and of itself require greater spending. It's -- you start with a total amount of spending, and the formula will actually educate us as to how it will be distributed depending on different indices and different factors.
One of those factors is this Regional Cost Index. But I don't see how the index itself will add more money, other than decide whether, for example, a school district in Westchester will receive more money or a school district, say, in Otsego County.
It's a question of how that will impact their ratio to the amount that they're receiving. Would you agree to that?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I'm not sure I would agree with that either. Because the possibility -- the redoing of the Regional Cost Index for every region, as established originally, would likely have resulted in some districts actually getting less. And respectfully, I would add they might be districts that are largely represented by your side of the aisle.
And in effect, in an effort to ensure that every district got more money than they got last year, we did the best we could. And I think that -- I would like to give our leader and our staff credit for working hard to make sure that we're not losers this year, as some things were recalculated, in some part due to the study that was done on Foundation Aid. But we did not adopt all the recommendations.
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:I appreciate that response, and I certainly understand it.
There is, though -- there was a proposal in the Governor's budget to change ratios, specifically the Regional Cost Index with regard to communities in the Hudson Valley. Do you recall that?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, yes. Yes.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR MAYER:Oh, excuse me. May I correct myself?
Our one-house did suggest an increase in the Regional Cost Index for Hudson Valley. The enacted budget has it for Westchester.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you. Thank you for that.
Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:I did notice that there was a change for Westchester, and I am curious, you know, at the -- to the exclusion of the other Hudson Valley counties. Is there a reason why Westchester was changed and only Westchester was changed and no other county was similarly affected?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, yes. The 2024 data of the Department of Labor shows that the weighted median wage for Westchester is most comparable -- and in fact I would note lower -- than Long Island and New York City, but far more comparable than being lumped -- not lumped, is not a nice word, but put with other counties in the Hudson Valley.
Westchester itself probably should never have been put in a Regional Cost Index with the balance of the state. And this reflects an accurate data-driven approach to what it costs to hire people in Westchester compared to other counties in the Hudson Valley and counties upstate.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So I understand that the Rockefeller Institute did prepare a comparable wage index for teachers as an index for this Regional Cost Index, as a substitute for that. Are you suggesting that you're relying on this comparable wage index for teachers through the Rockefeller Institute in imposing a larger index for Westchester as compared to other counties?
SENATOR MAYER:(Conferring.) Through you, Madam President, two things.
One is had we adopted a regional increase in the Regional Cost Index for the Hudson Valley as opposed to Westchester, my understanding is it would have cost an additional $2 billion, as opposed to the modest amount.
And the other thing is the Rockefeller Institute recommended a different methodology for determining Regional Cost Index called CWIFT, thank you. And that would have been significantly more expensive than what we ultimately did -- which is driven, as you know, Senator, in part by how much money there is and trying to get to the fairest allocation.
But I would say -- and not because I'm a resident of Westchester County -- that the cost of staff in Westchester County is quite similar to the cost in Nassau, Suffolk and probably modestly less than the cost in New York City.
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Senator, I don't disagree with you. I really don't. But I would suggest that if we used current data, using the same 2024 data that was used for Westchester, I would believe that other counties would also see a similar increase that would reflect these costs. And they would be reimbursed for those costs.
Wouldn't you agree that using more current data, similar to what was done for your own county in Westchester, may actually have provided a better index for us to follow?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. As I indicated, I myself was for many changes that were in the Rockefeller Institute that would have resulted in more money for many districts based on actual data and need. I don't disagree with my colleague.
However, at the end of the day, this is a practical exercise in how much money we can get and how best we can allocate it. And it's on that basis that this was done.
In a perfect world, I would have -- there's a lot of things I wanted for a lot of districts, including some in the Senator's district, that I was unable to achieve. And that's the practical nature of enacting a budget.
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR RHOADS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you for that.
Various I guess institutions and various publications tend to rank states and state education systems according to proficiency. Are you familiar with those rankings? You know, as chair of Education, have you seen those rankings and you're familiar where New York State ranks in national surveys?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, I am -- I wouldn't say familiar at the level of detail that I'd like if we weren't here all the time. But yes, I'm quite familiar with how New York ranks and some of the national surveys of data, particularly graduation data.
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:And I think we discussed earlier that New York ranks at the very top in terms of per-pupil spending. And that I think reflects the commitment that we have, ourselves and our communities and our entire state has, towards providing resources for education and prioritizes that, rightfully so.
Do you know where New York typically ranks with regard to outcomes and results when it comes to education compared to other states who spend less than we do?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I don't know exactly where we rank.
I would say -- I would say this point. Focusing on challenges of particular districts in a big, diverse State of New York with the City of New York with extraordinary challenges, is probably not the ideal way.
We have made significant strides, as I visited schools across the state -- rural, suburban and urban -- that I take great pride in and I think our whole Legislature should take pride in putting money into improving our schools. And we are doing a very good job.
Do we have a long way to go? Absolutely. I would agree with my colleague. And I'm very committed, as I know my colleagues are, to improving our ranking. But I'm not going to focus on the places where we as a state have challenges. We all know what they are.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Senator. And thank you.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Martins on the bill.
SENATOR MARTINS:I want to thank my colleague for her work on the Education Committee. And Senator, rest assured that we all know that your approach is from a very solid place, and we're very happy to have you there.
I think unfortunately, Madam President, we oftentimes conflate spending with results. That somehow if we spend more and if we continue to spend more, that somehow that is going to result in a better education or a better outcome for students.
And I understand, as I think every one of my colleagues, that there are variables in New York that are unique to New York State. And there are countless variables that impact our ability to reach every child.
But I would just ask that as we move forward and we deal with education policy, we stress the need to make sure that the dollars that we are committed to spending are actually being translated into actual results. And if they're not, perhaps we need a Rockefeller Center study to find out why, although we're spending in many respects almost twice as much as the national average for educating a child in New York State, twice as much in New York as anywhere else, on average we're not necessarily seeing these results.
And there's something I think we're missing and I think there's something that our State Education Department is missing. And so as we rely on funding, that we couple that funding with a real emphasis on results.
There was a discussion a few moments ago about electric buses and zero emissions. And I'm troubled. I understand certainly the need, and I understand that we're on a path towards doing something -- and we should be. But I'm also concerned that this mandate is putting extraordinary strain and extraordinary concern certainly in my school districts, and I've heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about the concerns and stress that our school districts have in reaching or meeting this mandate.
During our budget hearings we had the director from the Thruway Authority. Some of you may remember that. And he was asked to give an update on where he was with electric vehicle chargers on the Thruway. And he said, I can't do it. I can't do it. There isn't enough capacity in the grid in order for us to put those electric chargers that we've been mandated to put in.
And yet here we are talking about electric buses and the need for electric buses, and we're told that each one of our school districts or each one of our bus depots is going to need the equivalent in electricity of a small city in order to have the charging capacity to be able to charge those buses.
And so as we move forward, we also have to be practical when we expect our school -- our local school leaders, who are charged with budgeting and making sure that they're allocating their resources properly, that we're not giving them the impossible task and not giving them the resources, if we know full well that our own grid does not have the capacity to provide the electricity that we are requiring.
So let's be thoughtful about how we approach these mandates. Let's be thoughtful, again, as a body when we advance these policies before their time.
I'm also concerned about, you know, the use of certain language when it comes to the safety of our children. We talk about these electric buses as if they are -- the basis for them is the safety of our children. New York State has 2 percent of its entire automobile and vehicle fleet are electric vehicles. That means that 98 percent of our vehicles, folks, are combustion engine.
I drive my daughter to school -- my youngest is still in high school. I have a combustion-engine car. I will not accept that I am putting my daughter in danger by driving a combustion-engine car and driving her to school, much the same way that if she was riding to school in a bus that was a combustion-engine bus.
So let's understand that we are walking towards progress and we want to approach that. But when we use language about the safety of our children, it does juxtapose other questions logically that we should be prepared to answer. So let's keep everything within the context of where we are here.
And lastly, Madam President, on masks. I'm troubled. You know, the fact that we have just yesterday more protests on college campuses -- this one was at Columbia again, wearing masks and specifically attacking Jewish students -- should be troubling to all of us.
This proposal that we have in this bill does nothing to protect our students on college campuses. Nothing. It's nice we have it. We could all go home and say that we did something. But did we really? We passed something, but from a practical standpoint we did not prioritize the safety of innocent people across the state, students attending colleges during protests who are being targeted for their religion by people who are wearing masks.
We know that. Yesterday wasn't the first time this happened. Yet we'll stand here and say that we achieved something. The Governor goes around the state highlighting the fact that there is a new law. But the reality is our students are no safer today, will be no safer tomorrow than they were yesterday as a result of what was done here. And, Madam President, that's a missed opportunity and an unfortunate one, because we could do better and we should do better.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Weber.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor who's in charge of Section FF, East Ramapo school monitor.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
SENATOR WEBER:Before I get started, I just want to make a comment on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:So Senator Weber on the bill.
SENATOR WEBER:So, Madam President, I will be presenting several questions regarding a provision that was quietly inserted and negotiated into this massive budget bill, a provision that directly affects a school district within my Senate district.
And I want to be clear that I firmly oppose the embedding of this fiscal monitor policy into this budget process precisely because it circumvents proper legislative scrutiny and lumps it together with all of the great school funding that our school districts desperately need, including East Ramapo, which has been sorely shortchanged in the Foundation Aid going back over a decade.
And I'm deeply concerned about the expanding overreach of big government, especially when those powers fail to perform their basic responsibilities and especially when it's affecting a democratically elected school board.
So, Madam President, will the sponsor yield for some questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Hi, Senator. Nice to see you this morning.
Senator Mayer, how many school districts across New York State currently have state-appointed monitors?
SENATOR MAYER:Let me look at my list here. Rochester, Hempstead, Wyandanch, East Ramapo, and we're adding Mount Vernon.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you.
And, Madam President, does the sponsor yield for an additional question?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:And how many of those monitors have been granted veto power over the actions of an elected school board?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, only East Ramapo, through separate legislation that was passed several years ago.
SENATOR WEBER:Yes, thank you.
And, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Okay. How did the extension of the monitor make it into the final-version budget that we're seeing here today? Who pushed it?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. All of the monitors were extended for two years, and the Mount Vernon new monitor was for two years. They all were treated the same.
SENATOR WEBER:Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Were you personally involved in promoting and pushing towards the monitors to be included in the budget?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I believe that both the Senate and the Assembly in their one-house bills had extensions of the monitors, I believe for longer than two years. At least ours did.
SENATOR WEBER:Okay. Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you.
So is it safe to say that the Majority Leader of the Senate here, the Speaker, the Assembly Speaker in the Assembly, and the Governor all came to an agreement and signed off on the language that's presented here today?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I can't speak for those three individuals separately.
I can say we have a budget in front of us that extends for two years every one of these monitors, and includes this new monitor that was requested by the school board of the City of Mount Vernon, the school district of Mount Vernon. And there is three-way agreement on these extensions.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you. And, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Let me ask the question a different way.
Is any language allowed to be in the final version of a budget without those three people's approval?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I think my colleague knows very well the budget reflects an agreement of three parties. That's why some things are not in and some things are in. This is in. And it appears to have had the agreement of all three parties that agreed to the -- all the component elements of the budget.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you.
And, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Senator Mayer, I know you're very aware of what happened last year, right, about a year ago this past February where the monitor came to the legislators, came to Commissioner Rosa, saying that East Ramapo had a $20 million deficit and wouldn't be able to make payroll come the summer months.
We soon and later found out -- and in fact you introduced legislation in June to give East Ramapo a spin-up and if they didn't pass their second budget or at least pass a budget that had a 1 percent increase, that the district would be taken over. So all of that information that transpired was developed because the fiscal monitor told us there was a $20 million deficit. And we found out after the summer months that the district actually had a $31 million surplus.
Do you remember that entire process?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President, I believe my colleague has mischaracterized the bill that I carried, which did not call for a takeover. It was conditional on a 1 percent budget, and then it provided the spin-up. It did not change the governance of the East Ramapo School District. So I just need to correct him there.
I certainly remember that time, and I also know the Comptroller's report, which said that there was an accounting issue, not a cash-flow issue, and that was instructive in subsequent conversations about East Ramapo.
SENATOR WEBER:Okay.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:But your bill did say that if the voters in East Ramapo didn't approve a 1 percent increase, then the Assembly bill that Ken Zebrowski, former Assemblyman Ken Zebrowski, had submitted that had a fiscal takeover of the district, would kick in.
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. I don't believe that's correct. And by the way, my bill didn't go anywhere.
But I don't -- I believe you're mischaracterizing my bill.
SENATOR WEBER:Okay.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:I think -- we'll move on, but we'll come back to that because I'm fully aware of what I read, the language in that bill, and we can have that conversation another time.
But so knowing that the fiscal monitor essentially either misled or wasn't doing his job last year -- because a difference of $51 million between what we were told all of last year and then what was actual in reality, based on the audited financial statements that were released in November, which was for the fiscal year ending in June, why are we so much in favor -- or why is the Majority pushing a two-year extension on the monitor?
SENATOR MAYER:Well, through you, Madam President. First of all, the fiscal monitor for East Ramapo was replaced with a different person after that was determined. And that was extremely unfortunate. And all of us were very concerned about the students of the East Ramapo Public School District, at the risk of layoffs and inability to meet payroll. So that was a motivating force for my bill.
Why -- you were asking why does the Senate majority support a two-year extension of the monitors for East Ramapo? Because we continue to be deeply concerned about the public school students of East Ramapo in a board that is largely controlled by parents who do not have children in the East Ramapo public schools.
Because the results in East Ramapo have been among the most challenging in New York State in terms of graduation, dropout rate. Because the needs of the East Ramapo public school students are extraordinary and frankly have been ignored, have been ignored for years before the monitors were put in place. And the fact is that having an academic and a fiscal monitor is, in our opinion, absolutely the right thing for the East Ramapo Public School District.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you. And Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:So, Senator Mayer, are you aware of the news report maybe a few weeks ago where the New Rochelle School District I think reported having a $30 million deficit?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. Yes, I am. It is in my district.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you.
And Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:In the list of schools that you mentioned earlier that have fiscal monitors with veto power, how come the New Rochelle School District wasn't included in this bill?
SENATOR MAYER:Well, through you, Madam President, New Rochelle School District did not request, did not pass any resolution requesting a monitor at this point.
And in fact we worked closely with the New Rochelle School District to be as helpful as possible to their challenges, which are quite different than East Ramapo. And the school board is quite different than East Ramapo. And we will continue to work with them as well as every school district. But we have a grave concern that we have expressed, and the State Education Department has clearly verified, about the public school students in East Ramapo. And we continue to be concerned because a significant portion of the East Ramapo School District budget has been allocated to transportation costs for nonpublic school students, far in excess of what other school districts that have nonpublic schools spend.
SENATOR WEBER:Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Senator, are you aware that the school board last year, comprised of nonpublic and public members, unanimously voted to hire a superintendent? You know, they don't probably agree on a lot of things, but they agreed upon that. Are you aware that the monitors overrode that and wouldn't allow them to hire a superintendent and they don't have a permanent superintendent as of today, a year or so later?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you. Yes, I am aware of that.
SENATOR WEBER:Great. And through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Do you think that that was an appropriate decision by them to do that? And is that something that should be allowed, that -- a duly elected board to make decisions like that as to who's going to run the district?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Madam President. Under the existing law I believe that created the monitors, as I recall -- since I was in the Assembly at that time -- the State Education Department has to approve the selection of a superintendent and the State Education Department, the commissioner did approve the selection of the current superintendent. Who, by the way, I would say, having met with him and visited the school, is truly making a difference in that school district, and credit to him.
SENATOR WEBER:Okay. Thank you.
Madam President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:On the bill.
SENATOR WEBER:Madam President, policy like the East Ramapo school board monitor extension should have been done during an open debate, with transparency and the full legislative process, and not during this budget cycle, a very big budget bill.
The families and the taxpayers of East Ramapo deserved fairness, not political targeting and not last-minute backroom deals buried in the budget deal. And I will not stand by while this overreach is continued throughout the years.
The East Ramapo monitors, as I've laid out before, and that were approved by the former Senator and pushed in this chamber, voted on in this chamber, has been an abject failure, plain and simple. This was misguided policy pushed by Albany Democrats in both chambers and signed off by the Democratic Governor. And the consequences speak for themselves.
How do you miss a $30 million surplus and say that it's a $20 million deficit for months on end and not catch that, putting the district at risk, putting the concerns of all of our legislators here and families really concerned. It's not just unacceptable, it's inexplicable.
And egregiously, even after learning of the error, when the error was pointed out, Commissioner Rosa didn't say, Well, we know that error was wrong and we are going to refund that egregious 4.38 percent tax increase that she directed on the board and said if you don't pass this 4.38 percent directive, I'm going to fire you from the board.
That's a duly elected, democratically elected board. The taxpayers have a right to vote on their budget in New York State. And to take away that power was not only unprecedented, it was unconscionable. A compromise of two years in this final budget bill is better than five years. But I think we need to continue to work together to phase out the failed monitors entirely.
At the same time, as I said earlier, this budget includes great money for the districts in Rockland and about $20 million for the East Ramapo School District, a number that we've been saying for years -- a number that's been shortchanged by this district, a district that always needs more and more money just like our other school districts.
So, Madam President, this deeply oversight measure is bad governance. New Yorkers deserve better. The residents of East Ramapo deserve better. They deserve a lot better.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you.
Senator Helming on the bill.
SENATOR HELMING:Thank you, Madam President, on the education bill before us. On the electric school bus and electric capacity, the joint utilities of New York analyzed the current electrical capacity of every single school bus depot in the state, both public and private. And let me tell you, the findings were bleak. Fifteen percent of districts currently do not have the electrical capacity to support a single, let alone a fleet, of zero-emission school buses.
Additionally, districts across the state, as we've heard on this floor, have been told that the infrastructure upgrades will lead to significant costs. For some districts those costs will be in the millions of dollars. And this is all against the backdrop of the Independent System Operators Reliability Needs Assessment finding that the grid will not be able to handle demand without significant resources being developed.
Now, in my area we need housing much, much more than we need electric school buses. And what's going to happen? We're going to create competition, which will not be good.
In a recent report that the Empire Center put out, they note that the Office of Governmental Services, which negotiates the contracts that our school districts can piggyback on, they reached a five-year deal in December of 2022 with just nine bus dealers. And in the first year, the State Department of Transportation approved just a small number of bus models.
And do you know what has happened since that time? Not the price decreases that we've heard so much about. We have seen price hikes: 3.7 percent over the last 12 months.
But you know what hasn't increased by 3.7 percent in this budget that's before us? The funding for the majority of my school districts. They have received the minimum amount of funding. Between the state's underfunding and this massive electric school bus mandate, our taxpayers are going to be hit harder than ever before.
For this reason and so many others, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Walczyk to close.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Madam President, on Part EE I've got a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator, do you yield.
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President. So Part EE addresses merit time and also limited credit time, good behavior allowances for those who have been convicted of crimes and found themselves in prison in New York State.
I notice some change in language was approved in the budget proposal that's brought before us here today giving, in addition to the list already outlined in statute, a number of different things that inmates can use to earn these merit times or limited credit times, reducing their sentences. Some additional authority has been given to the Department of Corrections commissioner in order to develop new programs.
Why ignore the list that's already in statute or maybe propose an additional program in statute? Why, instead, just defer and say the commissioner of the Department of Corrections, directly appointed by the Governor, can create programs in the future? Why give that power to the Executive instead of pass a new law for a new program here in the Legislature?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President. So in Part EE it only adds two lines to existing law and ensures that the commissioner can designate additional programs.
I don't know that there is a meaningful distinction between creating specific programs through law outside of the budget process versus allowing the commissioner the discretion to designate additional programs that someone could participate in, in order to earn merit time or limited credit time allowance.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Actually in statute currently, in Section 803 and 803-b, which is what you're proposing to amend here in this budget bill, for nonviolent convicts obtaining a diploma, alcohol and substance abuse certificate, six months of job training, 18 college credits, 400 hours of community service -- those are all prescribed in the statute. The change, the way that I read it, is you're giving the DOCCS commissioner the authority to develop new programs not outlined in statute.
My question was specifically, why give that authority to the DOCCS commissioner? Why not prescribe it by proposing legislation that passes the Assembly, the Senate, and is ultimately signed by the Governor? That's the legislative process here.
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President. I don't think that this change precludes the Legislature from passing legislation to add additional -- specific additional programs in statute that could make someone eligible for earned time.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR SALAZAR:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Yeah, but if you've already given the authority for the DOCCS commissioner to create whatever programs they want to create in order to allow for merit time and allow for limited credit time, and the way that sentences are reduced or that credit time is taken off of someone's sentence and they're early released from prison, the DOCCS commissioner already controls that entire process.
The tradition of this body, by all of the laws that have been laid out in these sections, in 803 and 803-b has been specifically to hear the voice of the people and decide what would merit that credit time.
So my question is the same. Why give the DOCCS commissioner that authority? Now the list of everything that we've put in statute is relatively moot if the DOCCS commissioner can create whatever program they'd like in the future.
SENATOR SALAZAR:Through you, Madam President. I will just clarify that in this short change to the statute in Part EE, it also specifies that among the programs that the DOCCS commissioner could designate that are not explicitly outlined in statute right now, it could include completing a program of no less than 18 months, as established by the commissioner.
So I think I would say that that does set some parameter to what additional program the DOCCS commissioner can designate that someone could be eligible to earn time off of their sentence for. It does not give discretion, for example, to the commissioner to designate a program that is very short, that's less than 18 months, right, that would make someone eligible to earn time off of their sentence.
So I think it's a little bit more specific than that.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
The debate time has expired.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Saved by the bell.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you.
Senator Myrie on the bill.
SENATOR MYRIE:Thank you, Madam President.
I just wanted to make some of our legislative intent clear on Part LL of this bill. As we know, we made changes to our discovery law in 2019 to correct decades of an imbalance, where defendants were making decisions not based on all of the evidence being charged against them, but oftentimes facing last-minute disclosures that prevented them from fully appreciating their constitutional due-process rights.
And while due process and public safety can sometimes have some tension, these things are not at odds. And our intent with this change to our discovery laws is a continuation of our values that we can uphold due process while also keeping the public safe.
It is why we have narrowed some of the scope required by prosecutors in their disclosure, changing it to related to the subject matter of the charge and not the case, but still requiring prosecutors to exercise due diligence and good faith as prescribed by the Court of Appeals.
It is also why, in shortening the window for the defense to challenge a certification of compliance, we also made clear that a material change in circumstance or good cause as granted by the court would allow for them to have an extension.
No one wants to see cases dismissed on inadvertent error or technicalities. And we heard the prosecution and heard concerns from law enforcement to ensure that that would not happen and that the court would have the discretion to utilize a totality of the circumstances approach, looking at a number of factors up to and including whether or not the failure to disclose would prejudice the defendant's ability to mount a case.
There is also an important provision that requires the prosecution to still fulfill their duties in disclosing constitutionally required evidence like Brady or Rosario, but also to give the court some discretion to determine whether or not the failure to disclose was done in bad faith.
So I think we have struck the balance with this reform, that we are protecting the due process of New Yorkers, while ensuring that victims and survivors do not have their cases improperly dismissed in the discovery process.
It is our hope that the courts and the prosecution and the defense bar will take into consideration the challenging balance that our justice system has to maintain every single day -- a constitutionally built, adversarial system where both sides get to make a case and the public ultimately should remain safe.
For those reasons, I'll be voting in the affirmative.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Mayer to explain her vote.
SENATOR MAYER:On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:On the bill, sorry. On the bill.
SENATOR MAYER:Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I rise to explain -- to speak briefly about the substantial equivalency provisions in this bill. And while I do intend to vote for the bill, I rise to express my deep disappointment about the changes in this bill to the substantial equivalency provisions in the law.
As we know, Section 3204 of the Education Law specifically says that instruction given to a minor elsewhere than at a public school shall be at least substantially equivalent to the instruction given to minors of like age and attainments at the public schools of the city or district where the child resides.
The State Education Department has undergone a thorough and inclusive process to determine how to ensure that nonpublic schools comply with this provision. And even last week we heard, in addition to the support of the Catholic schools, the independent schools, and the work with the Amish schools, that the vast majority of nonpublic schools in New York, working with the State Education Department, have found a way, over a period of time, to comply with the provisions of the regulations they adopted.
And in fact these regulations have been upheld by the Appellate Division Third Department, which said recently: "Our state most clearly supports the discretion of parents and guardians in choosing the most appropriate educational setting for the children under their care, including the incorporation of local community values, culture and identity.
"The compulsory education requirement neither circumvents nor thwarts that discretion. However, the Education Law does balance this parental discretion with the child's right to a sound, basic education, as necessary to ensure their ability to meaningfully participate in society and government, a goal that is of paramount state concern."
And that case is going to the Court of Appeals in the next week, and we expect the regs to be upheld there.
However, the changes made in this law make profound changes in the ability of our students -- and that is our focus -- to achieve these opportunities. For one, it provides a phase-in period for schools that use the testing pathway, testing pathway identified in the regs, that exempts any student currently in third grade or older in the '25-'26 school year from ever being covered by substantial equivalency requirements.
That is an entire generation of young people, our sons and daughters, who will be deprived of the opportunity to receive a sound, basic education to be active participants in our civil society as regulated by the State Education Department that was charged with this.
Further, the language allows schools to use tests not approved by SED or aligned with New York State learning standards so long as they've been approved for use by at least three other states. And it also allows schools to compare their results to similarly situated students either in their overlapping geographic district or statewide.
Unfortunately, this creates a perverse incentive for districts where the majority of school board members are made up of non-public school families, to invest even less in our public education system.
We have a responsibility, a personal responsibility, to every child in this state to ensure they receive a sound, basic education and that they achieve substantial equivalency. I am greatly distressed because I believe the provisions in this bill take us backwards and do not move us forward in the interest of ensuring that these children graduate school fully capable of engaging in our dynamic civic society.
We owe these children this. I hope we can revisit this and make the changes necessary to ensure that we have done our best by every child, every child in this state.
I'll be voting yes with my grave disappointment about this provision.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Krueger to close.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you, Madam President.
I appreciate enormously the work our great Education chair, Shelley Mayer, did during this whole debate, and the work she did trying to fight for the best possible outcomes she could get for public education throughout the budget process.
And to start, I will be voting for this bill, but I must also clearly state my objection to the substantial equivalency changes that Senator Mayer also just addressed.
And people stand on the floor of the Senate for many reasons -- to debate, to clarify their positions, to get in the press. I'm here for a very specific reason. Courts use what is said on the floor of the Senate when determining their understanding of the debate or the leading up to changes in law in court cases. I very much am hoping the courts challenge what we are doing today, and so I want to go on record for some future court case.
The issue is not religious freedom. This issue is about a child's right to an education. Beginning, end, period. People are free to practice their religion in New York State. They are not free to withhold an education from their children. That is called educational neglect, and it is unconstitutional in our state, as has been proven in court.
That is the issue, and that is where this bill language goes terribly wrong. The Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, established in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case that under New York's Constitution, all of its children have a positive right to a sound, basic education, and that New York has a duty to provide it to them.
All children in New York have the right to a basic education that includes English, math, science and history. This legislation undermines that constitutional guarantee, trading away children's futures for political expediency.
The court defined the constitutional right in terms of civic education -- i.e., a sound, basic education means the skills students need to function productively as civic participants capable of voting and serving on a jury. Children deprived of a basic education cannot be expected to do that.
Existing Education Law balances that right with the right of parents to direct their children's education and the interests of all New Yorkers in ensuring our children are educated by requiring all private schools to provide an education that is at least substantially equivalent to that of our public schools.
To abandon that balance in favor of appeasing extremists who fear teaching English, math and science or classifying doing so as "woke" is a direct assault on the futures of tens of thousands of children.
This proposal would do away with that balance by redefining substantial equivalency. It robs the Board of Regents and the New York State Education Department of their roles in enforcing the Education Law and creates an education policy by substituting the judgment of educators for that of politicians.
This represents a stain on our state's longstanding commitment to equity and opportunity.
Under this bill, schools deemed substantially equivalent may still not provide the sound, basic education that our children deserve, and the objection of complaining parents would fall on deaf ears as the New York Education Department would be precluded, precluded from enforcing the law and finding those schools to be nonequivalent. The Legislature should not bind our education experts' hands in such a fashion.
The proposed bill renders large parts of the existing Education Law moot. Under current law, a school failing to teach civics, American and New York history, important foundation documents and critical points in history like the Holocaust would be deemed nonequivalent.
Under the proposed bill a school may evade that law in any number of ways, such as by having as few as one-third of its students score as proficient on tests the schools themselves get to choose.
Society's interest in ensuring all students are prepared to function as members of civil society is at stake. What the new bill, the new language in this bill does is define, as substantially equivalent, education that may not suffice as a sound, basic education as we know it, as exists in our law and has been established in our courts.
The bill is the result of intense lobbying of one specific interest group. If adopted, it disadvantages a specific minority that cannot speak for itself -- students at a small number of New York's Haredi and Hasidic yeshivas. It is their futures that members of the Legislature are keen on selling for political gain through a closed-door process that evades scrutiny by the people the Legislature represents.
I'm a Jew. I'm the child of immigrants -- well, grandchild of immigrants. They all came here for a better life. They focused on education. Many of them did not get an education, but they fought to make sure their children and grandchildren did, as so many of us did in our own history. I want to point out that they would have never accepted this for their own children or grandchildren.
I would like to point out that even some of the legislators who are supposedly supporting this -- but I don't think any of them want to identify -- would never send their own children to these schools, never send their own children to these schools, because they understand the importance of making sure that their children have a good, sound education.
This bill is actually antisemitic because it's targeting a subuniverse of young Jewish children from getting their rightful education in New York State. This will have a disparate impact on this insular minority and traditionally marginalized group.
It will also, because it extends the number of years before anyone is looking at all, for up to literally a decade -- it not just shortchanges these children, but it also has devastating consequences in certain communities such as East Ramapo, which has come up already quite a bit. It will have devastating consequences for the Black and brown kids in East Ramapo whose resources and funding have been almost entirely cut off to fund these yeshivas that often are not even meeting substantial equivalency. So they are now incentivized to continue their bad behavior and will be also incentivized to continue to starve the remainder of the school district from meeting its children's needs.
And so it's a circle that just keeps spreading its damage. We should not be doing this. It's particularly the wrong time, because we're the cusp of the U.S. Supreme Court making a decision about whether they are going to allow or require religious schools to become charter schools using government funds for their education.
With this change in law, we're actually saying: Here in New York, if you define yourself as a religious school and you aren't meeting our most basic subminimal standards for actual education, come on down, because now you'll sign up to be a charter and you'll use radically more of our state education funding, moving it out of public education into these religious charters if apparently one more Supreme Court judge decides to rule on this case in favor of the religious charter schools.
So we are opening up a Pandora's box much, much larger than anyone seems to understand the implications of this today. I tried to stop this from being in the budget. I failed. This is why I am trying to make clear that we are going to need the courts to overrule what we are doing today for the sake of not just the children who are now going to those schools, but for all our children.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing and hearing none, the debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 38. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Kavanagh to explain his vote.
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Thank you, Madam President.
This bill contains a very wide range of provisions. Some might call it some ugly -- an ugly bill because it's got so many. But I -- and it contains a lot of things I'm very proud to support, including, as just one example, the universal school food program, which is part of our effort to access -- to make sure all New Yorkers have access to good, healthy and nutritious food.
But as chair of the Committee on Housing, Construction and Community Development, I want to highlight just a couple of items here that are -- that, you know, really constitute major housing initiatives that are in this bill.
Housing items today, Madam President, will be spread over several bills, and we'll be discussing some of those later today. But just for context, as you consider this bill, by my count the budget as a whole includes about $3.6 billion of new capital and operating subsidies for housing and community development, including huge investments in developing and preserving housing, protecting tenants and homeowners from evictions and foreclosures, fighting housing discrimination and making sure our housing is affordable, safe, accessible and sustainable for all New Yorkers.
One of the programs included in this bill represents a very long-fought victory, the Housing Access Voucher Program. I first introduced this bill, Madam President, on February 3, 2020. It was then and is now a critical step toward ensuring that we are committed to making sure that all New Yorkers can afford to live in our communities without having to make very tough choices between paying their rent and paying for other essential services.
Like the Section 8 program, the federal program on which it's modeled, this program will provide for residents to pay up to 30 percent of their income toward their rent and the rest will be covered by the program.
As a state-funded program, it's more flexible than the federal program. For example, if somebody is in an apartment and some rent arrears are necessary to stabilize them, this program will be able to pay up to five months of arrears and keep somebody in their home and then, again, stabilize them going forward.
So it's a huge victory for tenants but also for property owners in New York, who often get stuck with the bill when tenants are unable to pay.
I do want to take a moment just to thank Housing Justice for All and the Legal Aid Society and Make the Road and VOCAL and Citizen Action, who were there five years ago when we were drafting this bill. Many other organizations, including Enterprise and Women in Need and the Community Service Society and the Real Estate Board of New York, have been very involved since then.
And of course Andrea Stewart-Cousins and about three dozen sponsors in this house have played a big role in pushing this over the finish line, and I'm very pleased for their advocacy, especially the leader, who really went to bat for this budget.
And of course Carl Heastie and the Assembly sponsor, the Housing chair, Linda Rosenthal, and Governor Hochul for agreeing, after a very long, hard negotiation, to enact this budget as part of -- this program as part of this budget.
Just to quickly mention a few other things. This bill cuts taxes on Mitchell-Lama housing in half throughout New York City, and it invites local governments throughout the state to do the same, it authorizes them to do the same. In my district alone, that will save about $2 million in taxes on this critical housing.
It also -- this bill also secures funding for our Neighborhood and Rural Preservation Programs, which are critical in all of our communities. That's something that has been a big priority for this house and something that I'm very proud that we're taking a lead on once again.
Lastly, this bill -- one disappointment is we are funding -- we are fully funding the Homeowner Protection Program. That is a critical program to cover the costs of people who need protections when they're facing foreclosures, homeowners, whether that be because of mortgage arrears or taxes. And yet once again this bill does not -- the language that was included in previous drafts of this bill to codify that program has been removed.
We did pass that bill as a standalone last year. It was vetoed. And in the meantime, we were told that that was a more appropriate subject for budget negotiations.
So although we're fully funding that program and it's a critical program, it's mystifying and sort of disappointing that we are not making that essential program part of our core housing laws today.
Obviously a lot of other work has gone into this. I want to thank the staffers. I will name them individually in subsequent remarks on the other housing bills today, but I think my time is up.
So again, I appreciate your indulgence, and I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Kavanagh to be recorded in the affirmative.
And I would like to remind all members you now have two minutes to explain your vote, beginning with Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY:Thank you, Madam President.
And mindful of the time, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by Senators Mayer and Krueger concerning substantial equivalency.
I too am very troubled by this decision because we have laws that we call compulsory education, and each child is entitled to a sound, basic education. And I think the language that is proposed in this bill will make that very difficult.
Secondly, many of our independent nonprofit colleges are facing unprecedented cuts coming from the federal government toward their research projects. National Institutes of Health have eliminated funding, et cetera. And the state's failure to restore some of the cuts that were made to the independent colleges I think is very troubling.
There are other areas where the additional funding that we added to the Governor's Executive Budget may be less than we would have wanted. But nevertheless, I think we are trying our best to make sure that the students of New York State receive the same kind of opportunities that our predecessors have also received.
So in terms of my vote, Madam President, I vote aye.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you.
Senator Stavisky to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Borrello to explain his vote.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Thank you, Madam President.
There's a saying that it's never too late to do the right thing. Well, finally we are addressing the Unemployment Insurance deficit in this bill. Thank goodness. Of course it's been five years of us clamoring. The interest payments and penalties that have harmed every single employer, every single employee are finally being addressed -- after about half of it's already been paid already by those hardworking businesses and families that support the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
It's not a government fund, it is a fund that is supported by the businesses that pay taxes, the employees that pay taxes. I think people have to understand that. And it's been under fire. New York State was the only state that took federal money and didn't use at least some of it to plug that hole. And every single business in New York State has paid the price for that.
I know this well, because every time we get that interest penalty bill in the mail, my wife brings it to me like it's my fault. So I'm glad we're at least addressing that in this bill.
That being said, that $11 billion hole is also, coincidentally, the equivalent of what was the fraud experienced, according to the State Comptroller. So essentially every business in New York State. And now, in this budget, we are covering for the cost of unmitigated fraud that occurred during the pandemic in our unemployment insurance. And I hope something is being done to correct that so it never happens again.
The electric school bus mandate -- again, not enough to get us across the line and build confidence that we can do this safely.
So for that reason and others, I'll be voting no.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Borrello to be recorded in the negative.
Senator Gonzalez to explain her vote.
SENATOR GONZALEZ:Thank you, Madam President.
Our budget is a statement of values. It reflects what we prioritize as legislators, whose voices we're listening to, whose futures we're investing in. And New Yorkers are looking to us to protect them through an uncertain time and political moment. We must take bold action to protect our working-class families, our immigrant neighbors, and all of our constituents.
So I rise today because this budget could have been bolder. Each week my office receives calls from constituents struggling with unemployment benefits. Food pantries in my district are seeing lines down the block. People are being priced out of their neighborhoods, and families are deciding between paying their medical bills, paying for childcare, and paying for their rising utility bills.
This could have been the moment to deliver on a bolder vision. This could have been the moment where we made universal childcare a reality. This could have been the moment we invested in social housing and lowering our energy costs. And this certainly should have been the moment that we tax the ultrawealthy to make this all possible.
Instead, we were pushed to respond to proposals including mask bans and discovery reform.
But we've worked hard to push past these proposals and to address New Yorkers' most pressing needs. And in many ways we succeeded. That's a testament to the tireless work of our Legislature, our central staff, advocates and constituents who have made their voices heard.
The MTA's capital plan will be fully funded, receiving 68 billion to pay for much-needed upgrades. The $180 million we've secured to fund psychiatric services at hospitals like Bellevue will make all of us safer. And the $50 million in this bill for the Housing Access Voucher Program will help 2500 New Yorkers secure housing.
All of these investments are necessary as Trump and congressional Republicans make cuts to vital programs for our constituents.
I know our fight for affordability will continue, and for that fight I vote aye.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Gonzalez to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Salazar to explain her vote.
SENATOR SALAZAR:Thank you, Madam President.
There are policies in this budget bill that I enthusiastically support, such as the creation of the Housing Access Voucher Program, and others that I strongly oppose, such as the mask penalty enhancer in Part DD.
But I do believe that the proposal in Part EE to allow the commissioner to designate additional programs that would allow people to earn time off of their sentence is good, in that it is a -- it demonstrates a commitment from the Governor and the Legislature to allowing incarcerated individuals to participate in rehabilitative programming that is valuable to the individuals themselves -- also to conditions in our state prisons and to society when people are ultimately released from incarceration.
It cannot stop here. While I laud this step, this proposal in the budget, I think that we need to do more beyond this budget vote in supporting Senator Cooney's Earned Time Act legislation that I'm proud to cosponsor, because we really should -- while this is not what this budget bill does, we should be expanding eligibility for earned time and limited credit time allowance and also increasing the impact for incarcerated individuals who participate in those programs, providing the opportunity for people to not only return to their communities and families sooner, but to do so equipped with the benefits that this programming can provide.
And with that, I vote aye.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Salazar to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Jackson to explain his vote.
SENATOR JACKSON:Thank you, Madam President.
I rise today at the end of a long and difficult road. And after days of tense negotiations, we are called to vote on a budget that carries both progress and pain. And I cast my vote not with ease, but with conscience, harboring significant concerns about this budget.
And there are meaningful gains. As chair of the Civil Service and Pensions Committee, I welcome increases to the BOCES salary cap and Special Services Aid that are steps forward, expanding access to high-quality careers and technical education that can alter the course of a young person's life.
And for the first time ever, this budget funds universal school meals, ensuring that every child from Buffalo to the Bronx to Long Island -- the entire state -- begin the school day nourished and ready to learn. No student should have to learn on an empty stomach, and this is a quiet, powerful victory.
But even as we advance, we leave some behind. Because when it comes to education funding, this budget falls short of the justice our children deserve.
We commissioned a 300-page study to modernize the Foundation Aid formula. But instead of embracing this full vision, the Executive cherry-picked it to pieces.
The Regional Cost Index was updated but excluded New York City, leaving {inaudible} to figure from 2006 in a city where costs have soared and student needs have only grown. The result, New York City schools will receive hundreds of millions of dollars less than they would have if the state had simply left the formula untouched.
And as to substantial equivalence, let's be clear. This budget watered down the constitutional right of every child in New York to a sound, basic education.
This budget is a mixed ledger -- some gains, some grave omissions. And I thank Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins and our deputy leader and our Finance chair for their stewardship. And there are victories here, and I honor them. But I vote today with a stone in my shoe and students on my mind.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:How do you vote, Senator?
SENATOR JACKSON:Madam President, I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Jackson to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Chan to explain his vote.
SENATOR CHAN:Thank you, Madam President.
Though I admire some of the aspects and ideas of this bill, but my colleagues also touched on a lot of components that I don't like.
The Governor, first of all, has proposed over $593.5 million for Foundation Aid to the City of New York. The enacted amount ended up $54.7 million less, at $538.8 million. This is at a time when New York City has an unprecedented rise in English learners and underprivileged children, possibly due to the migrant crisis.
Even if the enrollment falls in the City of New York, the price of education will not decline. If a child moves away from his class, the cost of educating that class will still be the same. Programs will have to be cut -- enriching programs such as art and music -- and our students will be deprived of a lot of services.
I'm also not on board with the 100 percent mandate on electric school buses. I can see down the road having problems charging these buses, the infrastructure. I can see stranded kids on out of state trips, overnight trips. And, I mean, that also happens with, you know, gasoline-powered vehicles and diesel-powered vehicles. But I can see some of the problems arising.
As a police officer of 27 years, this new discovery law and the mask ban does absolutely nothing to help our cops out there to prevent crime and to address our quality-of-life issues.
So I agree with my colleagues in our conference that this bill doesn't resonate well, especially with the sentiments of my district of South Brooklyn. And I vote always with my constituents in mind.
On behalf of the people of New York State Senate District 17 in South Brooklyn, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Chan to be recorded in the negative.
Senator Walczyk to explain his vote.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Thank you, Madam President.
I believe if you do the crime, you do the time, and so do many New Yorkers. But we do have laws on the books allowing convicts to better themselves while they're incarcerated in New York, prove that they're ready for release and actually reduce their sentence. Throughout the budget conversations, some talked publicly. The Governor mentioned that there would be no early release for violent criminals who have been convicted.
However, this bill does the exact opposite of that, and snuck into this bill is an expansion of the power of the Corrections commissioner to take the laundry list of programs currently that are in state law that could prove that you are rehabilitating yourself, and instead give that authority to the DOCCS commissioner in order to create whatever program they'd like in order to reduce the population in their prison.
And the reason is the Governor has completely broken our prison system, ignored calls for safety, and now doesn't have the staff to operate. So instead of addressing these safety issues in our correctional facilities, instead of rehiring the 2,000 corrections officers she fired, she wants to shorten sentences of felons and violent criminals, releasing them back into the community.
And I would say if the programs had been running really well the way that they are right now, okay, maybe it will be all right and our communities won't be in danger. But currently in the State of New York one in five released from prison will be back in prison within three years. The overall recidivism for a crime in New York State is 66 percent.
This is not helping the incarcerated individuals become members of their community again, and it's certainly not making our communities safer.
You do the crime, you do the time. I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Walczyk to be recorded in the negative.
Senator Weik to explain her vote.
SENATOR WEIK:Thank you, Madam President.
No state in the United States currently operates exclusively with electric buses. Why? Because it's just not yet possible. And New York is no exception.
With a lack of grid capacity and the cost of creating a grid which is millions of dollars per bus yard, the cost of electricity to charge buses on a daily basis, storage for charging buses so that they can charge properly, fire safety and creating a reliable method of putting out fires when these buses catch on fire, and supply and demand -- when demand goes up, supply goes down and cost goes up.
And so we see a trend here which is unaffordable. This mandate is unaffordable. This is an outrageously expensive mandate with no flexibility, and it's just not even possible. Even with the two extensions of time, it will require a huge layout of money.
And for that -- and just -- this mandate just cannot be met in this time frame.
And for that and many other reasons, Madam President, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Weik to be recorded in the negative.
Senator Mayer to explain her vote.
SENATOR MAYER:Thank you, Madam President.
As I've explained areas in which I have concern, I do want to say that there are many positive aspects of this bill with respect to education, and they were hard-fought, including not having any district suffer a loss from last year's money. This is a testament to our Majority Leader and to our conference's commitment to education, both public and nonpublic.
I'm especially proud that we have won a long-overdue reinvestment in our CTE programs for both BOCES and the Big 5 school districts. These are life-changing programs, and we needed to invest in them, and I'm proud that we have.
We also are providing universal free school meals available to every student in our state, reasonable changes to give districts additional flexibilities as they implement the electric school bus transition, acknowledging districts that have charter oversaturation requiring additional help, and credit to the Governor and the teachers union for investing in our children's mental health and well-being by banning cellphones in schools, with the assurance that parents will be able to reach their child in the event of an emergency.
So we have accomplished a great deal. While it is far from perfect and there are things with which I disagree, on balance, we have much to be proud of, of our commitment to our children and to the state of education in New York.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Mayer to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Bynoe to explain her vote.
SENATOR BYNOE:Thank you, Madam President.
This budget has some challenges in it, but I'm heartened by some of the initiatives that have been included. Specifically today I'd like to speak on the alternative funding to school districts that are facing saturation, high rates of saturation of charter schools.
In Senate District 6, we have a proliferation of charter schools. Thirty-six percent of Hempstead school communities go to charter schools, taking over a hundred million dollars with them.
I'm heartened because this bill will allow for Hempstead to receive funding that it so desperately needs to avoid risk of laying off teachers, closing schools, and reducing programming.
So today we will be able to ensure that Hempstead school communities will have the disparate impact that had been looming for years removed, and they will receive $24 million in funding. And for that and for other reasons, I support this bill and I will be voting affirmatively.
Thank.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Bynoe to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Bailey to explain his vote.
SENATOR BAILEY:Thank you, Madam President.
A lot of good things in this budget, a lot of tough things in this budget. But I want to associate myself more with the educational portion of it.
Malcolm X famously said that education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to people who prepare for it today. Not just as a legislator, but more importantly my real job, dad.
And so in Mount Vernon, the great City of Mount Vernon, the jewel of Westchester, we've had some challenges. But I'm grateful that we have a monitor in place now in Mount Vernon. And sometimes, Why are you thinking for a monitor? Because this was something that was universally agreed to by the district, the school board, the city. Everybody is happy that we can put our kids on the right direction to prepare for the future.
And there's also a spin-up in that so that that district can remain ready and stay with the times, so I'm grateful for that.
I am grateful for the "Jalen Brunson of education," Chair Shelley Mayer, for helping us get some exceptions in the bell-to-bell conversation. Because sometimes our children are facing real things. Sometimes they are responsible for the care of others. While this may take away from their educational experience, sometimes there needs to be a reason why a child may need to have access to a device or a way to do it. So I'm grateful to our leader and to Senator Mayer for being able to carve that out.
And what I would say is this. None of us would drive on an empty tank of gas. We can't. So how could you expect a child to learn on an empty stomach? It simply doesn't happen. We get angry, some of us can't function without coffee. So how the hell can we expect our kids to learn if they can't eat? Universal school meals is going to be part of that passport to the future. It may not seem like a huge thing now, but a kid getting something to eat where there may not be a meal elsewhere, that will change their life, Madam President.
And for those reasons and many more, I proudly vote in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Bailey to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Fahy to explain her vote.
SENATOR FAHY:Thank you, Madam President.
I too rise to vote up, vote yes on this budget bill. But I also want to recognize some of the tradeoffs in that vote.
First of all, on the positives, I too want to emphasize a number of the education pieces that are very positive in this bill, including the universal free meals that I think have been long in the making and will be game-changers for many of our children.
I appreciate that we are giving some flexibility on the EV school buses, which is very, very needed, given the headwinds that we have run into with implementation on that.
Also very pleased that we are giving long-overdue increases on the salary cap with BOCES.
Thrilled to see the bell-to-bell cellphone plan, another overdue one, while giving the necessary flexibility with the implementation of that.
And one of my favorite pieces, as the former Higher Ed chair in the Assembly, is the free targeted community colleges for nontraditional students, which I think will really be a game-changer in many of our areas.
I also want to add and commend the chair of the Education Committee as well as the chair of the Higher Education Committee for raising their concerns in opposition to the substantially equivalent pieces of the budget, and I share their concerns and opposition.
With that, I want to note the support for tightening up on the discovery reforms, and hope that this will lead to not dismissing, arbitrarily dismissing cases, including domestic violence.
Thrilled with the UI benefits that -- again, long-term advocacy. And very pleased with the housing access vouchers.
With that, again, with all these tradeoffs noted on the good and the bad, I vote in the affirmative.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Fahy to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Hinchey to explain her vote.
SENATOR HINCHEY:Thank you, Madam President.
I rise today to thank the leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and our entire conference and the Legislature for fighting tooth and nail for a budget that we could be proud of.
This budget that we're voting on yesterday and today does leave a lot to be desired. But there is one shining -- one shining element in this budget today, and that is, as we've heard from some of our colleagues, the expansion of universal school meals.
This is something that we in our conference have fought for for the last five years. We have worked on increased expansions year over year, providing universal meals, free breakfast and lunch to students across the state. But we've been unsuccessful in making sure that every student in New York had free breakfast and lunch.
This budget right now that we are voting on will ensure every student does not have to worry about where two meals a day during the school year are going to come from.
While we were not successful in changing and expanding the Farm-to-School program to include breakfast to make sure that we could expand markets for our farmers and ensure that the food that our kids are eating is healthy food, healthy and nutritious, locally sourced food, we are providing universal school meals, and we will fight next year to ensure that we can expand the 30 percent threshold.
I'm also incredibly proud of the increase in BOCES salary reimbursement for the first time in 30 years, and expanding the eligible grade reimbursement for our career and technical education for our students. But we have a lot more work to do.
I did want to take a moment to celebrate the full expansion and phase-in of universal school meals, and for that reason I'm proud to vote aye.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Hinchey to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator May to explain her vote.
SENATOR MAY:Thank you, Madam President.
I also rise to thank the Majority Leader and our incredible counsel and staff who negotiated so fiercely on behalf of the people of this state.
And I want to share my colleagues' frustration. We've spent the last four months dealing with distractions like masks and discovery when we should have been laser-focused on protecting the people of this state from the tsunami of terrible policies coming out of Washington.
There are a few things in this budget that we are doing that really do push back, and universal school meals is one of them, at a time when the federal government is talking about defunding school lunches and SNAP and Meals on Wheels and all kinds of food-security items that they have carried for a very long time.
We also are helping our small businesses -- that are facing terrible pressures from tariffs and from raids on their workforces -- with the Unemployment Insurance funding.
And we are putting money in for refugee resettlement that is badly needed when the federal government just abandoned the refugees who arrived here in the last year.
So I'm pleased that we're doing all of those things, but I hope now, once the budget is completely done, that we will be able to come together and really focus on addressing these terrible, damaging policies that are coming out of Washington, and really making sure that our state is a model for protecting its citizens in a difficult time.
Thank you. I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator May to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Webb to explain her vote.
SENATOR WEBB:Thank you, Madam President.
I rise just to highlight a couple of things on this particular bill, specifically the investments we're making in education.
I want to also thank the Majority Leader for her leadership during this budget process and her unwavering dedication to students and teachers.
As has been stated, over the course of this budget we have been having lengthy debates, negotiations, but one thing that has not changed, and that is our commitment to educating our students. And as it has been stated, investments -- expanding investments in programs like universal school meals, which allow our students to be connected to resources that address some of their fundamental needs for food, and especially during a time where we continue to see devastating cuts to these type of programs at the federal level.
The investments to expand BOCES, the salary reimbursement, in 30 years cannot be understated. This has been a long, hard fight and I'm appreciative that we were able to get this in the budget.
And, of course, fully funding our schools with over $26 billion in Foundation Aid, continuing our commitment to this important issue.
In our Senate one-house, we pushed for more funding for schools, and we will continue to do that, as this is a priority, because we know that it is important to the future of our students.
Also, the investments in housing, worker protections and many others -- all of this indicates our continued investment. But we also know that there's more work to do.
So I want to thank my colleagues for the continued efforts we're making. And also I want to say congratulations to my niece, who is being inducted into Honor Society.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR WEBB:I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Webb to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Lanza to explain his vote.
SENATOR LANZA:Thank you, Madam President.
I don't believe public safety is a distraction. If you're one of the tens of thousands of victims of crime in New York, that is not a distraction to you.
Discovery. We've listened to the public debate about it for 38 days. In this legislation, nothing has been done to change it. Discovery reform, so-called, that was enacted a number of years ago is exactly the same and in the same form as it was then.
If you are a would-be criminal who wants to commit a crime and get away with it by putting a mask on your face, the law here says do it. Because you will not suffer an additional second of penalty by doing it.
New Yorkers watched over the last 38 days the standoff between the Governor and the Legislature. What we were told was the holdup preventing an on-time budget was a few issues -- namely, discovery and masks. My colleagues across the aisle said, We're not budging. The Governor said, I'm not signing a budget that doesn't include those.
Well, my colleagues across the aisle clearly won. The Governor lost. And sadly, Madam President, I believe the people of New York lost as well.
And for those and other reasons, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Lanza to be recorded in the negative.
Senator Krueger to explain her vote and to close.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you, Madam President.
You know, this bill -- as I said, I'm voting for it despite concerns about certain sections -- has a lot of incredibly good things in it. And so I just thought I'd point out this is education, labor, family assistance. We've already heard about the importance of universal school meals, an issue I worked on before I was even a Senator, and so excited that we're finally getting it over the finish line.
Some truly desperately needed assistance for vouchers for rent for the poorest families in New York City.
And so we had leadership from chairs of so many committees that made a difference in getting us to this bill.
And I must admit I was sort of fascinated that my colleagues who are voting no on this bill seem to have a little obsession against electric buses. It's not really the biggest issue in education, labor and family assistance. And actually all the research shows they're actually safer, they're cleaner, they don't pollute, they're quieter. They are more expensive to start but have lower maintenance costs. We've put money in, and the timeline for ever having to get there is extraordinarily long.
So I'm just not sure why everybody thinks this is what 19.5 million New Yorkers fixate on, but so be it.
I vote yes, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Krueger to be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar 973, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik.
Ayes, 44. Nays, 18.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The bill is passed.
Senator Serrano, a point of privilege, as people have been asking. The question was asked, Will we have an enacted budget before we have a pope?
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:And the question has been answered. We have the first American pope: Leo XIV.
(Standing ovation.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 972, Senate Print 3004D, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Another point of personal privilege. The pope is a Villanova graduate, so those of us who are Knicks fans feel good about that.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Martins, why do you rise?
SENATOR MARTINS:They've had a great two games, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:We have.
SENATOR MARTINS:If the sponsor would yield for a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Certainly. Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:What subsection?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:What subsection, Senator Martins?
SENATOR MARTINS:(Sighing.) Where to start.
SENATOR KRUEGER:I'm still fixating on pope questions. Sorry.
SENATOR MARTINS:Well, why don't we start with transportation.
SENATOR KRUEGER:With education?
SENATOR MARTINS:Transportation.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Transportation. Not electric buses; I'm not answering any questions on electric buses.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MARTINS:I promise I won't ask any this time, thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Krueger yields on all questions not related to electric buses.
Senator Martins.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, indeed I will. I will.
SENATOR MARTINS:Senator, would you tell us, how much have we allocated in this budget for capital needs for transportation?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if I can just clarify. So this is anything in transportation, including the MTA capital plan that we discussed yesterday? Or just the Department of Transportation?
SENATOR MARTINS:I would limit it to the Department of Transportation -- roads, bridges. Thank you.
SENATOR KRUEGER:$6.97 billion.
SENATOR MARTINS:And included in that -- I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Martins.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Oh, of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Excuse me. We're doing one of those sports substitutions. So Senator Cooney would love to answer the questions, if that's okay.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:We will substitute in Senator Cooney.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Mr. President.
If the sponsor would yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Cooney, do you yield?
SENATOR COONEY:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So of the nearly $7 billion that's been allocated for I'm assuming roads and bridges and the like, included in that are expenses for CHIPS funding as well, isn't that right, Senator?
SENATOR COONEY:That's correct, Senator.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:The sponsor yields.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Traditionally in this house and in these budgets, transportation funding is distributed by percentages or regional percentages. Are you familiar with that, Senator?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Can you tell us how the regional shares are distributed or allocated?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President. The CHIPS formula is actually determined by lane highway miles, which I'm sure you're familiar with, as well as the number of registered drivers in those various regions across the DOT state.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Mr. President. If the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:The sponsor yields.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So aside from CHIPS funding, which is about a hundred million dollars out of that nearly $7 billion we discussed, how is transportation funding and capital funding allocated regionally? Is it still allocated by that same metric, registered vehicles and lane miles?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes, it is. It's come up with a statewide CHIPS formula using those exact same factors and variables. Then we then fund that formula and it's distributed as such to each DOT region.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So how many regions are there in the state that receive an allocation?
SENATOR COONEY:There are 11 -- through you, Mr. President, there are 11 DOT regions.
SENATOR MARTINS:And I guess, Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Regions like Long Island, Western New York, Northern New York, New York City, there are different regions for different areas geographically, correct?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President, that's correct. So your region would be Region 10 for DOT.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Can you tell me what the percentage of allocation is for Region 10?
SENATOR COONEY:(Conferring.) Through you, Mr. President. We don't have that specific number lined out for Region 10. But we can follow up and provide that to you, Senator Martins.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:I was curious if the sponsor knew which counties in New York State had both the greatest lane miles and the greatest number of registered vehicles, the two metrics we talked about in discussing allocation of funding for transportation capital.
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President. To clarify, you're asking which specific DOT regions have the highest number for those variables, to see that they would have the largest percentage increase in the CHIPS formula? Is that the question you're trying to --
SENATOR MARTINS:Correct, yes.
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President. Region 8, the Hudson Valley, would be number one. And number two we believe would be your region, Region 10, Long Island.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Because it's my understanding that both Nassau County and -- actually, Suffolk County first, and Nassau County, have the most registered vehicles by county of any county in the state, one and two. And both Nassau and Suffolk County have the most lane miles of any county in the state, both one and two.
So understanding that those two counties themselves have the greatest number, do you know what the allocation is for Region 10, which comprises Nassau and Suffolk County?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President. We don't have the specific allocation for Region 10 available to us right now, but we can look into the CHIPS formula and break that out for you.
SENATOR MARTINS:And so -- Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So let's say it's 17 percent, just for the sake of using a random and maybe not so random number. What and how much of the funding here would be allocated for construction projects in Region 10?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President. I'm not quite sure I understand the question. If we're using the hypothetical of 17 percent, are you saying -- is the Senator saying that 17 percent increase in CHIPS for that specific region?
SENATOR MARTINS:I'll rephrase, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Please rephrase, Senator Martins.
SENATOR MARTINS:Is it 17 percent of the $7 billion that was allocated in transportation funding? Would that go to Region 10 if they were 17 percent over the overall lane miles and registered vehicles?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President, I understand the question better now.
If that 17 percent was their proportional share of the DOT's CHIPS formula, yes, those funds would be directed to that region for the municipalities to spend that, whether on capital projects that they have already determined or whether they have needs that they have to have their municipalities seek for additional dollars.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Mr. President, I have questions now with regard to economic development funding. I'm not sure if Senator Cooney would still be the sponsor, but I have a question specifically with regard to an allocation for the Fordham Landing South project.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Fordham Landing South project.
SENATOR MARTINS:Would that perhaps be Senator Krueger?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:I believe it might be. If you can just give us one second, Senator Martins.
SENATOR KRUEGER:(Inaudible.)
SENATOR MARTINS:Not at all.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Krueger, do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Of course I yield. But I need to hear the question again.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Of course. Senator Martins, please --
SENATOR MARTINS:I haven't asked it yet.
SENATOR KRUEGER:-- didn't hear the question, thank you.
SENATOR MARTINS:But it is specifically with regard to an item that is listed under economic development, for which there is a $55 million allocation and it's called Fordham Landing South. Can you tell us what that project is and why we would be allocating $55 million of state capital for such a -- what I believe is a private project?
SENATOR KRUEGER:(Conferring.) I have to learn myself.
So apparently it is a Governor's project. It is a -- it's in the Bronx. It's a mixed-housing project with a significant affordable component. I don't have the percentage or numbers right now. And that's actually what I know.
But we will try to get you a better answer, because staff is going to find me better answers and I can get back to you with more later.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Senator, I also looked it up. I did a quick search on my phone and I did find it to be a private development. But I find it again unusual. And the reason for my question is allocating $55 million for a private development that is not publicly operated seems extraordinary to me, and so I'll await your response.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. Most of our affordable housing funds that go through a variety of different programs end up being for private developers building that housing. We have almost done no building of public housing in a very, very long time.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:No, I understand that there sometimes are opportunities through IDAs and the like to provide either tax benefits or PILOTS and some sort of incentives. There have been 421-a programs, for example, in the past.
But would you agree that it is unusual for there to be a specific allocation of $55 million for a project not facilitating bonding and borrowing, not giving them some sort of tax incentives or a PILOT program, for example. But actually allocating $55 million towards a private development project at the Governor's request should be reviewed. And so I'll await your response as well.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. I don't actually disagree. I'd be surprised if when we learn more information this doesn't also include tax credits, other categories of funding. Because I've never seen any affordable housing project in the State of New York that didn't involve a combination of different funding streams.
So I'm going to ask staff to try to get a full analysis of what the story is here, because it's a perfectly reasonable question about this. Thank you.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Senator.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:I have a few questions regarding housing, but I'll ask the sponsor to yield shortly.
But since we're chatting, I'll ask you, there is an allocation in this budget for $385 million. It's -- I guess it's not very specific. It speaks to it being pursuant to plan agreed to by the Director of the Budget, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the President Pro Tem of the Senate.
Are you familiar with that allocation?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, sir. I believe that is a continuation of a program we have been calling CREST, which is a discretionary capital fund divided three ways: Senate, Assembly, Governor. And if you give me a second, I'll tell you what C-R-E-S-T stands for.
SENATOR MARTINS:I think it's right here. Community Resiliency, Economic Sustainability and Technology.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Great when one of us knows the answers, yes. Thank you.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield? Are you asking Senator Krueger to yield or Senator Kavanagh or --
(Overtalk.)
SENATOR MARTINS:No, no. Senator Krueger.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Krueger, do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:We're on a roll here, yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:All right, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Mr. President.
So how is the $385 million allocated between the Senate, the Assembly, and the Governor?
SENATOR KRUEGER:It's split three ways. So a third goes to the Governor's discretion, a third to the Assembly discretion, and a third to the Senate discretion. And at least here in the Senate, that goes through our leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So roughly, if my math is right, $130 million per -- for each of the Governor, the Assembly and the Senate.
SENATOR KRUEGER:That's approximately right.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:And so is the $130 million allocated to the Senate, is that solely at the discretion of the President Pro Tem? Is it allocated per Senate district, per Senator? Is it allocated at the -- a person's sole discretion? Is there a committee?
Let me ask this differently. How is it allocated in the Senate?
SENATOR KRUEGER:It is at the discretion of the Majority Leader of the New York State Senate.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Are there any -- to your knowledge, are there any conditions or terms by which this money is distributed?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. I do believe that there are specific standards of what kind of projects are eligible, what kinds of -- whether it's government-affiliated or not-for-profits.
(Conferring.) Usually in most circumstances the project needs to be somehow government-affiliated. There are maximums and minimums and requirements for documentation of how you would complete your project, because the assumption is you would rarely be getting a full amount from the state.
So there are standards. There's actually paperwork you have to fill out.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So there are 63 Senate districts in New York State, each one roughly having 330,000 or so residents. Is there a -- any allocation, by Senate district or otherwise, so that that money is distributed throughout the State of New York?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I'm not privy to a breakdown of that money in any given year.
Sorry, I don't know.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Last year, last year I believe there was a similar $385 million allocated. Would you be able to tell us how that $385 million was allocated with regard to specifically to the New York State Senate's one-third portion? As chair of Finance I would assume you'd have some knowledge as to how $130 million was allocated by this chamber, and maybe you can share that with us.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, I do not have actually that breakdown. I can request it. It's not something that actually does go through the Finance Committee per se, or me as Finance chair, because it is funding through the discretion of the leader. So I don't -- and my staff here don't seem to know that information either.
Sometimes as I don't think will surprise any of us, when you do capital awards it can be years before the actual capital money goes out the door. So even the question is reasonably on last year's budget, it's quite conceivable that only a small percentage of that capital money has actually gone out to recipients yet because of the -- all the requirements before you get the money.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Oh. Oh, I'm sorry, I just learned we post awards on the website. So apparently we can all take a look. Once they get approved? Oh, when they're awarded. So we can all take a look.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So to your knowledge, Senator, have allocations been made to members of the Senate for their districts?
SENATOR KRUEGER:In past years?
SENATOR MARTINS:Yes.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Have allocations been made to members of --
SENATOR MARTINS:Of the Senate for allocation in their district.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Not this year yet. We haven't finished this year. Last year's money.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:On the answer. Now, Senator Krueger, will you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:And so to your knowledge, were those $130 million allocated to any Senators that represent districts in New York State who were elected as members of the Republican Party?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Again, I think we need to take a look at the website. But I believe that Senator Stewart-Cousins has said that there is an allocation that goes to the leader of the Republicans in the Senate and that then he makes those discretionary decisions on behalf of your districts.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor could continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Do you, Senator, know how much is allocated to the leader of -- or the Minority Leader of the State Senate?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, I do not. Maybe Senator Martins can ask his leader.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So it's $385 million, it's $130 million in this chamber. As chair of the Finance Committee, it's a lot of money and it's a great responsibility to understand how monies are spent in New York State. And certainly, Senator, I know how intelligent and thoughtful you are when it comes to your responsibilities.
Are you saying you don't know how much money is actually allocated to the Minority in the State Senate from last year's $385 million allocation?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, that is correct.
And also just to clarify. So the money can be recommended by each leader. It then goes through a formal process outside of the hands of the Legislature. Again, as I described, there's an application process. You have to meet certain standards. The entity applying has to meet certain standards. The agencies -- and often, because this is capital, it goes through DASNY, although it could go through other agencies as well. It has to meet that agency's standards -- again, I'm using the example of DASNY -- and ultimately be signed off by the Comptroller.
So there are many different government entities with their hands, so to speak, in this process.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So, Senator, the allocation is pursuant to a plan by the Speaker of the Assembly, the Division of Budget -- which effectively is the Governor -- and the President Pro Tem of the Senate. And all three of them have to sign off on this plan in order for the money to actually be allocated.
And I'm going to go out on a limb and I'm going to ask you to go out there with me, because I think we'll both be safe in saying that all three of them know full well how it's going to be allocated because they require all three of them to sign off in order to disburse the money.
Would you agree?
SENATOR KRUEGER:All three of them would need to sign off on the disbursal of the money.
SENATOR MARTINS:On a plan, as it's referenced in the legislation.
SENATOR KRUEGER:I actually don't know whether this is some kind of three-way MOU or this is literally -- remember the word MOU? We used to use it all the time here, memorandum of understanding? I don't know whether it's an MOU or it's just -- it's in the budget so then the Governor's people know that they have X amount of the pot, the Assembly knows they have Y amount of the pot, and the Senate knows they have Z. And I'm not actually sure if we each sign off on it as a group or it's just sort of one-off by each of those three entities. I just don't know.
(Conferring.) So no, I'm told it is more of a one-off. It's not that all three entities have to agree on each piece of spending.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Last question. Is it the Secretary of the Finance, you know, in the Majority's -- I guess in the Majority Leader's inner circle? Is that person the person who signs off on these allocations?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. Again, I believe it is the Majority Leader who signs off. It is staff within the Secretary of Finance who makes sure that paperwork is distributed, collected, directed and, very often, years later, trying to resolve issues within DASNY or the Comptroller's office or some other place. So they end up having the administrative functions to follow the path.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, I apologize, I said last question. But this is my last question. One more, Senator, if you'll indulge me.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Krueger, do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So $130 million is a lot of money. Is it your expectation that that money will be used throughout the state, regardless of partisan affiliation of representatives of this chamber, for the best interests of the districts they represent and the people they represent? Is that your understanding as well, Senator?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I hope that is the goal of this chamber. I actually know that I have, quote, unquote, gone to bat to follow through on money for a number of my Republican colleagues for money in their own districts, including recently $5 million for a project in your district, Senator Martins, that I was able to help one of your towns get completed.
SENATOR MARTINS:Much appreciated, Senator, thank you.
Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Martins, you roughly have five to six minutes left. We give you a little extra time because of the substitution.
SENATOR MARTINS:I thank you very much.
And with that, I will ask my colleague on some housing issues if he will yield to a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Certainly. Senator Kavanagh, do you yield?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Happily, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
You know, I see that there's about a billion dollars that's allocated for the City of Yes out of the State Budget. Is that correct?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:It's -- there's about 1.025 billion that was allocated and was announced in connection with the City of Yes program.
It doesn't -- there's nothing in the budget that kind of makes it directly related to implementing the items that were part of the land use and zoning reforms in New York that were called City of Yes. But it was announced in the fall as part of that, and it was proposed in the Executive Budget as part of that, as in connection with that.
So yes, of the -- by my count there's about $2.6 billion of capital for housing and community development in this program, and about 1 billion of it was initially designated as related to, in support of City of Yes.
SENATOR MARTINS:Since I only have about five or six minutes, I'm just going to ask a few quick questions.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So the money we're investing, the billion dollars we're investing in New York City for housing, which is, from what I can tell, significantly more than we were spending for the rest of the state combined, that billion dollars, is it subject to a project labor agreement? And will that work be conditionally done with local labor?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Through you, Mr. President. I know my colleague has limited time. But it is not significantly more than is being spent in the rest of the state.
There's $2.6 billion of capital for housing and community development in the state. Some of that non-City of Yes money will be spent in New York. But by my count the City of Yes money is 39 percent of the capital being spent statewide on housing and community development in this budget.
I don't think we have time for the rest of the nuances, at least in this particular colleague's time. But just to say we are -- we've made a great effort to make sure that we're spending money on critical capital needs throughout the state, including in New York City and rural areas in upstate programs.
This money will be divided into a wide range of programs in New York, including capital for public housing, capital for Mitchell-Lama. Those monies will be spent kind of in the normal way those are spent, to support that housing.
There's also a half a billion dollars for new construction in New York, and there's very little detail in this budget about what those programs will look like or what the labor standards or anything else will be.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would yield --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Yes.
SENATOR MARTINS:-- towards the same question, which is are there PLAs tied to the work, and will this work be done with project labor agreements to ensure that it's done with union labor and local labor?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Through you, Mr. President. Again, we're talking about 12 or 14 different kinds of funding. I mentioned half of that is in a program that has been designated for construction of new housing without any detail whatsoever. So there's certainly no detail about the labor standards that that will be spent -- although I suppose that will be developed as programs are developed.
Generally speaking, work in public housing is done with unionized labor. Generally speaking, some of the Mitchell-Lama -- I'd say the Mitchell-Lama money varies, which is a significant chunk of this. But I think it's going to vary depending on the program into which this money is being inserted, most of which are existing programs.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Senator.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Martins on the bill.
SENATOR MARTINS:Briefly. I would just ask that whether it's the City of Yes, whether it's housing programs, whether it's the Sustainable Futures Program where there is, again, another billion dollars that is being spent, if we're going to make billions of dollars of infrastructure investment in New York City and in New York State, that we prioritize doing so pursuant to PLAs to ensure that not only is it done for a fair wage, but that it's being done by local New York residents who are going to then spend those monies in our communities and supporting our local economies.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Martins.
Next up, Senator Mattera. Why do you rise?
SENATOR MATTERA:Thank you so much, Mr. President. And I would like to have, please, the sponsor for the Sustainable Futures Program.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Sustainable Futures program. I believe that's going to be Senator Harckham.
Senator Harckham, do you yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:I absolutely do.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:How are you, Senator?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Good to see you, Senator.
SENATOR MATTERA:Good to see you also too.
The Legislature modifies the Executive All Funds recommendation of a billion dollars by suballocating funds in the following manner: 450 million for building decarbonization; 50 million for EmPower+; 50 million for Clean Green Schools; 200 million for thermal energy networks, public and state-owned buildings; 40 million for municipal thermal energy networks; 250 million for zero-emissions transportation, including 100 million for school buses and charging; 50 million for fast charging; 50 million for Charge Ready; 200 million for renewable energy projects.
Is there any language, PLA language to protect organized labor, union construction workers with the building trades, with all of these projects?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. Number one, in the CLCPA there is union protection language. When this body drafted two years ago in the budget and passed the Climate Action Fund, we worked very closely with the AFL-CIO and the building trades, put in apprenticeship language, PLA language, local hiring language.
The whole purpose of the CLCPA was to lift all boats and include organized labor. And a lot of this is public spending, so it will be prevailing wage and union.
So for instance, the thermal energy projects are shovel-ready projects SUNY and CUNY -- actually, a lot of your members will benefit from that work. That will be pipe trades and plumbers and steamfitters, electricians.
The installing the fast charging, again, those are public contracts either through NYSERDA or NYPA or through local municipalities. So really, with the exception of the purchase of the school buses that has been discussed during the education session. And those, we don't control the labor on those. Although I do have a bill on that as well, to your point, for the future we can discuss.
But basically all of this, with the exception of the purchase of the school buses, is for organized labor, PLA and the such.
SENATOR MATTERA:Through you, Mr. President -- thank you for that.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MATTERA:So --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Wait one second, Senator.
Just -- I know it's rather perfunctory, but Senator Harckham, do you yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:I do yield. And I'm sorry I missed your question.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:No, no, no.
And one question I'm going to be asking you is obviously our good friend Senator Krueger, you know, with the EV school buses and everything like that, when we're talking about the charging stations, a tune of up to $100 million. How much of the total funding in this budget will assist every school district in our state to comply with the dates of the EV bus mandates?
For example, my school district, Kings Park, they own 68 school buses, Senator, 68. Very frightened right now. Each bus, $450,000 per bus. They now have to have charging stations, special charging stations that we need to build. You understand that. Long Island right now, just to give you a heads up, our whole grid is antiquated.
But how is this money -- is it first come, first served?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. Number one, your school district who you referenced by the time we finish voting this, will have an opportunity for 100 million more than they did this morning. And all our school districts will.
This is through application to NYSERDA. And we recall last year, through the good work of Senator Mayer, we set up in the budget, in the office of NYSERDA, an office for this school district transition to help with the transition, to point out sources of money.
So we had, as discussed before, 500 million in the Bond Act, a hundred million now. There are tens of millions in federal money that's already come to New York and is in school districts. So some of my school districts have gotten federal money. Some of the bus companies have gotten money for buses to distribute to districts. Let's hope the federal government does not cancel that program.
So no, there is not enough money today for every school district to completely comply with this demand. But as Senator Mayer mentioned, we've now put in four years' worth of waivers to get us there.
And we fully recognize that this is a process. There are going to be ups, there are going to be downs. You know, the goal is not to penalize our school districts. I hear the same thing from my school districts as well. We have an antiquated grid. You know, if we weren't doing anything with clean energy -- through you, Mr. President -- we would still have to upgrade our grid because our grid is so antiquated in all of our districts.
So, you know, we are in the process of creating a new economy. We are trying to do things that much of the rest of the country and much of the rest of the world have a year head start on all of us. But we will get there, and we will continue to collaborate with our districts to get there.
SENATOR MATTERA:Okay, thank you.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So on the 200 -- and thank you so much, Senator. On the $200 million for renewable energy projects in this section, what projects are being targeted in this? Because I sit -- we have very, very interesting Energy Committee meetings. I don't know if pretty much everybody loves to go to them lately, because they're very interesting.
So what projects are being targeted with this $200 million?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. And it's everything, right? Yeah. It's anything. So I know you are a proponent of hydrogen. We may differ on that. But if there is an appropriate hydrogen-related project on your district, they can apply to NYSERDA for this. It could be solar. It could be wind. It could be geothermal. Anything that really qualifies as a renewable energy project can apply to NYSERDA for this money.
SENATOR MATTERA:Okay, thank you so much.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:You know, we're having a huge, huge problem with our utility bills that are skyrocketing. Is there any language in this budget that shows to the public what the costs will be on these renewable energy projects? And how much will it cost the ratepayers?
So right now -- right now in certain areas -- we have LIPA in Long Island. National Grid, Senator Oberacker's district, just for example, the bills have gone up 50 percent, just so you know that, 50 percent more since the inception of the CLCPA.
NYSEG, Senator O'Mara's area, Finger Lakes, over a hundred percent it has gone up with the utility bills.
If you look at the line items, is there anything in this bill that is going to offset it so it's not going to be costing the ratepayers for all that is happening here with New York State with renewable energy?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President, yes, there are several answers.
Number one, this money is flowing in the same mechanism that the cap-and-invest funds should have. And I should have started with that in the beginning, that this billion dollars is replacing the revenue that we would have gotten through cap-and-invest that we passed into law two years ago that the Governor postponed. That would have been anywhere from 3 to 10 billion dollars a year.
Within that is an analysis that said the impact to New York's gross domestic product because of cap-and-invest would be 0.02 of 1 percent on gross domestic product.
Number two, there is money that will go for home efficiency for moderate and low-income households to reduce their energy bills.
And number three -- and this is something that I've said before in this chamber -- that a kilowatt of clean energy is less expensive than a kilowatt of fossil fuel energy.
And the upgrades to the grid we would need to make if we weren't adding a single solar panel in the State of New York, much of that is going to maintain an antiquated natural gas network. So just yesterday, the IEA announced a report now that 34 percent of the world's energy comes from renewables, 34 percent. If you look at the State of Texas, the State of Texas has no formal policy to address climate change. We know it's a conservative state, none of the Governor, the Attorney General and the Legislature, they don't talk about the need to address climate change. They are leading the country in renewables because they know it's the quickest way to scale up and it's the least expensive.
SENATOR MATTERA:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So, you know, we've been talking about different renewable energies, and I hope you're open-minded to retooling our existing power plants -- obviously we have this money that's allocated -- to retool our existing power plants with carbon capture. I don't know if you realize -- and all New York State realizes right now -- we care about clean energy, we care about our environment.
Do you realize that in other words right now we have frozen natural gas running up and down with trucks that are polluting our atmosphere right now as we speak, on our roadways, and the energy that's needed to liquify it to get pumped into the system because we have a capacity shortage. How do you feel about the Constitution Pipeline and about the NESE pipeline coming back in to, guess what, to restore, guess what, our natural gas?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Well, through you, Mr. President. Natural gas pipelines are not contemplated. This is renewable energy. And so natural gas pipelines are not contemplated in this legislation.
SENATOR MATTERA:Well, through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So what we're talking about is retooling our existing power plants, which is very -- the most economical way and the most efficient way to move forward. We could talk about this all day long. Proven.
So my question is, that would be our very clean-burning natural gas. So that is renewable energy that I'm talking about. But do you realize that right now we have trucks that are coming out of Chester, New York, 250 trucks that right now are being fueled up, put natural gas from Pennsylvania, and running all of our roadways, we see them all the time running up and down the Thruway. But again, nobody is even talking about this, but this is something so important. Are we -- could we look into this, please? I would appreciate that.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President.
Number one, I agree with the Senator that we should not be -- we want to reduce truck traffic. You know, we have an asthma problem in this state. We have a respiratory illness problem in this state. You know, one of the goals of the CPA -- take away climate -- is public health. And yesterday we had a lengthy debate on the health budget. That by cleaning our air, by 2030 we can save over $7 billion in healthcare costs -- asthma, emergency room visits, excess heat. Wouldn't that be great if we could plug that money back into some of the programs that we were talking about yesterday?
But through you, Mr. President, I don't accept the statement on fact that natural gas is the best way to go to retool our power plants, because it's not as cost-effective as renewables. A kilowatt of renewable energy is less expensive. And what is driving the cost of our utilities is our antiquated gas network. And what's happening is we're spending our -- forcing our ratepayers to pay billions of dollars a year just to maintain this antiquated distribution system with gas when it is much cheaper to electrify and use renewables, as we are seeing in places like Texas, which is in the heart of the fossil fuel industry, and they're now leading the nation in renewables.
SENATOR MATTERA:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So, you know, it's amazing that you're saying that Texas -- that we don't have that kind of environment here in New York State. But, you know, to go and sit there and say that we don't have transmission lines that are coming from other states -- that I hope that, in other words, with this money that we're looking at we have transmission lines coming from Jersey, Connecticut, right, Pennsylvania. And no one even talks about that.
So do we have anything in this that we're going to be self-sufficient and self-reliant for the future, that we don't have to rely on other states that are ran on fossil fuels?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. The more renewables we build in New York, the more self-sufficient we will be. We currently in New York receive a significant amount of our power from Canada, which given the trade war that's going on, will drive up rates for New Yorkers.
There was a threat of retaliation to cut off power from Canada, which means we would then need to be going to Pennsylvania and New Jersey and other states in the compact to be buying power on the spot market at even higher level.
So the more renewables we have here in New York -- and believe me, I hear colleagues loudly and clearly when they say we don't want to build on our farmland, it should not be all upstate. I agree, we need to do more with our renewables near where our power centers are. I carry a number of bills on that.
But it's much more efficient to generate renewables where the power is needed close to the population centers. So the more power we can generate in New York, to your point, sir, the more self-sufficient we will be.
SENATOR MATTERA:Okay. And I thank you so much. And through you, Mr. President. Thank you so much, Senator, you answered my questions.
Please, may I have the sponsor for the housing and community renewal, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Certainly, Senator Mattera. Senator Kavanagh I believe would be the person to answer that. I guess depending on what part. Do you know what part it is?
SENATOR MATTERA:What part. This is actually -- Senator Martins was actually speaking a little bit on this. So this is actually --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Certainly. Senator Kavanagh, do you yield?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:And I thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
And through you, Mr. President. You know, Senator Martins just asked a quick question about the project labor agreements for -- we have $500 million proposed for capital subsidies to fund the New York construction of affordable housing of the City of New York, excuse me. And 200 million for the purposes of capital projects and other improvements at the housing developments owned and operated by the New York City Housing Authority.
My question is, I didn't hear -- the project labor agreements, this is obviously, you know, taxpayers' monies. You know, how will we guarantee with the trades that they will be working? Because construction is the backbone of the economy. And I didn't really hear your answer, if it was correctly, that these projects will be done with the trades, with the building trades of New York City.
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Through you, Mr. President.
Again, this budget contains about $2.65 billion in capital spending on housing and community development. My colleague is talking about, you know, about 20 percent of that.
This budget bill does not provide the specifics as to the largest item my colleague mentioned, the half a billion dollars for new construction in New York City, how that will be spent, what those programs are, what kinds of housing will be built, what scale. And without that detail, there is also very little detail as to what the labor standards will be in those programs.
Notwithstanding that, large-scale construction in New York, particularly large-scale construction of residential buildings -- and one assumes that if you're spending half a billion dollars to produce housing, you'll probably be producing some large buildings. In most circumstances that is done with union-related -- union contractors with union work associated with those projects.
But the decision about how that money will be spent will be made going forward. Today, we allocate it. People are going to figure out how to divide that into actual programs through RFPs and other items that can make sure that housing gets produced. And those documents will specify the terms.
I, as I think my colleague knows, have always been a very strong supporter of our organized labor. And I will just note that, again, there are $2.65 billion of capital spending in this. There are not provisions related to the labor requirements of any of those programs in the budget bill that is before us. But that does not mean that there's not a lot of union labor going into those projects. It's just not something that's provided for in the budget today.
SENATOR MATTERA:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So pretty much out of the answer I'm getting no, there is not a project labor agreement.
So I have something here called a peace agreement that is actually in the draft bill. Can you explain what that is? What is a peace agreement?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Through you, Mr. President. I couldn't hear too well there. I'm not sure -- can my colleague repeat what he's referring to and where it is?
SENATOR MATTERA:There is actually in the bill draft, it says a peace agreement. So is that -- so through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Pardon me. So the sponsor will clarify I guess the question.
SENATOR MATTERA:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:But actually, Senator Mattera, do you have a question, another question?
SENATOR MATTERA:He didn't hear me say peace agreement.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Okay. So Senator Mattera --
SENATOR MATTERA:I'm sorry, the Senator. Not you. The Senator didn't hear.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:No, all good. By all means rephrase, Senator Kavanagh.
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Mr. President, is my colleague referring to a specific provision of this bill?
SENATOR MATTERA:Yes. So in the bill it shows that there's like a peace agreement, because obviously there's not a project labor agreement. So if there is some kind of a picket line, a job issue with the trades outside, picketing, about the project because we don't have a local workforce and we have -- through you, Mr. President -- and we have out-of-state workers that are taking our jobs away, especially with taxpayers' monies, who do we go to?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Through you, Mr. President --
SENATOR MATTERA:Who do the trades -- excuse me, the union trades go to?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Through you, Mr. President. I can think of a lot of things a peace agreement might mean. You know, there's lots of strife in the world, and sometimes peace agreements are done. I've heard of sometimes this concept of a labor peace agreement in the context of public spending in a lot of areas.
But I ask again, is my colleague referring to a specific provision of the bill before us, or are we just generally speculating about how one might do labor relations?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Mattera, could you clarify for Senator Kavanagh?
SENATOR MATTERA:Yes. And I do have -- I do have that in the bill draft. And I will -- as we're going along, I will get that to you. Because it is in the bill draft, by the way. So I don't know if they can't find that.
Through you, Mr. President. Would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Through you, Mr. President, yes. But just again stipulating that it's not clear what provisions of this bill my colleague is referring to, but I'm happy to try to address his questions nonetheless.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So in other words, if there is any kind of a job stoppage, my question again to you, Senator, is there any -- like, okay, the building trades, Gary LaBarbera, President Gary LaBarbera gets involved, who would he go to, especially if it's something like this, to come up with, you know, something to make sure that we get the workers on these projects, the union workers on this project -- on these projects with this money?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Through you, Mr. President. The gentleman that my colleague refers to certainly has my phone number and probably many of our phone numbers.
But the question of how these capital projects are going to be developed is going to be subject to subsequent decisions about the terms of particular programs. There are many provisions of state law that have labor standards in them. And if this money goes to a program that has existing labor standards, then those standards will apply.
If the city or the state put out an RFP with some of this money, perhaps those will have labor standards. But until that happens, it's hard to say how the particular needs of workers will be covered by this provision. Any more than it is unclear, for example, whether these will be very-low-income developments or middle-income developments, where they'll be located, how tall they'll be.
There are lots of details to be worked out, particularly about the half a billion dollars that my colleague referenced earlier. It is an important step forward to make half a billion dollars available for this construction, along with the other $2.15 billion that we're making available in this budget.
But I do not believe that there are provisions in this bill that relate one way or the other to the important question of how we'll make sure that the workers are properly treated in these projects.
SENATOR MATTERA:And I thank you so much.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor just continue to yield for just one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:And there's actually -- it's actually in Section 5, it says the labor peace agreement. It says "For the purposes of this section, labor peace agreement means an agreement between the owner and the developer and labor organizations.
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Through you, Mr. President, it's a little hard -- what part?
Through you, Mr. President. This bill has, you know, page numbers, line numbers -- I want to be as helpful as possible here. It's hard, without knowing what text we're referring to, to address the question.
SENATOR MATTERA:All right. Through you, Mr. President, just one more question, would the sponsor continue to yield, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MATTERA:So again, so this way all of the building trades understand that there is no language at all for them to go by to make sure that they're going to be on these job sites. I know I'm being redundant. But again, we don't have any language for all these millions of dollars that are going to protect the local workforce, local jobs for local people that work so hard, that are trained properly with apprenticeship programs. And we have no idea who's going to be on these job sites.
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Through you, Mr. President. The -- from my experience, people in the building trades appreciate when we allocate $2.65 billion for new construction, and also certainly will appreciate all of our efforts to make sure that good union-scale jobs come out of those projects.
This bill, which is putting forth half a billion dollars for new construction in New York, as well $2.15 billion for other capital projects in the state, as of today -- this money did not exist as of yesterday. But if we vote for it today, there will be half a billion dollars to build lots of new housing. And I think that is an opportunity for our building trades that they will appreciate. And I certainly will support that the -- any efforts to make sure there are good union contractors and good union jobs, as has been the case with a lot of large-scale construction in New York.
But as of today I also have not gotten any -- I did not have this -- even though I am very frequently in touch with the building trades, I have not heard any concern that this language in this capital budget bill does not contain specific labor provisions for these projects, which have yet to be worked out, as do basically all the other elements of these projects -- of these programs.
SENATOR MATTERA:Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Mattera.
Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?
SENATOR WALCZYK:Thank you, Mr. President. Two different topics. And whoever is available could go first. Sustainable Futures Program and highway funding. Sustainable Futures --
(Overtalk.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Sustainable Futures is Senator Harckham.
Senator Harckham, do you yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President. So NYSERDA is still collecting a systems benefit charge on every electric bill in the State of New York, right? We're not changing that in this budget at all?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:No.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:But we're allocating an additional -- on top of the fee that they already extract from every New Yorker on their energy bill, we're allocating another $25.8 million in tax money to NYSERDA for their operations in this capital bill as well?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. I think you are -- the Senator is referring to NYSERDA's special assessment, which the Governor tried to increase and we successfully rejected the increase of that special assessment.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam -- or through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes, Madam President.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I'm reading the Legislature concurs with the Executive on All Funds recommendation of $25.8 million for NYSERDA.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President, I believe what the Senator is referring to is the state's share of a federal program for Western New York that is not part of the Sustainable Futures capital.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I'll pivot off of NYSERDA, at least in part, for a moment and try to stick to specifically the Sustainable Futures Program.
So this is a $1 billion program, is that correct?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:That is correct. Through you, Mr. President.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:How much was allocated in last year's budget of taxpayer dollars for the Sustainable Futures Program?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President, there was no Sustainable Futures Program last year.
The Governor created the Sustainable Futures Program as a substitute for the revenue that would have come had she implemented the cap-and-invest as the law had dictated.
So obviously there are some in the environmental community who are very disappointed that the Governor didn't move forward with cap-and-invest. Obviously there's some on your side of the aisle who are probably relieved she didn't move forward with cap-and-invest.
But the money that was going to be generated through that was going to be allocated to these types of projects anyhow.
So for the period that DEC and NYSERDA were, quote, unquote, collecting data -- which is why she said there was a need for the pause -- this will continue to build some of those community-centered projects that were contemplated in cap-and-invest and the Community Action Fund.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So why was cap-and-invest delayed?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. I think you would really need to get that from the Governor.
We were all aware that DEC and NYSERDA last year had issued preliminary findings on three different levels of another program -- you know, high, medium and low. It was -- it was sort of common knowledge in the environmental community that the regs were ready to go. So this was a decision the Governor made. Publicly they have said that they want to do two things, they want to collect emissions data so they know how to better administer the program. And two, they want to spend time educating the public as to what is going -- the program is going to entail. And so that was the reason the second floor publicly gave.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So if we're implementing the program using instead taxpayer money for this $1 billion program to do what cap-and-invest would have done, the investment portion now shifting onto the taxpayers, is cap-and-invest gone? Is it unnecessary at this point?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President, no. Number one, cap-and-invest is still the law. And the Governor and the state are being sued by a number of environmental groups for the second floor not implementing.
Number two, this is a one-time $1 billion. Cap-and-invest was -- at the low level would bring in 3 billion a year; at the high end, could bring in as much as 10 billion a year.
And so all of the kind of energy efficiency things we talk about, the grid upgrades we talk about, you know, more clean energy, buying heat pumps for folks who can't afford them -- all these kind of things were supposed to come out of this money.
So this is just a one-time -- dare I say a tide-us-over until we really get to implementing that program where we really begin to, in a formal and programmatic way, transition our economy.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I'll save the follow-up question on the "one-time" for next year's budget. We have a history of creating programs that we say are going to be one-time and then reallocating monies and taking additional taxpayer monies. But I'll save that follow-up for next year.
How will this $1 billion investment of taxpayer money lower energy costs for New Yorkers?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President, there are a couple of ways.
Number one, there is money in here for energy efficiency for low- and moderate-income homeowners. That will save them money. There's money in here for community solar, which will save them money. There's money in here for the Clean Green Schools program, which will make heating and cooling of schools more efficient and therefore more affordable and help on the tax side there. So there are a number of initiatives in here that will help.
And then getting back to Senator Mattera's point when he asked the question -- through you, Mr. President -- about will the clean energy generation impact ratepayers, when we deregulated the grid, we separated generation from transmission. And so the utilities cannot generate and will not be able to increase for transition there.
So -- and as we said in the last debate, a kilowatt of clean energy, less expensive than a kilowatt of fossil fuel energy. So in the macro sense, you know, ultimately costs come down. But there are some micro things -- there are many micro things in here that will help.
And as we said, this money will be invested back into communities. These jobs will be given to our local trades folks. The companies will be local companies. So this -- yes, it's a lot of money. But when we look at capital investment, it's just that this is investment back into our communities, back into jobs, back into families, and back to all the supporting entities.
So there are other benefits.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I know sometimes in the parlance of government here when we say invest and we're talking about taxpayer money and, you know, we're going to save this group or that group a little bit of money, part of my question is really when I'm asking this a year from now, how much should energy bills in New York State be reduced by shifting the burden of a billion dollars onto taxpayers for this Sustainable Futures Program? How much can every resident in the State of New York expect their energy bill to drop over the next year?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:I -- through you, Mr. President, I don't think it's realistic that this $1 billion investment will drive everyone's energy bills down, especially given so many utilities have rate cases before the PSC, or will be announcing them very soon.
And as we just mentioned, generation is decoupled from utility pricing. But these are investments that we need to begin to make in terms of changing our economy. So for instance, we have heard -- and I'm sure you have heard -- concerns from folks who own trucking fleets with the truck mandate, about the lack of heavy-duty charging infrastructure for trucks in New York State. We have allocated a hundred million dollars for that purpose, to begin to build out that infrastructure to show industry that we have skin in the game.
So by making these investments we are starting down a path that ultimately will transform our economy in the process.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I'll bite. I'll go down that path with you.
So if we're talking about fast chargers, you've got allocated out here within the Sustainable Futures Program of a billion dollars of taxpayer money, $100 million, 50 million for fast charging and 50 million for Charge Ready. How many fast chargers and chargers will that equate to? How much can the taxpayers expect to see as far as charging stations go, for $100 million?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:We can get you that. I mean, obviously the heavy-duty chargers are more expensive than the fast chargers. But we will get a calculation. Unfortunately, I don't think we can get it to you for this debate, but we'll get you the calculation.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yeah, and if you can -- hold on one sec.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:(Conferring.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Walczyk, he's looking for further clarification to your question.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Just trying to get a clarification.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Standing by.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Just getting a number for you, sir.
All right, so we don't take up any more time, they're working on some very rough calculations, but I don't want to hold up your questioning and your time. So please go ahead, and when we get the numbers we'll get them to you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Harckham yields to your next question, Senator Walczyk.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Excellent. I'll move on to the next portion that I wanted to chat with you about, because I was listening to your debate with my colleague earlier talking about the $200 million that is broken out from this $1 billion taxpayer fund for NYSERDA called the Sustainable Futures Program. And I was really curious to see how the $200 million of renewable energy projects would be defined.
So if you could provide some clarity for me there, that -- I would love that. Would this include biomass projects as renewable?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. Through the CLCPA definition of renewable energy, biomass is not considered renewable energy in the CLCPA. But I think it has a very broad definition of many different types of projects. We're talking about hydrogen, solar, geothermal, agrivoltaics, photovoltaics. A fairly broad -- broad array.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So you mentioned hydrogen as being renewable. Would that be hydrogen manufactured through steam methane reforming, which is the common way to manufacture hydrogen?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. Hydrogen would qualify if it's green hydrogen -- i.e., produced with renewable energy. As opposed to -- as we know, hydrogen is an energy-intensive process and there are a number of different processes. Some have successfully used excess solar capacity to generate hydrogen. That's considered green hydrogen. Or wind. That would count.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:The Governor proposed in her initial budget a plan for nuclear, an overall plan for nuclear power in the State of New York.
Would that -- would that be eligible for the renewable energy projects here in the Sustainable Futures Program?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:So in the special assessment that we discussed earlier, there's an allocation of roughly $7 million to study nuclear in New York. Particularly the newer smaller systems, the modular systems, some people call them. The Governor has taken an interest in this technology. And so the Legislature agreed to that, but we wanted to ensure that in addition to just testing the technology -- or not testing but analyzing the technology, they were also sufficiently analyzing environmental protection, public safety and cost.
Because the reason nuclear had been successful for years past was the vast amounts of government subsidies that they received. So these systems are still very, very expensive. And you talk about, rightly, taxpayer money when we make these kinds of investments, so we wanted that included in the study as well.
(Pause.)
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President, never mind. The study was dropped. I'm sorry, we thought the study was in. The study is out.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Okay, so no nuclear master plan in this budget, then.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:No.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:If I may --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Harckham.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:-- through you, Mr. President, to answer your question, that would not preclude the Executive from just doing that analysis now. NYSERDA could do that, NYPA could do that in the course of their normal operations, so ...
SENATOR WALCZYK:Would you continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:These projects, the $200 million renewable energy project -- and actually, all of the funding under the Sustainable Futures Program billion dollars -- would those be subject to Buy American provisions under law currently?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. Everything in this provision is subject to Buy American.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Can you guess which country makes 85 percent of the world's solar panels?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:I would tell you, Mr. President, that that is China.
And through you, Mr. President, I would also say that is a reason for us to continue to invest here in New York and bring these technologies and these companies here to New York. The more we spend, whether it be on heat pumps, solar panels or the like, we're then creating jobs here in New York and we're not reliant on the international trade pipeline.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
SENATOR O'MARA:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I know you've mentioned heat pump technology a couple of times. Is there something for homeowners in this $1 billion investment of taxpayer money? Because I know that's something people are concerned about with the electrification of the State of New York, whether they'll be able to even convert their home to electric, if they even have the capacity.
Is there something here specifically for homeowners? Because you keep mentioning heat pumps.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President, there is. There's $50 million for home efficiency. And also electrification that is in here. And this is on top of additional home energy efficiency programs and incentives that NYSERDA and local utilities currently have.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So with a $200 million renewable energy project allocation here, you know, we saw the Empire Wind project just get on pause, maybe canceled. That was a $5 billion project. How many megawatts could the ratepayers -- could we expect to see from New York State with a $200 million investment?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President, that's a good question. I don't know if we have that calculation, because it could be for different types of renewable energy.
(Conferring.) So through you, Mr. President. There's an allocation for New York Power Authority for Build Public Renewables. That's 3 gigs. But again, for 200 million, it's a small -- it's a small figure. You know, NYPA and NYSERDA are doing much larger projects. But this is more for some of the local projects that are not as competitive, necessarily, as some of the larger projects.
But again, this is 200 million of a one-shot of a billion, when what we really should be doing, according to the law, is cap-and-invest, which would be a minimum of 3 billion a year, could be as much as 10 billion, depending on how they tailor the auction market.
So that's really where we're going to get the efficiency.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Thank you.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Walczyk on the bill.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So I just -- I want to button up that portion before I move on to highway funding and some of the observations that I just made from this debate.
One key highlight, we're taking an extra billion dollars of taxpayer money -- and by admission of the sponsor, people should not expect that investment, investment of taking that taxpayer money to reduce their energy bill at all.
In addition, part of that is going to $200 million in new renewable energy projects. But we don't even know how many megawatts of energy that's going to put into our system.
This is a billion dollars that is actually going to increase the cost of production of energy in the State of New York and make your bill go up even more.
And with that, Mr. President, I would ask someone to yield on highway funding.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Certainly. Senator Walczyk, as a courtesy, you have approximately seven and a half minutes remaining.
Senator Cooney, do you yield? Senator Cooney, do you yield?
SENATOR COONEY:I do yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Extreme Winter Recovery, flat the last two years. Did it increase this year?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President, it did not increase. We put all of the funds that we could into the CHIPS bucket that I spoke to with Senator Martins.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:State Touring Route program, flat the last two years. Did it increase this year?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President, same answer. All priority was given towards the CHIPS.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:PAVE NY program, flat the last two years. Did it increase this year?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President, same answer. All allocations were given towards the CHIPS program.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:the sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:The Governor's own created Pave Our Potholes program, been flat the last two years. Did it increase this year?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President, same answer. All allocations were given towards the CHIPS program.
Although I will note that CHIPS can be used to do pavement and pothole refilling.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:BRIDGE NY program has been flat the last two years. Did it increase in the budget bill before us this year?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President, all funds were allocated towards the CHIPS program as a priority.
But as you noted before, CHIPS can also include work to bridges and as well as some culverts as well.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, we'll let the CHIPS fall. CHIPS, they were flat --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Are you asking the sponsor to yield?
SENATOR WALCZYK:Oh, would he yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:CHIPS, did they increase this year?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President, yes. All allocations were given towards the CHIPS program. We were able to get an increase in the CHIPS program. I'm very proud to have worked to seek a $50 million increase over last year for this fiscal year, and a commitment for next year for an additional $50 million.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:When the orange shirts came down to the Capitol, the county highways, town highway supers came down here, they asked for us to consolidate CHIPS, Extreme Winter Recovery, and touring roads into one line of funding -- it can be a little confusing for them sometimes -- and also asked for an increase. Did we consolidate those funding streams?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President. Those conversations were had and we're still open to having those conversations around collapsing some of those different funding buckets. Understanding from those highway superintendents and a lot of the stakeholders that CHIPS is the most easily allocatable funding source for municipalities and for counties. But in terms of which buckets were combined, that was not held in the budget process. But open to that conversation as we go outside the budget.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:They had the same request on PAVE NY and POP. Can I assume the same answer?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President, yes.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR COONEY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Those orange shirts, not just a great lobby effort and come down here once a year, but they also do the very important work of maintaining the safety of our roads and highways across New York State.
After years of being flat and dramatic costs of business increasing, they asked for what I thought was a pretty moderate ask for $250 million in the CHIPS program. Why just 50 and not the 250 that they were asking for?
SENATOR COONEY:Through you, Mr. President. We very much agree with the need for more funding for our roads and bridges. I stood with those highway superintendents along with yourself to allocate as many dollars as possible to this program.
You'll remember that in the Senate one-house budget we were pleased to deliver 125 million towards the CHIPS program. And we weren't able to get that across the finish line in terms of the final three-way agreement. We pushed as hard as we can because we do believe that by doing the investments in terms of structural repairs, we can make more of our roads and bridges from fair and poor condition to excellent condition. And we know we have to do more, and we're going to continue to do more next year.
Which is why we got that two-year commitment for not only 50 million in this year's budget, but for next year to start 50 million higher, so that we can continue to get that number up closer to where our highway superintendents need us to be.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Mr. President, how am I doing on time? How much time?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Three minutes.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I'll go on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Walczyk on the bill.
SENATOR WALCZYK:State DOT, we gave them an additional $800 million to support their capital plan -- $800 million for the state roads. And the state, they're buying new trucks, they're doing pretty well with their capital plan. But we've largely ignored our local municipalities who do all of the hard work across the way.
Local highway superintendents are responsible for over 100,000 center lane miles across the State of New York. How can they afford to maintain 8600 bridges if we can't even increase them what they've asked year over year? Flat after a number of years. And $50 million is a lot of money, but when you're throwing $20 million at a World Cup that's not even coming to the State of New York and $20 million at a hip-hop museum that nobody asked for, I think you could probably afford $50 million for the roads and the bridges that make sure that our State Police and our EMS get where they need to go, get the products to your homes and your grocery stores that you depend on in your lives every day.
In fact, this costs New York State a lot more in the long run, our municipalities and the state, if we're not able to maintain our roads and our bridges with some simple maintenance and paving some more miles each year. As your roads degrade, they only get more expensive to rebuild in the long run.
So in addition to that, you've certainly shown what your priorities are in this capital budget bill. We've got a bailout for Buffalo's Parking Authority, but nothing for the City of Little Falls; we've got a billion dollars for NYSERDA, but nothing that is going to reduce the costs of energy for New York State's ratepayers. We've got $3 billion for New York's MTA and little but peanuts for our local roads and bridges. And we've got $335 million for the City of Albany's Rescue Plan, when what the City of Albany, this capital, really needs is respect for their police department and support of policing.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Walczyk.
I would note that the hip-hop museum has affordable housing, and hip-hop is New York's home-grown art form.
Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick on the resolution -- excuse me. Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, why do you rise? Who are you asking to yield?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Thank you, Mr. President.
I would like to ask some questions on the Sustainable Futures Program. So I believe that's Senator Harckham.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Certainly. Senator Harckham, do you yield?
Senator Walczyk got me worked up saying nobody asked for the hip-hop museum.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:You know, because if wasn't for the Bronx.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Walczyk -- excuse me. Senator Harckham.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Whoever I am. I've been called much worse.
Yes, Mr. President.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Through you, Mr. President. We're all a little tired.
But through you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask a few questions specifically regarding the $200 million for renewable energy projects. I'd like to know if it's been determined how that money will be spent. I believe there was some discussion before about it -- sort of a first-come, first-served process. But I'd like to know how it will be determined where this money is spent throughout the state.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. Good question.
The money from this, because it's a replacement for the cap-and-invest money, must be spent in the same manner as called for in the Climate Action Fund. So 35 percent goes to either disadvantaged or environmental justice communities, all of the labor protections that we talked about in our conversation with Senator Mattera.
And then I believe -- and then it would be a competitive process, through most likely NYSERDA, who does most of this work, that the projects will be decided upon.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:So through you, Mr. President. My question is, how did we arrive at the number of $200 million? Is there an expectation of certain projects that have priority?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. I do not believe so. There was -- when we talked about the 450 million for building green homes, the 200 million thermal energy projects for CUNY and SUNY -- there are a number of shovel-ready projects for CUNY and SUNY that have been identified. So that's more of a hard number.
And I think the other renewable energy project number, that $200 million, was more of a percentage of the funding as opposed to, you know, either the Legislature or the Governor has 13, 14, 20 projects in mind.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:So through you, Mr. President, I'd like to know -- I believe it says renewable energy generating projects. My question is, can this be used for offshore wind? Can it be used for solar panels? But could it also be used for battery storage?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President, it theoretically could be used for battery storage.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:So if we look at this with -- in combination with the RAPID Act, which was previously passed through the budget process, my question is, what input will local communities have regarding whether or not these projects are sited in their communities?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. The whole point of the Climate Action Fund is these are community-centered projects. They need to be coming out of the community for the benefit of the community. And that's what -- the language in the law we wrote to create the Climate Action Fund.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield? Senator Harckham, do you yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:I do.
But the other thing I would like to add is that, Senator, you mentioned the RAPID Act. Battery storage is not in the RAPID Act. So any electrical battery storage project in New York must get complete local zoning and planning approval. The state has no say in that.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Since the Senator's already yielded, you may proceed with your question.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes, I yield.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Thank you.
So if I understand what you were saying, we can use this funding for solar panels, for offshore wind, for battery storage, but that the RAPID Act would potentially impact the solar and the offshore wind piece that we could override local control, but that the battery storage location would not be subject to the RAPID Act.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Theoretically, yes.
What we're talking about, though, here are smaller projects. As Senator Walczyk mentioned in his questioning, you know, when we're talking about wind, we're talking about billions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. If we're talking about, you know, a battery storage complex of utility scale, that's hundreds of millions of dollars.
This total pot is only $200 million. So I think what was really envisioned here -- yes, by statute it could go to those things, but I think really more for things like community solar, those types of projects that are community-centered and for the benefit of the communities in which they sit.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:So thank you for that clarification.
Now, looking at the language of the bill, it makes reference to Section 163 and 112 of the law, saying that a hundred million potentially will not be subject to approval by the Comptroller. And I'm wondering if you have a comment if that -- if my read of this is correct.
And I apologize, I was referencing the State Finance Law.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:(Conferring.) Through you, Mr. President. Thank you for the question, Senator.
Nine hundred million {sic} of the 100 million is -- RFP is competitive. The hundred million that you referenced is not competitive; therefore, not subject to RFP, not subject to Comptroller review.
So that would be -- and this language is similar in the Bond Act as well. There's a certain amount of money that is not required for RFP, so that if things come up in the course of agency operations, the Governor has some flexibility to plug money into those projects.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:So Senator, just to clarify -- through you, Mr. President -- that the $100 million that is carved out, there is no oversight by the Comptroller, that this is sort of money that is not necessarily going through the same hoops as the first hundred million. Is that correct?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Well, the other 900 million.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Nine hundred million, I'm sorry.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Yes and no. This is the same -- there's precedent for this. This is the same language that we have in the Bond Act, the same percentage that we have in the $4.2 billion Environmental Green Jobs, Green Communities Bond Act that the voters passed.
And again, there will be oversight in the fact that this stays on-book. This is not like NYSERDA money that's not -- that is off-book, like through the RGGI charges. So we will be able to track this money through our normal oversight activities of the agencies.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR HARCKHAM:-- add to that? All right. And the Governor on these projects also needs to submit an annual report and the plans to the Finance Director as well. So there will be that level of oversight.
I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Harckham, do you yield?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Thank you, Mr. President. Through you.
I just wanted to ask, why would the Legislature consider $100 million an amount that they were comfortable with not having Comptroller oversight?
SENATOR HARCKHAM:Through you, Mr. President. There's precedent in law for this already. It's the same precedent in the Bond Act.
And this is to give the agencies who are doing this work flexibility in a volatile -- as was mentioned in the debate before, the volatility of costs that we're experiencing right now in the energy markets, whether they be carbon or renewable energy. And this will give them the flexibility to plug in various projects that may need assistance.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick on the bill.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Thank you, Senator Harckham, for answering my questions.
I have a difficult time when this chamber continues to put forth legislation of funding money that we're not getting the proper oversight and the proper local input with regards to these renewable energy projects.
As I stated, combined with the RAPID Act, we have a substantial investment without local input. And I pause whenever that happens, because our communities deserve to have input into what is going to be in their backyard.
You know, we've seen what happens when the state lacks appropriate oversight by the Comptroller. We had the Buffalo Billion scandal under the former governor. We've had reports of hundreds of millions of dollars in state payments for COVID tests allegedly steered to a donor of the current Governor. And this body needs to do more to make sure that we have appropriate oversight of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. President, I'd like to ask a few questions about the funding for NUMC, which I believe is $50 million. I'm not sure who I'd ask that to.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, she's asking about the funding for NUMC. The Nassau County medical --
SENATOR KRUEGER:Oh, that was yesterday. Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Krueger, would you yield for that question?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes. I'm having déjà vu. Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Déjà vu all over again. The sponsor yields.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Thank you, Mr. President. Through you.
Yesterday Senator Krueger was reading from an article that was an opinion article, an editorial from Newsday that was dated May 6th, the day before we actually were presented with the bill.
So I was wondering how it is that Newsday knew about it before the members of this chamber. But my question to Senator Krueger is the fact that $50 million we discussed yesterday for a distressed hospital, yet it's going to be capital money, not money that they can use for their operating expenses. And I'm wondering why that money was allocated in that way.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. The $50 million is capital money. So we haven't gotten to that bill yet, and it will be lined out in that bill. So that's why it was being budgeted that way. It's for capital costs, not operating costs.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Through you, Mr. President --
SENATOR KRUEGER:And I actually don't remember whether the editorial was May 6th or a little earlier, because that folder's in my office. Because I didn't know we were doing that discussion again today.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Okay. Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:So, Mr. President, I believe we are talking about the capital projects bill, which is why I asked the question.
And I know that we've been at this a long time, so it's easy to get confused, Senator Krueger.
My question, though, following up on this $50 million, is why would we give money to a distressed hospital for a capital investment when typically a capital investment is going to create more operating expenses? And you indicated that this hospital is in such trouble and is having such a difficult time, why would we further burden the operating expenses of a distressed hospital by requiring them to improve their capital and their structure?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. My understanding from the Governor's people and from various articles, including the editorial referenced yesterday, is that they have a very serious structural problem with the hospital that needs to be addressed with capital money almost immediately.
So you can have distressed hospitals with operating, you know, deficits, which it does have. But you also can't have a hospital that continues to function if it's structurally unsafe.
SENATOR CANZONERI-FITZPATRICK:Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Rhoads, why do you rise?
SENATOR RHOADS:I just wanted to ask --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Can we have some order in the chamber, please? Excuse me. May we have some order in the chamber. Thank you.
Senator Rhoads.
SENATOR RHOADS:Mr. President, I was hoping that Senator Krueger might yield to a few more questions on NUMC.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Senator yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you. Through you, Mr. President.
Senator Krueger, would you mind elaborating on what this urgent structural repair is that has to be made to NUMC? Because this is the first I'm hearing about it.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. We believe that actually one of the other Long Island members referenced the need for it yesterday, I'm just not sure which one.
So we would have to send somebody hunting for the answer to that.
SENATOR RHOADS:And will the Senator continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Senator yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Through you, Mr. President. And this $50 million in capital funding, since it is to address an urgent structural capital need at NUMC, apparently, when can we expect from today's date that money to actually appear in the account of NUMC?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. My understanding is that, again, in this budget document, even though it's separated into several different sections of the budget, first there would be the changes in the leadership -- who is the board, who's running the hospital. Then they would submit their plan for how they would use that money to Division of Budget. Then Division of Budget would approve that money to be spent as specifically itemized and requested by the new board leadership of the hospital corporation.
SENATOR RHOADS:Would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you. Through you, Mr. President.
So my understanding is that this urgent, pressing structural need that has to be addressed at the hospital will first have to wait until the new board is appointed. Then that new board will have to figure out what the urgent structural need is, how to fix it, develop a plan on how to fix it, then submit that plan to the state. Then the state has to review the plan, approve the plan, and then issue the money.
Am I correct in my understanding?
SENATOR KRUEGER:That is how money is spent at the state level pretty much on every item.
And I will just point out again, because maybe people forgot my points from yesterday, the reason this entire plan is going forward is because this is a distressed hospital in enormous debt, debt growing every month. People panicked about whether they will be able to continue to function as an important hospital, particularly in the poor communities of Nassau County.
So this 50 million is part of an overall effort to restructure, help this hospital stabilize, and move forward.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Through you, Mr. President. Can any of this $50 million be used to pay down debt?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. It is conceivable that the board and the Governor's Division of Budget would agree to do something like that. I don't know.
SENATOR RHOADS:And will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:So can any of this -- through you, Mr. President, can any of this capital money be used to help with the hospital's operating expenses?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. It's my understanding that as capital money, that would not be a recognized use of the money.
But of course there's another section of the state budget that has significant new monies for distressed hospitals for operating costs. And I don't believe there is anything within that language that would prevent NUMC from applying for some of those funds as well.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Through you, Mr. President. Is there any other money in the budget that would be used, for example, to enable NUMC to meet its operating expenses?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I believe that's the question I just answered. There is money in the budget for distressed hospitals. We believe NUMC definitely meets the definition of a distressed hospital, and so it could be eligible to apply for some of the distressed hospital funding for operating costs, yes.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
I'm a little bit confused by your answer, only because Nassau University Medical Center has been a distressed hospital for the last several years, has applied for distressed hospital funding certainly over the course of the last two years, and at the discretion of the Governor and the Department of Health has received a grand total of zero distressed hospital funds.
So while you're saying they may eligible to apply for those funds, is there any commitment that you're aware of from the Governor or from the Department of Health to provide any distressed hospital funds in any amount to NUMC?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. It's our understanding that NUMC was refusing to provide documentation to the Governor's office and the Department of Health to complete their application for distressed hospital funding, which is why they did not get approved for any, and I believe correlates to another article I referenced yesterday that the then-head of the board had an interesting robbery in his house where the only documents stolen were those documents that were not being provided to the State Department of Health to answer those kinds of questions.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Senator Krueger -- through you, Mr. President -- you referenced that people were panicked and begging for help. The county executive didn't ask for help. The chairman of the board of NUMC didn't ask for help. The CEO of the hospital didn't ask for help.
Can you illuminate us as to who it was exactly that was panicked and asking for help?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. I think they all did ask for help. They just didn't submit the documentation or answer the questions.
In fact, after we got off the floor yesterday, because several had asked me the question has anybody been talking about this with County Executive Blakeman, the response -- actually, I didn't ask for it, I got volunteered it -- was that the Governor's office has been trying to have a discussion with county executive Blakeman about exactly this issue for quite a while, and he's refused to talk to them.
So I think people were saying they had a problem. They were saying they were distressed, they were saying they were in need of help. And they weren't getting money because they weren't actually providing the legal documentation that would be needed to approve what they asked for. And that's why the state took a fairly dramatic approach to trying to insert itself into redesign of the board and redirection for leadership, to make sure it actually went forward correctly now.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator Krueger. Through you, Mr. President.
Do we know if any of the $50 million in capital funding that's being provided will be utilized for the construction of any housing?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I don't know. But I guess I could ask, if you don't mind, the questioner: Does that hospital have housing now?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Rhoads, will you yield to -- will you yield, Senator Rhoads?
SENATOR RHOADS:I will yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Rhoads yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Is there housing connected to the hospital or the corporation now?
SENATOR RHOADS:There is.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Then I think I suspect that the answer is no.
SENATOR RHOADS:And will the Senator continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the Senator yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Krueger yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Do we know -- through you, Mr. President -- whether any of the capital money will be utilized for the expansion of any psychiatric services that are provided at the hospital?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. I believe that those kinds of decisions about what services hospitals offer -- need to expand, need to improve their space for -- are in fact the responsibility of the board of the hospital.
So I certainly would not be in a place to know that.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Through you, Mr. President. You've indicated that it would be the board that's in the position to know. Do you mean the board that the Governor is removing?
SENATOR KRUEGER:No, Mr. President, I believe that this money that we're talking about how it's spent is contingent upon the creation of a new board of directors -- that might include some of the existing board of directors, I don't know -- and new leadership for the hospital and chairmanship of the board.
And so only once those are in place would there be discussions about how they wish to use money, and an application. And only then would we know what they're asking for and what money's approved, both capital and operating.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Perhaps -- perhaps you misunderstood my question. Perhaps -- perhaps it's not clear.
I thought in your answer to the previous question you had indicated that it would be the board of the hospital that would know whether this money was going to be spent for the expansion of psychiatric services.
I'm a little confused by the answer only because this $50 million is being provided for capital expenses presumably for a reason, yet there's been no communication with the existing board and the Governor's office, there's been no communication with the county executive and the Governor's office, there's been no communication with the CEO of the hospital and the Governor's office. Nor has there been communication with the Health Department, as reported by the CEO, for almost 18 months.
Who is it that's actually developing this plan? Who decided that it would be $50 million? And -- or are we to believe that this $50 million is being given to the hospital with no plan to actually spend it?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. I actually think I was quite clear. I do not believe the Governor intends to distribute any new monies, capital or operating, to this hospital until such time as a new board has been established and new leadership has been established and then a normal process for a hospital institution to request funds from the state to have documentation of why they need that money and how they'll use it, is gone through and then the state approves.
It's not the opposite way. It's never the opposite way. It's first you have a board who submits what they are asking for and proves the justification and need for it, and then the state moves money -- not the reverse.
SENATOR RHOADS:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Rhoads, I just want to advise you that in the aggregate debate time, you have approximately five minutes remaining.
Senator Krueger, do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Of course I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RHOADS:My understanding of how this process is supposed to work is that usually there's a request for capital money for a designated purpose. That request is then considered, and then funds are allocated to actually fill that request.
Am I correct in that understanding? Or is this process working in reverse, where we've determined an amount without knowing what it's for?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. No, I think we both agree that's the process. The dilemma is I believe the state doesn't believe it has a partner working in good faith at this time to get us the information to document what they're asking for and how it would be used.
And the reference was made that there's been no discussion with various parties between the Governor's office and those parties for 18 months. I've been informed that those parties have not wished to answer the questions of the Governor's office or discuss it. That is why we are in the place we are in.
On the underlying story here, this is a hospital that needs assistance to go forward because it does not apparently have responsible leadership either from the board or the executive or even perhaps the county exec. That is why the Governor is recommending this change and the Legislature, within this budget set of bills, has agreed that that is the right answer.
Newsday has agreed that is the right answer. My colleague from Long Island who represents not the hospital but, as she explained yesterday very articulately, most of the people who go to the hospital, agrees.
And as to whether the exact number is 50 million or 49.5 or 150 million, I don't know. It's a beginning, the fact that the Governor has put aside 50 million for capital purposes for this facility.
And again, they will be eligible to apply for distressed hospital operating funds. Which I also don't think we will know any details about until a newly reestablished board does their own evaluation, then comes forward and submits requests to -- I think it goes through the Department of Health.
SENATOR RHOADS:How much time remaining, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Two minutes. Two minutes remaining.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Krueger.
I'll go on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Rhoads on the bill.
SENATOR RHOADS:Yeah, I'm certainly happy that NUMC is receiving $50 million in capital funds. But I think what's concerning to me is that this is the sort of latest salvo in what appears to be the Governor's NUMC scam that's going on here.
The whole reason for taking over NUMC that's been articulated on this floor and articulated by the Governor is that it is a financially stressed hospital. Right? That people are panicked that it's not going to be able to continue its services, that people are panicked that it's not going to be able to meet its bills. That it's saddled with debt.
And so what does the Governor decide that she wants to do? She wants to provide $24 million in funding to the Hempstead School District, but she provides zero in funding to actually help with any of the operating expenses of Nassau University Medical Center.
The problems with that hospital actually have little to do with operating. It's projected that the hospital will actually make a small surplus, despite a billion and a half dollars having been taken from that hospital over the course of the last two years.
This was all about and continues to be about nothing more than control. What the county executive refused to do, what the board refused to do was to vote itself out of existence and give the Governor the power to control the board while county taxpayers are on the hook. That's why the Governor snuck this into the budget instead of going through the normal legislative process. And unfortunately, this Senate and the Assembly across the hall are co-conspirators in that plan.
So thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Rhoads.
Debate time has elapsed. Debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Krueger to explain her vote. Senator Krueger not to explain her vote.
Senator May to explain her vote.
SENATOR MAY:Thank you, Mr. President.
I rise to crow about a wonderful win for a big area of New York State in this capital budget. Upstate University Hospital has the emergency department that serves 14 counties as the Level I trauma center, 37 counties as the burn center, and all of New York State north of Westchester as the poison center.
But this emergency department, the people who work there are incredibly skilled, they do a great job, but they work in the most cramped and difficult conditions you can imagine. And this money will build a new emergency department for Upstate. And it will make a difference for people all over upstate.
I also want to crow about one other thing in -- one other capital victory. This is an update on a capital project that we funded several years ago when the state put $72 million into renovating Central Tech High School in Syracuse into a countywide STEAM school.
That STEAM school is going to open in September with its first class of ninth-graders. And because of the -- of what we got in the budget to make sure that BOCES funding for CTE can go to teaching ninth-graders in CTE programs, that school is going to get the funding it needs to really be a success from the outset.
So capital funding we put in years ago, that's going to really be used well because we're doing good policy to shore it up. So I proudly vote aye on both those cases.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator May to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Bynoe to explain her vote.
SENATOR BYNOE:Thank you, Mr. President.
I will be voting affirmatively on this bill, particularly because it's going to make a $50 million investment into Nassau University Medical Center.
So Nassau University Medical Center has really been highly, highly overlooked in any investments over the years, insomuch that the facade in front of the building is crumbling. The HVAC system is in such bad shape that they have to bring in fans to the patients' rooms to provide some level of ventilation. Additionally, the elevators, a large number of them need to be replaced.
Nassau University Medical Center has been highly neglected by the Nassau County administration and the Nassau University Medical board, insomuch that $1.5 billion that they could have accessed year after year for distressed hospital funding to offset their deficit and pay down their debts was prohibited because they were not in compliance with the Department of Health.
So I think that this is a great step forward. We're going to be able to invest in the infrastructure, and we'll be able to hopefully, hopefully be able to do routine maintenance that has been neglected over the years by accessing the $1.5 billion in distressed hospital funding.
I want to thank leadership yet again because it was the fifty -- sorry, $500 million of a state one-house budget request that bolstered that $1 billion commitment from the Governor, to make it 1.5.
So I say again this is unfortunate that we're in this space, but I'm happy, happy to see that Nassau County and the communities that rely on that hospital and the staff that work there will finally, finally will get the relief and we'll turn the corner on the neglectful practices under Nassau County administration.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Bynoe to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Myrie to explain his vote.
SENATOR MYRIE:Thank you, Mr. President.
I will be voting in the affirmative for this, in large part to be in solidarity with SUNY Upstate, who has been fighting for this capital investment for quite some time.
But I want to express my disappointment and concern that there is no new money for Downstate, particularly after this Governor came to the first advisory board meeting for the future of Downstate and promised $450 million in additional funding. The SUNY chancellor subsequently made a similar promise that there would be additional funding separate from the $750 million tied to the outcome of the advisory board.
And I want to make clear that when we passed legislation last year to determine the future of Downstate --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Myrie, one second, please.
Can we -- please, gentlemen, ladies, we need some order in the house while people are explaining their vote. Thank you.
Senator Myrie, continue, please.
SENATOR MYRIE:When we passed legislation last year to determine the future of Downstate, subject to community involvement that would require transparency and would require real integration of the stakeholders, we did not anticipate that the Governor would come and promise more capital funding and pass a budget with zero capital funding.
So make no mistake, that we will not take this lightly. And we are hoping to avoid a similar situation that we faced last year. But the community will have the last word on what happens at Downstate.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Myrie to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Cooney to explain his vote.
SENATOR COONEY:Well, thank you, Mr. President. This budget is a forward thinking about the future of infrastructure in New York. And as the chair of Transportation, I'm so proud that we are investing the resources that we can in the CHIPS program, which of course improves our local roads and bridges. A $50 million increase this year, 50 million committed for next year's increase as well, giving New Yorkers the kind of safe and efficient system that they deserve for transportation.
We're also making lasting investments in the DOT capital plan, including an additional 800 million to fund projects across the state. These are the core road projects that our constituents consistently talk to us about. From Hempstead to Yonkers to Cornwall to Buffalo to Rochester, we're making sure that all of our districts are taken care of by making these critical road improvements.
But it's not just transportation. We're investing in large-scale infrastructure projects. We are building again in New York, including a $59 million investment for the modernization of the Joseph A. Floreano Rochester Riverside Convention Center in downtown Rochester, in my district. This large investment by the Legislature has devoted to the convention center for growth in our community, and I'm just so grateful for the support of Governor Hochul as well as the entire Rochester delegation, who worked so hard to bring this around.
Capital projects mean construction jobs. They lead to improved infrastructure, but they also create opportunities for work, for apprenticeship programs. And these projects lead to growth in our communities, both upstate and downstate.
I'm proud of the investments that we continue to make here in the Senate on behalf of all New Yorkers. And, Mr. President, I am proud to vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Cooney to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Kavanagh to explain his vote.
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Thank you, Mr. President.
Again we are, spread across a few bills, really continuing our efforts to use all tools at our disposal to address the housing crisis and the affordability crisis that we have throughout the state. This bill of course is a key part of that. As I mentioned before, there is $2.65 billion of funds in this budget for housing and community development. That includes $306 million for public housing -- which is a relative high, relative to other years we've done recently -- $160 million for Mitchell-Lama developments, $600 million for new housing and community development right here in the capital, including some sites very nearby here that are expected to be redeveloped.
And we're refunding a few programs that the Senate successfully advocated for last year, including the Vacant Rental Improvement Program which renovates one- and two-family homes throughout the state, upstate and basically all of the localities outside of New York City, and an additional $30 million for Block by Block, which builds one- and two-family homes, to infill neighborhoods that have lost housing over time. Both of those were included last year, particularly through the advocacy of Senator Sean Ryan.
We are also adding something that has been very important to me, which is a few years back we had a hearing on lead poisoning. It is still a scourge throughout our state. Every year we've been doing $20 million outside New York City as a result of that hearing. But we are adding this year $20 million for lead abatement in New York City. Abatement is the thing that is really necessary in that circumstance.
We also have about $70 million for small towns and villages in rural areas in various programs, including the Small Rental Housing Development Initiative, which again was funded through the advocacy of Senator Hinchey and others in this chamber.
And so, all told, this is a budget that really is intended to address housing needs throughout the state in a very substantial way. And I'm very proud to vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Kavanagh to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Serrano to close.
SENATOR SERRANO:Thank you very much, Mr. President.
As chair of the committee that oversees parks, I am very proud to vote aye on this bill, as it has a good amount of capital for our beautiful park system throughout the State of New York.
We have I believe the best park system anywhere in the nation. We have some of the best hiking trails, camping facilities, you name it. Connecting to the great outdoors is something that is really important here in the State of New York. And the pandemic taught all of us how important our green spaces are. We flocked to them as a safe way to all congregate and be out together and be in nature. It was important for our mental health as well as our physical health.
But our park system is an aging one and needs constant repair and upgrades and infrastructure. And I'm very happy to see that the capital funds in this budget will go to enhancing our park system in ways that allow us to connect even more New Yorkers to our beloved parks.
I proudly vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Serrano to be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar 972, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik.
Ayes, 45. Nays, 17.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The bill is passed.
Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Mr. President, I have a couple of motions here.
On behalf of Senator May, I offer the following amendments to Calendar Number 941, Senate Print 1541, and ask that said bill retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The amendments are received, and the bill shall retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR GIANARIS:On behalf of Senator Fahy, I offer the following amendments to Calendar 944, Senate Print 4879, and ask that said bill retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The amendments are received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Please call on Senator Lanza.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Lanza.
SENATOR LANZA:Thank you, Senator Gianaris.
There will be an immediate meeting of the Republican Conference in Room 315.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:An immediate meeting of the Republican Conference in Room 315.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:And, Mr. President, an immediate meeting of the Democratic Conference in Room 332.
And we will stand at ease until 6 o'clock, at which time we will come back and take up the remaining budget bills.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Senate will stand at ease until 6:00 p.m.
The Democratic Conference will meet in Room 332.
The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 4:04 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 6:08 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senate will return to order.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, we are going to call an immediate meeting of the Committee on Rules, followed by a meeting of the Committee on Finance, both in Room 332.
So I would ask members of those committees all to head there at the same time, because Rules will be very brief.
SENATOR MURRAY:There will be an immediate meeting of the Finance Committee, followed by an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332.
SENATOR GIANARIS:The other way around, Madam President. Rules first.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Oh, excuse me. Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee, followed by an immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in Room 332.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Thank you, Madam President.
The Senate will stand at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 6:08 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 6:38 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senate will return to order.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, I believe there's a report of the Rules Committee at the desk. Please take that up.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Senator Stewart-Cousins, from the Committee on Rules, reports the following bills:
Senate Print 7797, by Senator Krueger, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
The bill reports direct to third reading.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:All those in favor of accepting the report of the Rules Committee please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The report of the Rules Committee is accepted.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Please take up the report of the meeting of the Finance Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Senator Krueger, from the Committee on Finance, reports the following bills:
Senate Print 3000D, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government, State Operations Budget;
Senate Print 3001A, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government, Legislature and Judiciary Budget;
Senate Print 3003D, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government, Aid to Localities Budget;
Senate Print 3009C, an act to amend the Tax Law;
Senate Print 7798, an act to amend a chapter of the Laws of 2025.
All bills reported direct to third reading.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the report of the Finance Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:All those in favor of accepting the report of the Finance Committee please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The report of the Finance Committee is accepted.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Let's take up Supplemental Calendar 49B, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Secretary will read.
There's a substitution at the desk.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Senator Krueger moves to discharge, from the Committee on Finance, Assembly Bill Number 3009C and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 3009C, Third Reading Calendar 974.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:There is a message of necessity at the desk -- no.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, I think we're awaiting the reading of the supplemental calendar first.
(Pause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 969, Senate Print 3000D, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
Calendar Number 970, Senate Print 3001A, an act making --
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, 969, let's lay that aside temporarily, as we are awaiting a message from the Governor on that bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The bill is laid aside temporarily.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 970, Senate Print 3001A, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Is there a message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:There is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The message is accepted, and the bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 971, Senate --
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, please call the vote on 970. That was not laid aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar 970, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Chan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik. Also Senator Gallivan.
Ayes, 46. Nays, 16.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 971, Senate Print 3003D, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Is there a message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:There is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The message is accepted, and the bill is before the house.
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 974, Senate Print 3009C, an act to amend the Tax Law.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Is there a message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:There is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The message is accepted.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:And the bill is still before the house.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The bill is laid aside.
Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of today's calendar.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Can we now move on to the controversial calendar, beginning with Calendar Number 974.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Secretary will ring the bell.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 974, Assembly Bill Number 3009C, Budget Bill, an act to amend the Tax Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Murray, why do you rise?
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Madam President. Would the sponsor yield for some questions on Section Part VV, as in Victor, Victor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Krueger, do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Madam President.
Let's start with how much do you anticipate that this new MTA payroll tax increase will raise per year? Do we have an estimate?
SENATOR KRUEGER:The estimate is $1.4 billion per year.
SENATOR MURRAY:Very good. Would the sponsor continue to yield, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
I understand that some folks that are paying it now have been taken off. Local governments I believe is taken off. Community colleges have also been removed.
But how about hospitals. Are hospitals going to still be paying?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Local governments outside of New York City have been removed, not the City of New York. And hospitals have not been removed.
SENATOR MURRAY:Have not been removed.
Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
How about multiple -- companies with multiple locations? So you have a -- maybe a Walgreens or a Rite Aid that has multiple locations throughout maybe multiple zones -- some in Nassau, some in Suffolk -- those would both be Zone 2 -- and maybe even some in the city. How are they handled?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Each location's employees would be counted, and it would be calculated that way.
So it's only for the operation of businesses with employees within the 12 counties. So if you're a national chain or a statewide chain, let's say pharmacies, it's only your pharmacies within the MTA region and the employees therein.
SENATOR MURRAY:Madam President, through you, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
So just for clarification so I have it right, I'm going to take Zone 2 and take Long Island, for example. So we have CVS pharmacies, and let's pretend they were nowhere else, but there were 10 in Suffolk County and 10 in Nassau County. All 20 of those stores would be taken as one.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Both of those counties are MTA-region counties. They would be at the same rate.
So I actually don't know how everybody pays their taxes, whether they do it as -- by county or by total number of businesses they operate in the State of New York. I assume that's a standard situation for any of these businesses.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Madam President. Through you, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
There's a section here -- and I just want, for clarification purposes -- I'm reading about the lockboxes. And we're talking about -- it says the account for the 2020-2024 capital plan will receive revenues from congestion pricing. That will be set I believe in one box. And then the account for the 2025 through 2029 capital plan will receive revenues from the increased payroll mobility tax by amending the Public Authorities Law to direct 28.5 percent of all revenue collected from the payroll mobility tax into the lockbox.
Can you explain that a little bit, why that's being done, how that's being done?
SENATOR KRUEGER:So the first lockbox, as you pointed out, is specific to the congestion pricing money that continues to come in to pay for the bonds that are used for the five-year capital plan that is now basically over. So you want to make sure you're holding that money and tracking that separately. Right? Different time frame, different capital plan, different revenue stream.
On the PMT, walking into the '25-'29 capital plan, it's also defined as a lockbox separate from your first lockbox. And the continuation of your question was you mentioned 28 percent -- he's going to help me understand.
(Conferring.) Okay. So we already have a PMT that we've put into effect, and that is for operations. And that will continue to be for operations. That was a previous two years ago's decision.
But we are increasing the PMT for this new capital plan. Therefore, 28 percent of the total PMT -- quote, the new amount -- will go specifically into a lockbox for capital.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you. Through you, Madam President --
SENATOR KRUEGER:We just want to be able to separate out which part of the tax is for operations versus for capital.
SENATOR MURRAY:Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:And I do think I understood that. I think. So the 1.4 billion we're talking from the new increase of the payroll tax. That will go into the second lockbox. And that is for the capital plan, while the other portion of the payroll tax is currently funding operational.
Is that correct?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes. We can both work for the MTA, yes.
SENATOR MURRAY:No, please. No.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Madam President, I'd like to go on the bill, if you please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Murray on the bill.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
So thank you, Senator Krueger, appreciate that.
But here we go -- man, the MTA payroll tax again. This was so very popular when it got put in place in the first place.
So the problem here is the Governor has been out there pushing this like we're doing some sort of favors for smaller businesses. So let's be clear and clear up a couple of misconceptions.
First off, some of the smaller businesses with a payroll -- now, it's broken down per quarter. So what I'm going to do is I'm going kind of roll it into annual to be easier. And I'm going to estimate on some job numbers. But just for the purpose of keeping it as simple as possible, although nothing is simple with the MTA.
So what they've done is actually added a category for the MTA payroll tax in the outside zones outside of the city, while raising the payroll tax within the city as well.
Now, what they've done is they've taken -- it used to, and follow me here, a company with a payroll of about 1.25 million or more was paying at a rate of -- I believe it was 0.11 percent. Then when you went a little higher, it would increase to 0.23 percent, and then the top rate was .34 percent.
What they've done is they've taken that first category, the 0.11, they cut it in half. So you're not getting away, you're just -- it's a little bit lower. But understand, we're talking about companies -- what I did was I took the average salary on Long Island. An average salary in Nassau County is 74,000 and change. In Suffolk County it's 72,000 and change. So you know where I went: 73 and change.
So taking 73,000 and change, to fit into the first category you're looking at companies with about 17 or 18 employees. We're not talking about massive companies. Seventeen or 18 employees on average. They're still going to be paying, they're just going to be lowered a little bit. They weren't paying that much to begin with. It was more than they should be, but they're going to be lowered a little bit.
Then the next category, that's Category 2. That was the category that was 0.23. That also has been cut in half, to 0.115. That would be about 18 to 23 employees. Still not a massive company here but more like a mom-and-pop-type operation. They're still going to be paying, and now at 0.115 percent.
We get up to about 24-plus -- and I say "plus" because it's not quite 24 and then forever, it's 24 to about 135 employees. Now, they're going to be at what was the top rate, 0.34 percent. Then we're going to add another category at 0.635 percent, so almost double what the highest rate was. And basically anybody over 135 or so employees is going to be paying that.
It is a job killer. If you're a business owner and you're starting to succeed, what's the first thing you want to do? You want to grow and keep succeeding. You want to add jobs. Now, somebody said to me earlier, Well, we're just worried -- you should be worried about Zone 2, right? That's where you live. Don't worry about Zone 1. That's the city. Who cares?
Well, no, well -- as was pointed out before, the LIRR is the highest subsidized transportation portion of the MTA. Why? Why would that be the highest subsidized? Well, let me tell you something. People aren't jumping on the train out in Suffolk County just to ride and hop off somewhere else on Long Island. They're going into the city. And when they go into the city, they're either going in there to work or they're going in there to spend money. And if they are going into work, they're still spending money. They're buying lunch, they're buying dinner, going to entertainment, things like this.
Why is the LIRR the highest-subsidized? It's a business decision. You want to invest in there because you want to bring these people in so they bring their wallets and they spend their money. I'm not saying it's a dumb decision, it's smart. It's a business decision. But please don't act like you're doing Long Island a favor. You're not. Long Island businesses, the employees are not riding the railroad to go to work if you work in Suffolk County. That's just not happening. Unless you work in the city. So we're not doing any favors to Long Island by investing in this. Let's not kid ourselves there.
What we're doing, though, is we are hurting Long Island's businesses, and those businesses in Suffolk County. But we're also hurting the employees. Because as I said, these are the employees that are going into the city to go to work.
Well, in the city, when we talk about the Zone 1, boy, they really hammered Zone 1. Two years ago, for those that are in the city, two years ago this body voted to increase the highest rate in Zone 1. And here we are two years later, back again to hammer them again. You really must not like business in New York City, I've got to tell you, because that rate, the top rate now is going to be 0.895 percent. So those big employers are getting hammered.
And I asked earlier -- one of the reasons I asked was I asked specifically about hospitals. What's one of the biggest expenses we have? What's one of our biggest fears? Getting sick and having medical bills. Right? Healthcare is expensive. So what are we doing? We're hammering hospitals. We have a nursing shortage. What a great incentive to hire more nurses.
The more you hire, the more taxes you're going to pay. And you're going to pay it at a massive rate. I've talked to some of the hospitals in my district, and what they were paying at what was the highest rate, hundreds of thousands of dollars that could easily jump up to over a million, easy.
And of course every time a business gets hit with these expenses, who feels it? Every one of us, the consumers. Because the only way they can make it back is to raise prices.
I go back to that person that asked, Why should we worry about the city and them raising it? Because it's going to get to a point where the city businesses are going to say it's just not worth it, and they're going to leave. And those employees that were riding the train in, they're now collecting unemployment. That's not smart.
Finally, while I was calculating these up and I was running the numbers on the figures, I said, Well, I started at 73,000, and then I said, well, that really wasn't in the middle. Let me go to 73.5. I was amazed at what a big difference that made when you start getting up into the higher numbers. So when you get into the third or fourth category where it's talking about more employees, one pay raise -- one pay raise to a group of employees can put you over that mark and put you in a whole 'nother category and could cost the company thousands, tens of thousands or, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars just for giving pay raises to hardworking employees. That's what we're doing.
Well, now I want to look at the fact of where this money is going. Where's it going? We talked about the capital plan. First, all of this argument about congestion pricing, everybody's upset about it, I am too. But everybody was kind of led to believe -- every story you read, they would talk about this new capital plan of $68.4 billion. And they said, Well, we're short. We have to fund it. And everyone was led to believe that was what congestion pricing was going to do.
No-oo. No, no, no. In fact, as you just heard, not a penny of congestion pricing is going to that capital plan. You know where that money's going? Now and forever forward, for the next 20, 30 years, it's to pay off the bonds that they got for the 2020-2025 capital plan. So we're actually putting congestion pricing in place to pay off debt.
So how are we going to fund the 68 and a half billion dollar capital plan moving forward? You got it. Find a new way to raise revenue so we can get more debt.
So if you think this MTA payroll tax might be temporary, no. The plan is to use this as an element to bond out. And then we're going to have to use this to pay off those bonds for 20 and 30 years.
And what happens when some of those businesses do start leaving? You can bet your bottom dollar -- if you have a dollar left, you can bet we're going to come back here again and raise those rates again and continue to chase more out of here.
And again, it wouldn't be so bad, it wouldn't be so bad if you thought, well, that investment, that money we're spending is going for something really good, they're spending it wisely. They're doing a lot of good things with it. Okay. As I mentioned earlier -- yesterday, I believe -- well, I forgot I had two minutes to explain my vote and got cut off.
So for an MTA that is so desperate for money, year after year they come back. Let's talk about fare and toll evasion. I brought up the number that in 2017 they lost $150 million to toll and fare evasion. Well, again, if you're hurting for money, that's a pretty good amount. You should probably find a way to solve that problem and collect the money that should be coming to you.
Again, they're not asking for anything extra. This is just collecting the money you're supposed to be getting for the service you're providing. That sounds pretty darn simple. Most businesses do it well.
Well, not the MTA. Because the very next year, that number almost doubled: 290 million, the very next year. And you think surely, surely the alarm bells went off now. Surely they got the message. We're hemorrhaging money here. And yet we keep coming back to the taxpayers and everybody else asking for more. We'll fix the problem. The very next year, 2019, they lost $525 million to toll and fare evasion. Well, that's when the pandemic hit. So it steadied out for the next couple of years. It was 525 again the next year, and around 500 million.
By the way, if you add up those three years, it's a billion and a half just in those three years. But again, we get done with the pandemic, we come back, we're back to business, you figure. They're asking for a lot of money, they're going to fix the problem, right? Nope, still doesn't happen. Still doesn't happen.
The next year, 700 million. And the last year we reported -- oh, let me go back. Let me go back. Because again, I mentioned two years ago this body voted to raise the MTA payroll tax for the city businesses. Well, as part of that deal we said, Well, if we're going to do that, the MTA's got to step up. You've got to clean up your fiscal backyard. We want to see $600 million in savings. We never saw it.
What we did see was they went from 700 million to 800 million in lost revenue from toll and fare evasion. They also saw a record amount of overtime, at $1.42 billion.
They're going the wrong direction, folks. There's no person -- there's no accountability, no responsibility here. All they do is come back and ask for more. They don't clean up anything.
So I said, where are they spending this money? Well, let's take a look.
The MTA spent over $900 million in consultant costs for the Second Avenue Subway. Now, the first phase of the Second Avenue Subway cost $2.6 billion per mile. If you add up the Madrid subway, the Paris subway and the London subway extensions, lump them together, it doesn't equal half of what the MTA spent there.
So again, you think they're going to get that under control, right? Think again. The second phase of the Second Avenue Subway is going to cost $4.3 billion per mile. It just never ends, folks. Just spending like it's water, man. They don't care. Because we'll just come back and ask for more.
A new staircase and entryway at Times Square subway station cost the MTA $30 million. The MTA installed 910 cameras in 32 subway stations to make it safer. Right? Sorry, I had to laugh at that one. That cost $21.3 million. That comes to 23,000 per camera. I can get a Ring camera and do better than that. The MTA spent over 650 million on security camera projects since 2002.
These are just some of the reckless spending. It can go on and on. If you want to -- well, I'm kind of a geek, I guess, a policy geek. I get amused by looking up these audits, some of the audits that the comptroller's done on the MTA. Because man, it will blow your mind. Every one of them, you find millions and millions. Back in 2009 when they first put the first MTA payroll tax in place -- because they needed money so desperately -- the LIRR forgot to charge advertisers for all the billboards along the Long Island Rail Road, to the extent of I believe it was -- what was it, $8 million, I believe it was. They forgot to charge them. Again, this is an authority that needs money desperately.
I think you're getting the hint here. Before we shell out more, before we chase the jobs away, before we hammer the entrepreneurs and the businesspeople that just want to earn a living -- before we do that, let's demand -- not ask, demand -- that they clean up their own fiscal backyard. We need to see some fiscal responsibility or no, you don't get this.
Senator Krueger yesterday -- I forget, I apologize, I forget what subject it was on. It might have been the hospital. Now that I remember, it was. It was NUMC. We're talking about the Nassau Medical Center. And she made the comment that maybe they should withhold their funding until they straighten themselves out. That would teach them, right? That would show them how to do it right.
Yeah, that's exactly what we should do for the MTA. Why don't we say no once in a while and make them fix their own problems. And that's why, Madam President, I will be voting no, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Thank you, Senator Murray.
Senator Weber, why do you rise?
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor who handles Part A -- Part A.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Part A. That is Senator Krueger.
Do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The senator yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor answer some questions.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor will yield.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you.
So, Senator Krueger, good evening. I'd like to talk to you about -- I know it's been the hottest topic in New York State since the Governor announced it, and that's those inflation refund checks.
Could you tell me what the Governor had in her Executive Budget and then tell me where we are today?
SENATOR KRUEGER:(Conferring.) Through you, Madam President. Under the original proposal of the Executive, if you were a married filer with income below $300,000, you would be getting a $500 check. And if you were a non-married filer below 150,000, you would be getting a $300 check.
(Pause.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:And now, in the final budget, if you are married up to 150,000 in income, you get a $400 check. And if you're a single filer -- no?
Excuse me. If you're married with incomes between 150,000 and 300,000, you get a $400 check. (Conferring.) Okay, so we covered married. So the refund will be 400 for married filers with combined household incomes up to 150,000. For married filers reporting between 150,000 and 300,000, the refund will be 300. And single filers, individuals making up to 75,000 will get $200. Single filers making between 75,000 and 150,000 will get $150.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you.
And through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
How much in total was the original Executive Budget's estimate for the inflation refund checks, and how much are they today?
SENATOR KRUEGER:In the Governor's original proposal, the cost was going to be $3 billion dollars. And in the final agreement it's $2 billion.
SENATOR WEBER:Two billion.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, sir.
SENATOR WEBER:And through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield? Yes, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you.
So what happened? Where did the money go?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through the budget process the amount was negotiated down because we used the billion dollars for a number of other things that we thought were exceptionally important.
SENATOR WEBER:And through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Yes, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:So Senator Krueger, I have some questions on Part B. I don't know if that would be you as well.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
SENATOR WEBER:All right. So I know the Governor mentioned and I know a lot of middle-class taxpayers in New York State were excited to start hearing about the always-promised middle-class tax cuts. And from what I understand, in the final budget the middle-class tax cut has been delayed.
Can you clarify and discuss that a little bit?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, it has been delayed from 2025 to 2026.
SENATOR WEBER:And through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WEBER:So in 2026 -- it's till 2027, I think, right?
SENATOR KRUEGER:No, '26.
SENATOR WEBER:Okay. So can you tell me how much a middle-class taxpayer in 2026 will get, in 2027, and the brackets as well? Can you kind of give me an estimate on that?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I'll clarify there's one reduction in '26 and then an additional reduction in '27. So it's like on Jeopardy, we were both right. Okay. And I'm getting charts. (Conferring.)
So there's three different levels of filers, so the chart's fairly extensive. I don't know whether it just makes more sense to hand you the charts as opposed to my reading down this several pages of examples.
SENATOR WEBER:Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Are you finished answering, Senator Krueger?
SENATOR WEBER:I'm sorry.
SENATOR KRUEGER:I'm also getting answers of maybe easier ways to explain it.
(Conferring.) A 1 percent rate cut for the bottom four income brackets. That's for married -- for all.
They're really good at this, and they're having trouble translating the charts.
For married couples, it's people who have below 323,000. Then for head of household filers, it's under 269,000. And for singles it's under 215,000.
SENATOR WEBER:And through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WEBER:Will the middle-class tax cuts be equal in '26 and '27, or are they top-heavy in one year compared to the other year?
SENATOR KRUEGER:It's 0.1 percent in '26, another 0.1 percent in '27. So 0.2 percent over the course of the two years.
SENATOR WEBER:Okay. Thank you, Senator Krueger.
And, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you yield? The Senator yields.
SENATOR WEBER:So I have one final question related to Part WW. Would that be you?
SENATOR KRUEGER:MTA sales tax redirect?
SENATOR WEBER:Yeah.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Okay. We'll trade bodies. Okay, ready.
SENATOR WEBER:Senator Krueger, can you explain kind of what's going on here? It looks like the sales tax brought in vis-a-vis -- sales and use tax, actually, brought in by the MTA was an additional 3/8ths percent. And it's now being redirected. Can you kind of explain what's going on with that?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Interesting. So it's going from one type of an account to another, with the advantage being this will actually allow them a better bond rating when they go to the bond market, and actually expand their room to bond because if it goes in one direction, it gets counted against the bond cap, and if it's in this other direction, it gives them better coverage.
So they're saving money is the technical answer. They're saving money.
SENATOR WEBER:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:On WW, or did we change topics?
SENATOR WEBER:The same, WW.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WEBER:So I had done some research on this myself, and it looks like the sales tax kind of went -- had been all going into this Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District, or Mass Transportation Operating Assistance Fund, and now it's kind of being split where 85 percent of it's basically going to go to New York City and the other 15 percent is going to go everywhere else.
Am I reading that right?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, you're reading that correctly.
SENATOR WEBER:Okay. Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WEBER:So 85 percent of the money is now going to go towards New York City, and everyone else gets 15 percent? What's the rationale on that?
SENATOR KRUEGER:That's always been the historical share for New York City. So it doesn't change that.
SENATOR WEBER:I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
SENATOR KRUEGER:That's always been the historical share for New York City, 85 percent, so it does not change.
SENATOR WEBER:Eighty-five. Okay, fine.
All right, thank you, Senator Krueger.
Madam President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Weber on the bill.
SENATOR WEBER:So, Madam President, here we are, you know, in April -- in May. And as Senator Krueger would say, March -- I don't even know what it would be at this point. But we're in May. People expected or at least counted on inflation reduction refunds. They at least planned to hopefully get a middle-class tax cut -- not this year, but at least next year. And it seems to be the old game where things get kicked down the road.
We have the residents of Rockland paying congestion pricing now. We have the residents of Rockland and the businesses in Rockland who are going to be now subject to the MTA payroll mobility tax. It just keeps getting worse and worse for the residents of Rockland.
And I will be voting against this budget bill, this revenue bill, because the taxpayers in Rockland can't pay any more. You know, there's that old slogan, You can't get blood from a stone. Well, New York State continues to try even more and more in Rockland.
So I'll be voting no on this revenue bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Thank you, Senator Weber.
Senator Martins, why do you rise?
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Madam President.
If the sponsor would yield on just a few questions on Section VV.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Krueger, do you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:VV, MTA payroll mobility tax. Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Yes, the Senator yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:There seems to be a theme here.
SENATOR MARTINS:As it should be, Senator. As it should be.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Will you yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
Do we -- Senator, do you have a sense of how many projects have yet to be completed in the pipeline from 2010 through two thousand -- well, through to the present that have been approved as MTA projects? Do you know how many are still pending and have not been commenced?
SENATOR KRUEGER:So that would be two -- oh, you have the answers? You want to offer me the answers?
SENATOR MARTINS:I will absolutely help you.
The Comptroller, in a March 2025 report -- through you, Madam President, excuse me -- indicated that there are $34.2 billion worth of capital programs since 2010 that remain to be committed. That's nearly $35 billion since 2010.
So Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield. My question is, has anyone gone back, to your knowledge, at the MTA or have we requested that they go back to look at the nearly 35 billion dollars that are still to be started, out of the capital programs over the last 15 years, to see whether or not they're even necessary, whether or not they're going to be included with regard to the $64 billion MTA capital plan that we're currently considering and trying to fund?
Has that analysis been done, to your knowledge?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Okay. So obviously we know capital projects can take years and years and years. So it is quite conceivable that some of the projects that got started or in the 2010 capital plan started at perhaps the very end of the plan.
Hence, the real question is not why are we still not completely done with previous projects. It's really can we account for the money that was promised and then used? And I think that is an important question. Because I believe the MTA dashboard does allow you to track the money on each project and where it came from. And it often is over -- I believe the word is "tranches," for how many different tranches are continuing with the specific project.
For example, we did the East Side Access project for Long Island. It ended up costing us $12 billion. It took many more years than anyone imagined, frankly because of a variety of reasons. I never understood how we were doing that for $12 billion. And we then hit COVID, and so we know that that put us back several years during the -- starting in 2020. So you would almost have to ask me can I pull up the dashboard for each individual project.
But I do believe that when you look at monies that were put into capital plans for specific projects and then hold that up against the projects and where they are in the timeline, they actually all match. We are behind, no question about it, on many different projects. And some projects are actually scheduled to take literally up to 25 years. So it would be five capital plans before you ever got them completed.
So, you know, there's not one right answer. Each project has to be looked at individually.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Senator Krueger.
Madam President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Martins on the bill.
SENATOR MARTINS:You know, look, my question really wasn't the projects that were in the pipeline, Madam President. My question was, has anyone gone back and looked at $35 billion worth of projects that were to be started and have yet to be started to see how those integrate with the $65 billion in projects that are about to start?
We're being asked to fund $65 billion in projects when we haven't even started $35 billion in projects that date back to 2010, to the original MTA payroll tax.
And so the idea that we have 35 -- I mean, think about it. Together, over $100 billion in projects by this agency. And I just want to know how no one could have looked and analyzed to see whether or not some of those projects that are in those pipelines should be reconsidered, removed, and perhaps some of the funding that had been committed to that actually applied to the 58 billion dollars that we have going forward, because we may not need that.
Certainly we've talked about how if the MTA simply did a better job at collecting its fares, not only on buses but on the subway, and made sure that those fares were in hand, we'd have an at extra 800 to a billion dollars -- $800 million to a billion dollars a year.
Now, I think the math that we've discussed over the last few days, certainly the MTA does borrow over 20 or 30 years. So we understand a billion dollars a year in revenue cannot truly go to pay for a significant portion of what we're discussing here without the need to go back and hit our small businesses and large businesses with an additional payroll tax to the tune of $1.4 billion.
So I'm concerned about management. We've talked about that before. We've talked about the management and the leadership at the MTA. And I just want to make sure that as we go forward, we don't just take it for granted that a 15-year-old project that maybe made sense in 2010 perhaps doesn't make sense anymore. So why are we still committing resources there, as opposed to looking -- and I have not heard from anyone that -- first of all, that there was $35 billion in projects that had yet to start.
But it seems highly unlikely, with $35 billion in projects that are out there and monies that had been committed previously, that that and those projects can't be advanced to this $58 billion and move forward without the need to go back into pockets of our businesses in our communities. And we can talk about congestion pricing, we can talk about the payroll mobility tax. Certainly I can echo Senator Murray's concerns. And certainly I have those concerns about the impact to our hospitals because we all know our hospitals have razor-thin margins. We know that.
And yet time and again we'll write blank checks and allow the MTA to come out because it's in the best interests of this state. And again, I've said it before, the MTA is vitally important to this state and to our region. And I will say it to my communities, I get it, I understand that. That doesn't mean that I'm never going to ask a question, I'm not going to question them on how they spend money, and I'm not writing them a blank check.
Enough is enough, Madam President. And that's why I'll be voting no on this bill.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Thank you, Senator Martins.
Senator Krueger?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you very much. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Okay, Senator Krueger on the bill.
SENATOR KRUEGER:So I feel that I did not explain my answer to Senator Martins correctly, so I wanted to make sure I did go on record with this.
If $35 billion over two capital plans, 10 years, so it's about 3.5 billion a year -- there is constant auditing. There is -- we know some of those numbers because the State Comptroller did audit. There is constant review and the board actually can and does make decisions reallocating priorities for MTA projects.
Just because we put it in a capital plan doesn't mean we went and borrowed the money and hence owe the money back. It was just a capital plan giving them the authority to borrow if they need it.
So I have no question that if a project was started or on the boards in 2010 but not completed by 2024, that somewhere along the line somebody said, Maybe we're not doing this, or maybe we have a better way to do this, and they shifted that in their plans, publicly in their dashboard, with board approval.
So I think there's a big difference between having a plan where it shows there's 32 billion over two plans over 10 years, 3 billion a year in capital that maybe didn't get spent exactly on time but may have been used for different purposes.
But again, just to reinforce, we don't go to the bond market and borrow that money and owe it back unless we're actually spending it on projects moving forward.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Senator Comrie on the bill.
SENATOR COMRIE:Senator Krueger said a lot of what I was going to say. I just want to reemphasize that we have been since -- doing our best to try to get audits to try to ask these pertinent questions whenever there is a hearing with the MTA.
The MTA has been doing projects on time and on budget. They did the Long Island Rail Road station on Elmont on time and on budget. They brought in Grand Central Madison earlier on time -- or a little late, but they finally got that together and got that within their budget.
They have been more transparent. They're the most transparent state agency. I'm not saying that that's a good thing, because we need a lot more, Senator Martins. I agree with you, we want to make sure that the MTA is spending their dollars wisely.
But we can't forget that the MTA is dealing with a system that's hundreds of years old, with 20 years of neglect when they weren't fully funded. The previous administration underfunded the MTA to a point where we had power outages in I think the summer of 2017. We're still recovering from that. We're still recovering from the flooding that happened due to the last three floods that hit the city. The MTA is still recovering from that.
We're recovering from the time during COVID when the fares were free and people are still believing in their minds that they should ride the system for free. That's why we have a high issue with fare evasion.
And then we also, frankly, on this side of the aisle don't want everybody arrested for taking the subway because there are a lot of people that are indigent and they need to get that free ride so that they can get to work. And that's a problem we've all been grappling with. It's not a fare problem, but it's a reality in New York City.
So I agree with you, Senator Martins, we need to make sure that the MTA is as transparent as possible. We are doing everything we can on this side of the aisle to be more transparent. We're working on focusing on and looking at their projects. And I want to thank the staff, the Finance staff and the staff that looks over Transportation, because they have been helping to bring up a better level of scrutiny.
When we bring board members before us, we ask them to make sure that they're part of that scrutiny and that they report back to us about the activities of the MTA.
And yes, they are moving projects that they said they were going to do in 2011 to now 2025. There's a lot of budget fooling around, I think, at the MTA, based on my personal opinion looking at it as chair. And we need to illuminate that as much as possible so that we can stop the madness.
We need to make sure that we have a system that's functioning. It requires a lot of repair. As you may know, the entire area under Grand Central is literally falling apart, if anyone has gone there.
We also have other locations within the system where they can't operate to fix the trains anymore because the new trains that are coming in are built -- are too big for the repair depots that they're supposed to fit in.
So there are a lot of structural problems, there are a lot of infrastructure problems. We need the MTA to run, but we also need to, as Senator Krueger said, make sure that we do the things necessary to ensure that everybody's comfortable with how we're giving $64 billion in capital money to them.
And unfortunately, I just want to remind folks the congestion pricing dollars is only going to pay off the debt for the last bonding plan. And that's going to run for at least another 10 years, that we're using congestion pricing dollars to pay the bonding.
So we will be back here next year or the year after looking for more money for the MTA. We will be back here trying to make sure that the MTA system is being more responsible within that time. And I look forward to working with all my members to raise the level of MTA responsibility.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Thank you, Senator Comrie.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Ryan to explain his vote.
SENATOR SEAN RYAN:Thank you.
In this bill in Section PP there's a section that allows the City of Lackawanna to come into the old brownfield tax credit for what's called a Renaissance Commerce Park, and that has been a priority of my county executive, Mark Poloncarz, for the last several years. This is a highly contaminated site on the old steel plant site, Bethlehem Steel. And we've been working very hard to get that parcel back on the tax rolls and to get private activity going there.
So I'm happy to report that we're going to allow them to maintain entrance into the old program, and it was under the leadership of County Executive Poloncarz and his team, Andy Federick and Ben Swanekamp, two who worked very hard on that, and my legislative director, Sarah Lesser. So thanks to all them for getting this done.
I'm happy to vote in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Ryan to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Rhoads to explain his vote.
SENATOR RHOADS:Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate it.
I believe it was Senator Krueger and Senator Murray in their comments were joking about it sounded as though they worked for the MTA. Trust me, you may not get a paycheck from the MTA, but if you live in Nassau, Suffolk County, if you live in Westchester, Rockland, if you live in Orange County, if you live in the five boroughs of New York City, you may not get a paycheck from the MTA, but trust me, you are working for the MTA. And we see the evidence of that here today.
New York, highest-taxed state in the country. We have the fourth-highest cost of living. We have the second-worst business climate in country, according to Forbes magazine. We are number one in outward migration.
In the last 10 years we have lost 1.5 million New Yorkers. And so what are we seeing today? What are we seeing in this budget? We're seeing a $10 billion increase in spending. And we are seeing, in this particular bill, congestion pricing, which is making it more expensive for people to go to work. And we are now seeing an MTA payroll tax, which is making it more expensive for employers to create jobs. It is a tax on jobs.
We have a Governor and we have an MTA that is addicted to spending. And we have an Assembly and a Senate who are nothing more than enablers. Again, we have nothing in this budget to call for fiscal accountability, to call for an audit of the MTA. And as my colleague Senator Comrie had mentioned, we all know that next year we're going to be back here doing the same thing, looking for more money to feed the beast.
It has to stop. And that's why, Madam President, I will be voting no, and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Rhoads to be recorded in the negative.
Senator Kavanagh to explain his vote.
SENATOR KAVANAGH:Thank you, Madam President. Just again, this bill contains several key provisions of our efforts to address the housing crisis. We are -- in Part D, we are doubling the state Low-Income Tax Credit at a cost of about $500,000 per project. We get several multiples of private investment as a result of that each time. So that $15 million addition to that program will really generate a great deal of economic activity in the private market to support affordable housing.
We are also expanding the availability of the Historic Tax Credit by expanding the geographic scope in which that can be used.
And finally, there's an important provision which was in the Executive Budget and hasn't been spoken about in a while, but it's Part F. And this is a provision to put a waiting period on sales of one- and two-family homes by institutional purchasers. It's very often the case that somebody puts a house on the market and it is snapped up almost on day one by an all-cash offer from an institutional investor who may or may not be making it available for New Yorkers to live there. That has made it a lot harder for families to acquire one- and two-family homes.
By the simple change of putting in that waiting period, it should make a lot of our communities more accessible for homeownership.
So I'm proud to be supporting that today, and I vote aye on this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Kavanagh to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Walczyk to explain his vote.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Thank you, Madam President.
This bill includes a continuation of the program that's already handed out $7.7 billion to the film industry -- $700 million for the film tax credit has proven to be a net negative ROI, returning 31 cents per dollar.
We talk about state investments around here quite a bit, but this program has proven to not have transparency and millions have been wasted on terrible projects, seasons that have been canceled and shows that nobody watches.
There's a lot of ways, when you're talking about priorities, you could spend those $700 million. You could spend 250 million of that to increase CHIPS. You could fully fund the 7.8 COLA request for ARCs at 235 million. You could add a $1.5 million increase for FLLOWPA to meet their request for our Soil and Water Conservation Districts. You could spend $200,000 for Boys State, in addition to funding Girls State. You could spend 100K that the Civil Air Patrol asked for, $40 million for Centers for Disability Services that was lacking, 5 million for our YMCAs that was missing, 70 million for certified home health agencies, 1.5 million for Farm-to-School grants, or 20 million and 20 million for EMS Medicaid emergency response rates.
That would be a smarter investment. Or, if you couldn't bring it upon yourselves to support those excellent programs that support our communities, you could just save the taxpayers $700 million and shut down the film tax program.
Thank you, Madam President. I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Walczyk to be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation --
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Oh, excuse me. Sorry.
Senator Brisport to explain his vote. Sorry.
SENATOR BRISPORT:Thank you, Madam President. I rise with the grave awareness that the billionaire class now has a near total chokehold on our federal government at the same time they're working to control our individual states as well. This budget is the product of their influence over Governor Hochul.
It is past time we begin naming out loud the billionaires quietly pulling the strings at every level of government. Here in New York they include billionaire Andrew Tisch, a Hochul donor who grew his family fortune by lying to congress about the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes. Today his net worth is nearly $1.3 billion, nearly twice as much wealth as it would cost New York to ensure all recipients of SNAP food stamps had at least $50 a month for food -- a moderate proposal that Governor Hochul chose not to fund even as food prices rise.
Then there are donors like John Catsimatidis, the oil CEO who funded both Hochul and Trump. He has a net worth of $4.5 billion. That is nearly eight times the size of the proposal Governor Hochul forced out of this budget that would have raised the wages of human services workers to match inflation.
But even his massive fortune is dwarfed by that of Wall Street billionaires Marilyn and Jim Simons. These Hochul donors hoarded more money than it would cost to build and implement an entire statewide universal childcare system. Notably, not only did Governor Hochul privately negotiate against funding for universal childcare, but under her budget childcare workers will receive a pay cut this year. Childcare workers will receive a pay cut this year. Childcare workers will receive a pay cut this year. And the state will underfund existing childcare programs.
While the public will suffer, these billionaires and their heirs got what they paid for when they bankrolled her campaign -- a Governor in their pocket committed to preserving tax breaks for the ultra-rich even as they drain our economy.
Over the next year they will continue to escalate their power grab unless we are willing to rise up against them.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Brisport to be recorded in the negative. I assume I missed that. Yes? Senator Brisport to be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar 974, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Brisport, Bynoe, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martinez, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Scarcella-Spanton, Skoufis, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik.
Ayes, 35. Nays, 27.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The bill is passed.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, let's take up next Calendar Number 971.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Secretary will ring the bell.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 971, Senate Print 3003D, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Murray, why do you rise?
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Madam President. I was hoping -- by the way, I've refilled my coffee and it is not decaf.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MURRAY:I was hoping the sponsor would yield for just a question on the -- it might actually be you -- on OTDA.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Here we go.
SENATOR MURRAY:The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the sponsor --
SENATOR KRUEGER:Since the appropriate sponsor is otherwise engaged, I will do my best.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:And I will compliment the appropriate sponsor as well, because I know she's been working very hard on this issue as well.
I was wondering, anywhere in this bill can we find the funding to institute the chip technology for the SNAP EBT cards?
SENATOR KRUEGER:(Conferring.) Thank you. Through you, Madam President.
So, one, we agree, of course, that we should be trying to move as quickly as possible to get chip cards in the EBT system, because as we have all discussed before there are I guess criminals who have figured out how to steal the benefits from poor people off of the cards because the official EBT card, electronic benefit transfer used for SNAP and public assistance and maybe WIC now, doesn't have a chip.
And yet all of our credit cards have chips. And there's a reason they have chips, because it helps secure -- make it much tougher to sort of steal off of those cards.
First off, if there was money in this budget it would not be in this bill, it would be in state ops, because this is Aid to Localities. And it's not something that would be handled on a county-by-county basis but a state basis.
But we will get to state ops, and the answer would be the same. There is not money in the budget for this. There's an -- the state continues to work on trying to get a contract done to get this done. We all want them to move faster. We are advised that it would be an approximately $48 million to $50 million cost to get it done.
And I'm optimistic that the state will figure out how to successfully negotiate the contract and get this rolling in this coming year. And I don't believe it would require any kind of amendment to a budget to get that done.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Madam President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Murray on the bill.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
So yes, you're absolutely right, the thieves have found a way to steal the money off of the cards. What they'll do is because we have the strips, the electronic strips, magnetic strips, still, and not the chip technology. So when they're swiping it, they're putting a skimmer on top.
And I've seen a video; they can do it within 10 seconds. They can replace it, put it on that quick. And what will happen is the minute you skim that -- or scan it, they skim the money off and empty your account.
In fact, to the tune of $40 million New Yorkers have lost. New Yorkers that need this money to feed their families. Since 2022 they've stolen $40 million.
Here's the part that has me upset. I mean, I'm glad that you said that we'll make the effort, but we haven't. Well, wait. Yes, we have. See, we haven't done it for the SNAP benefit cards. But the Department of Labor has had the chip technology on their unemployment EBT cards. They've had it for a couple of years now. And they use a vendor called Conduent.
Ironically, OTDA had Conduent as a vendor and just switched vendors. So they could have made this switch.
Something else that's interesting. The number I got quoted was 40 million would be the cost. The feds split that 50/50 and have said they will. So that would be 20 million is what we needed.
Senator Walczyk read off a list on this last bill of all the different things we could have done. Twenty million in a $254 billion budget to make sure New York families get the food they need?
Listen, I applaud all of you, all of us for passing the bill that gave universal free meals for our children in schools, because they need to be fed. But we don't need to feed them there so they can go home and be hungry there. That's absurd. We have the fix. We know what the fix to the problem is. We're already doing it through the Department of Labor. There is no excuse for it not to be in this budget.
Which is another reason I will be voting no. But I pray we get our act together and find that money and get this done.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar 971, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik.
Ayes, 44. Nays, 18.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The bill is passed.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:At this time let's move on to Supplemental Calendar 49C.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 975, Senate Print 7797, by Senator Krueger, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Is there a message of necessity and appropriation at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:There is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The message is accepted, and the bill is before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 12. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar 975, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Helming, Lanza, Ortt and Weik.
Ayes, 57. Nays, 5.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The bill is passed.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, at this time we're going to stand at ease temporarily while we await the messages on the final two bills.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 7:53 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 8:05 p.m.).
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senate will return to order.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, let's move on to Supplemental Calendar 49D, as in David, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 976, Senate Print 7798, Budget Bill, an act to amend a chapter of the Laws of 2025.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Is there a message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:There is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The message is accepted, and the bill is before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar 976, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Gallivan, Griffo, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik.
Ayes, 46. Nays, 16.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The bill is passed.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Let's now return to Supplemental Calendar 49B, remove the lay-aside on Calendar Number 969, and take that up, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 969, Senate Print 3000D, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Is there a message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:There is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The message is accepted, and the bill is before the house.
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Lay it aside.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Let's move on to the controversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Secretary will ring the bell.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 969, Senate Print 3000D, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Lanza, why do you rise?
SENATOR LANZA:Thank you, Madam President.
Would the sponsor yield concerning the appropriation for $10 million for attorney fees?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I do, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President.
Senator Krueger, is it true that this legislation would take $10 million from taxpayers to create a legal defense fund for elected officials?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. This would be -- (loud noise.) Sorry. Theatrical drama.
It is true it is a $10 million line item. It would be used to provide for legal representation in certain situations for any state employees, I believe including elected officials.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President.
Senator Krueger, do you know who requested that this appropriation be placed in the budget?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Executive requested this, Madam President.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. By that you mean the Governor, Governor Hochul?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, the Governor is the Executive. Thank you.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. I think you said this. So the Governor -- I'll just -- for the purpose of brevity, I'll do the list, and if anyone on this list does not belong, you can correct me.
But so the Governor, a Senator, the Attorney General, the State Comptroller, they would all be able to avail themselves of this $10 million?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes. Again, I believe almost all state employees would be covered by this. We're all state employees.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield? The Senator yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
SENATOR LANZA:Thank you.
Through you, Madam President. Would that include mayors across the state? The mayor of the City of New York, the mayor of Buffalo, for instance?
SENATOR KRUEGER:No. My understanding is exclusively to cover the situation for state employees. I don't think any mayors in New York State are also state employees, although I can't say that for sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Will the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President, what about a state employee that works at OCS, someone who helps keep the building working, somebody in maintenance, just an average worker that takes a state paycheck?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, it would cover all state employees, just a regular worker getting a paycheck.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:So this would -- thousands of state employees, in other words, would be able to receive $10 million, up to $10 million for -- to pay for private attorneys?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Well, hopefully we wouldn't have thousands of state employees that were facing this unusual situation that is of concern to us all now.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:So continuing with that -- through you, Madam President -- is it a one-time $10 million appropriation? What if five different elected officials were accused with five different crimes? Would they each be able to receive $10 million for their attorneys?
SENATOR KRUEGER:It's not $10 million per case, it's a $10 million appropriation. So the maximum that would go out the door is $10 million, not on a per-person situation.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:So just to clarify, if 10 different elected officials were charged with 10 different crimes and hired 10 different attorneys, the total outlay would be $10 million? Perhaps just for argument's sake, to make the math easy, each would get $1 million to pay for their attorneys?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President, there's a number of different requirements in order to be eligible to draw down on these funds. So one would be reasonable attorney fees. So I'm not sure what attorneys are getting away with a million dollars per case in 10 different cases, one.
Two, you actually have to show that the case is of a certain kind that is not -- that should not have been filed against you as a personal responsibility. So it's not anybody who gets accused of anything being able to draw down these funds.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. I'm glad you mentioned that. So it's not any investigations, but it certainly would cover investigations that are not even related to the work that the elected official is doing, correct?
SENATOR KRUEGER:It could be for issues outside the scope of their official responsibilities. But of course under Public Officers Law, if you're an elected official, there are a variety of scenarios where the state already does have to represent you. So that's not even new.
This is additional new situations.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. But isn't that only and exclusively with respect to when the action being investigated is pursuant to that elected official's duties and responsibilities as according to their position?
SENATOR KRUEGER:So current law covers situations that are specifically related to your official duties.
This situation would be you're accused of something that may be correlated to being an elected official. May not be at all. But it's not a per se crime that should be -- or a civil charge that should be handled on a personal level.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:(Inaudible.)
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:I'm sorry. Yes, I'm happy to answer questions.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. I'll give you an opportunity, if you'd like, to clarify what you mean by "correlated." But maybe I can help.
Wouldn't this legal defense fund be available to any state elected official or employee that is being investigated for, for instance, any crime, even when that crime was committed outside their official responsibilities?
SENATOR KRUEGER:(Conferring.) Through you, Madam President. This money would only become available to you to pay your legal fees if in fact you were convicted of a crime, criminal or civil.
Is that correct, gentlemen?
Excuse me. If you are convicted you are not entitled to these funds.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Senator Krueger, would you be able to point out where in the legislation it says that?
SENATOR KRUEGER:One moment. We don't have a printed version, so we're working off a laptop.
(Pause.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you, Senator Martins. He has a print copy.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
(Pause.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:Okay. So toward the end of the section which in my printout now is on page 833, starting with sort of line 1, going down.
(Reading.) That the Attorney General, or a determination by the Governor that the Attorney General's determination was reasonable, that if the subject matter of the process relates to the employee's state employment or duties, the employee has acted outside the scope of their state employment and/or used their state employment to violate any applicable law, regulation or valid executive order, and if the subject matter of the process is unrelated to the employee's state employment or duties, but is reasonably likely to have been commenced in response to the employee's state employment or exercise of their duties, the employee has violated any applicable law, regulation or valid executive order, the employee has failed to cooperate with the state in connection -- this is a list of reasons why they would not be eligible for the reimbursement or legal costs. So it goes down to line 35.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. So Senator Krueger, I understand that you might be interpreting that provision or those lines in this legislation to mean that if -- if the employee or the elected official is found guilty, that that would provide the opportunity to perhaps the Governor or the Comptroller -- or even the Attorney General, by the way, because it's sort of convoluted -- to determine that we're going to, I suppose ab initio, find that it was not a valid disbursement.
It doesn't -- I don't see anything here that says that is -- that must happen. It seems to suggest to me that the Governor may decide after the fact that if you're found guilty, well, I'm going to sort of stop this from happening. But the Governor doesn't have to stop this from happening. That's at least my read of this legislation.
SENATOR KRUEGER:So I'm not going to challenge your legal interpretations because as you well know, I'm not an attorney. But when you read the final sentence, which I didn't read: "In the event of any such determination" -- by the AG or the Governor in that long list -- "neither the employee nor the employee's private counsel shall be eligible for payment of reasonable attorney's fees and expenses to this appropriation."
So yes, as I read this -- I really have to go to law school one of days, don't you think? -- either the AG or the Governor would have the ability to make that determination and evaluation based on this law.
But if they find that you didn't meet these standards, then the state is not paying.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. Senator Krueger, you are as good an attorney as I've ever met.
SENATOR KRUEGER:You don't get around enough, Senator.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LANZA:So I'm going to move on from this point because I think it's clear -- I think even in your answer you've acknowledged that it is possible that -- for a number of reasons, by the way, and we're going to get to that, because I sort of jumped the gun here with respect to how you even begin to be qualified for these funds.
But just -- so there are a number of provisions here that talk about who it is that gets the money, who it is that approves the money, and who it is that then makes a final determination. But none of them, none of them say there's nothing in here that says that at each step of the way, even upon conviction, that you can still receive, keep and have properly disbursed the funds.
So for instance, let me get back to the beginning and talk about what the legislation says about who it is that would qualify.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Are you on the bill for now?
SENATOR LANZA:I suppose I was for a minute, but now I have a question.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Okay, fine.
SENATOR LANZA:I apologize.
Through you, Madam President.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
SENATOR LANZA:So in order to qualify for this $10 million, it says that it must be determined that the prosecution or the investigation or the subpoena being brought against you was motivated or that it is reasonably likely that it was motivated because of your work in your official capacity or because, for instance, of your political position. Is that true?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President, I've always found that reasonableness is determined or is in the eye of the beholder. In this instance, in this legislation, which eye or eyes will make that determination?
SENATOR KRUEGER:The Attorney General, unless the employee is a part of the Attorney General's office, and then it would be the Executive.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Would you agree with me, Senator Krueger, that the Attorney General, whomever that might be, should not have the sole authority or should not have the authority only together with the Governor, given the fact that either one of them may be the subject of a prosecution who -- either of whom may then want to have this money?
SENATOR KRUEGER:This wouldn't apply for the Attorney General or the Executive to approve money for themselves.
And under current Public Officers Law, the state finds itself making that determination and approving money or not approving money in these -- or variations on these situations all the time. So I'm not exactly sure how this is so different.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. Well, I would suggest that the difference is that we are using taxpayer dollars to pay for private attorneys for an elected official to defend themselves against charges of crimes that they may have committed having nothing to do with their authority or their position.
And I suppose my question therefore, then, is let's just hypothetically, because it's the Governor and the Attorney General, it seems, that would make the initial determination as to whether or not you pass the first test to receive these funds, which is that it was reasonably likely to be politically motivated.
Isn't it true that there could be a scenario where either the Governor or the Attorney General were charged with crimes and they would then be the person to determine whether or not they qualify for this money?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. -- excuse me -- Madam President. I think, based on what I already answered, if the Attorney General was the person being accused of this crime, they would not be the ones making the determination, it would be the Executive.
And if the Executive was being accused of this crime, they would not be making the determination, it would be the Attorney General.
So I don't think there's an actual problem there.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:So -- through you, Madam President -- this would allow you to -- an elected official, for instance, to receive up to $10 million to pay for their private attorney to defend themselves against investigations by federal agencies.
So would that include an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Would it allow an elected official to use this -- taxpayer dollars to pay for an attorney to defend themselves against an action by the United States Attorney General?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, if there was reason to believe that the investigation was related to their service as an elected official.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:the sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. Would this allow an elected official to use taxpayer dollars to pay for a private attorney to defend against investigations by -- and I'll just at this point list agencies like the Department of Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms -- all those agencies?
SENATOR KRUEGER:That would be the same standards and rules in all of those situations, yes, Madam President.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. And what about the crimes that would be covered? For instance, would a charge of bribery against an elected official allow them to use this money to pay for private attorneys to defend against those charges?
SENATOR KRUEGER:So bribery is not a recognized allowable activity by an elected official. Therefore, this would not apply because it wouldn't have been their official duties to be taking bribes.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. I know we had a brief exchange over that. But I think it's clear that that determination is made down the road with respect to the process.
And so the very purpose, it seems, as stated in this legislation is that this money is available to elected officials so in fact they can defend against allegations of crimes or other infractions that do fall outside their official capacity.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. The accusation can be false. So it's not the question of did your behavior fall outside the scope of your professional duties. It's whether in fact you can show that this was a false accusation and you did not commit bribery or another crime.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:But before that happens, Senator Krueger, isn't it true that if you were to be accused by a federal law enforcement agency of, for example, bribery, that if the other provisions of legislation were met -- for instance, the Attorney General or the Governor decided that it was politically motivated, you would then be able to avail yourself of the $10 million?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. If I was found guilty of bribery after first being determined, oh, sounds like she has a case here, and we should help with money -- if I'm found guilty, I owe the money back to the State of New York.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:And I'm not even comfortable -- when I say "you," of course, Senator Krueger, I do not mean you --
SENATOR KRUEGER:(Inaudible.)
SENATOR LANZA:Yeah, I don't even feel comfortable. "You" is obviously for people outside this chamber.
Through you, Madam President. As we discussed, though, that's a maybe, not a definite. That will be determined -- whether or not you're found guilty or not, that is going to be determined by the folks mentioned in this legislation, the Governor or the Attorney General.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. It would be the state, through either the Attorney General or the Executive, making an initial determination that their reading of the charges in the case lead them to believe it is an appropriate use of state money to assist.
If, despite that, I'm actually -- I'll make it me again -- I am found guilty in court, then the original conclusion that I should be helped financially would be reversed into us having to give the money back.
SENATOR LANZA:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:So I don't know how anyone in our government could actually know that answer before the case was determined --
SENATOR LANZA:Would the --
SENATOR KRUEGER:-- in a court.
SENATOR LANZA:I'm sorry, Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:So through you, Madam President. Senator Krueger, you know, as I've suggested, you know, reasonableness and all the triggers, all the things you need to satisfy in this legislation are up for interpretation and are a matter of opinion.
So, for instance, very famously the President of the United States was prosecuted by state officials and state law enforcement in the State of New York. Some people believe that that was politically motivated. Others don't.
And so it is true, isn't it, that an elected official can be charged with, let's say, insider stock trading by federal law enforcement. The Governor or the Attorney General can, because it is completely within their jurisdiction, decide that that prosecution is being brought for political reasons or because it is politically motivated. They would then get up to $10 million to hire an attorney. There would ultimately be a prosecution. That elected official can be found guilty and still, under this legislation, the Governor or the Attorney General can say, because no one else gets to make this decision, can say, Okay, whoever you paid that $10 million, they can keep it.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. While I don't know that I have the details of the specific example that my colleague used in this scenario, listening, as I understand it, this money is a supplement to existing law in New York for public officers, so that this is to assist with representation during an investigation.
If it actually goes into a court case where you need, obviously, legal representation, that's already covered under existing law for public officers. So this is a supplement to be able to ensure someone who may be investigated for political reasons by some agency of the federal government, who we I think all agree has basically endlessly deep pockets to do this kind of work, that they are not left out there high and dry without the ability to have legal representation.
If it continues on into a court case, the Public Officers Law kicks in for assistance with representation. If they lose the case and are found guilty of the charge, they would owe that money back to the state.
I'm not sure there's anything particularly inconsistent with this law in holding it up next to the existing Public Officers Law. I think perhaps what is new is the concern that the current federal government seems to disproportionately like to go on hunting exhibitions -- so, it's not an exhibition, it's a -- expedition, thank you -- a hunting expedition for anyone that they don't seem to like politically.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. I think that the very clear distinction, though, is the present system allows for the defense to be covered when the actions that -- the actions being investigated are those that fall within the exercise of your office. And this clearly says where it is unrelated but is reasonably likely.
I have a few more questions.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President, I believe that my colleague is correct. This broadens the situations where assistance could be provided beyond what current Public Officers Law covers.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor --
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The Senator yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. Can you hire any attorney with this $10 million? Your friend, a relative, a Senator?
SENATOR KRUEGER:There is language that the fees would have to be reasonable. So I suppose if your friend or relative is a qualified lawyer and has reasonable fees, this doesn't prevent you from paying them. Right?
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Through you, Madam President. So it says clearly in the legislation in order to qualify for this, you need to be this person. And it reminds me of an old show I used to like, "Name That Tune." As I read this, if you can name the song, stop me.
It's a person who has previously initiated or otherwise participated in or supported a criminal or civil investigation or prosecution of the United States government or a United States government official -- come on, you know the song -- where the employee is currently or was previously involved in an investigation by the United States -- I'll stop this.
This sounds very specific and vaguely, if not very, familiar. Was this language -- was this legislation created for a certain elected official?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. I sincerely did not write this document. It was submitted by the Executive. And I don't want to make assumptions about who anybody had in mind in this situation. So I don't know how to answer that question.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:Senator Krueger, it says that this covers actions or prosecutions that occurred after January 1, 2025. Do we know why that is so, and why it does not cover the period of time during which President Trump was not the president?
SENATOR KRUEGER:There is a reason or a belief that state officials would be targeted by the President of the United States, who consistently declares in public that he's going to get his revenge on anyone who hasn't supported him.
So I think the world did change on January 20th, 2025, Madam President.
SENATOR LANZA:Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR LANZA:I'll take that as a -- as a -- as an acknowledgement that it did have something to do with that.
Senator Krueger, taxpayers or New Yorkers have more of their hard-earned money taken out of their pockets by government than any other taxpayers in America. Do you believe that New Yorkers believe that a good use of their hard-earned dollars is to pay for criminal defense for elected officials to be given to private attorneys to pay for the defense of elected officials who are being charged with crimes having nothing to do with their office? Do you think New Yorkers think that is a good use of their money?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Madam President. Again, if the official is found guilty of the crime, the taxpayers dollars weren't being used because we will require the money back.
And I think most taxpayers in New York State actually believe that their elected officials should feel that they are free from risk of retaliation and threat when they try to do their jobs representing their constituents, the 19.5 million New Yorkers, our Constitution, our laws.
And so I think most New Yorkers, if you divide 19.5 million across the 10 million -- what is it, 50 cents per New Yorker? I think most of them would say 50 cents to try to make sure that our elected officials are not wrongly accused and threatened by the federal government based on a trying to do their work on our behalf.
I don't know. We could ask them. I'd spend the 50 cents.
SENATOR LANZA:On the bill, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Senator Lanza on the bill.
SENATOR LANZA:As always, thank you so much, Senator Krueger. We're going to have to disagree on that last point. I can't imagine a majority of New Yorkers not being outraged that their hard-earned dollars that go to the government are now being used or can be used to pay for private attorneys to defend public officials against charges of crimes that they committed having nothing to do with their elected position.
In fact, I would venture to say that I am certain that the overwhelming number of New Yorkers are disgusted by this. If you're an ordinary citizen in New York and you're charged with a crime, where's your $10 million to pay your buddy who happens to be an attorney?
Listen, I know we live, Madam President, in strange times. But this really is -- and I'm not suggesting on behalf of my good friend Senator Krueger, but this certainly is the height of hypocrisy, having come from a place where we all know, because it's written right there -- we all know the song. It's almost autobiographical. It's almost an autobiography. And it's why people are just sick and tired of what government is doing to them.
Everyone saw what happened a few years ago. There is no one -- I don't care what people say, neither Democrats or Republicans in New York who doesn't know that certain prosecutions about certain people now in the White House were politically motivated. Everyone understands that. And now the source of those politically motivated prosecutions all of a sudden wants to throw up a flag and say, Hey, wait a minute, somebody wants to prosecute me, I want taxpayers to pay for it.
So I'm going to vote in the negative. This is just -- I bet most of my colleagues even across the aisle don't think this is a good idea. I know New Yorkers know it's not.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Thank you, Senator.
Senator Walczyk.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Thank you, Madam President. Would the sponsor yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR WALCZYK:It's on the indemnification section.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Madam President, can we pause just one second while we get the appropriate staffing for the next round of questioning.
SENATOR WALCZYK:It's the same section.
SENATOR GIANARIS:I understand, Senator Walczyk. One moment, please.
(Pause.)
SENATOR GIANARIS:Senator Walczyk, I'll do my best to answer your questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Thank you.
So New York State's Constitution was amended in 1797 at the Constitutional Convention to require legislation age for three days before it's voted on, allowing elected members of the Senate, the Assembly, the media, the public, time to review the policy.
Has this bill aged for the three days that's required in the state's Constitution?
SENATOR GIANARIS:No, it hasn't.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So the bill that we're talking about right now is a budget bill for state operations -- funds things like the Office of Children and Family Services, Council on the Arts, Green Thumb program. These programs and offices were originally funded by a recommendation from the Governor when she proposed her budget 108 days ago on January 21st.
Did the Governor propose changes to Sections 17 and 19 of the Public Officers Law when she proposed her budget then?
SENATOR GIANARIS:If you're asking if it was in her Executive Budget proposal, no, it was not.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:The Senate and the Assembly held 14 budget hearings in response to talk about the Governor's budget proposal and our own ideas, as a representative democracy, for what changes there might be. Were changes suggested at any of those budget hearings, changes to Section 17 and 19 of the Public Officers Law?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I did not attend all of them. But I take it, if you're asking, you know the answer is no.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:The answer is no.
The Governor also proposed amendments to the budget; we call those the 30-day amendments. Did she offer any changes to Sections 17 or 19 of the Public Officers Law when she issued her 30-day budget amendments?
SENATOR GIANARIS:No, she did not.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Then following our process, the Senate brought forward a one-house budget resolution including changes that this house and the Majority saw fit. Did the one-house budget resolution offer any changes to Sections 17 and 19 of the Public Officers Law?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Certainly not.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Now we're talking about a $10 million allocation for attorney's fees and changes to the Public Officers Law. The last speaker said this was submitted by the Executive. Who wrote the language that's before us today that amends Sections 17 and 19 of the Public Officers Law?
SENATOR GIANARIS:How would I know that, Senator Walczyk? You asked me which staff member in the Executive put the words on the paper? I don't know.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Without naming any specific staff member, do we know if it came out of any agency in the state? The Governor obviously runs the executive branch. A number of agencies fall underneath. Would it be from any of her agencies?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Well, I understand that Senator Walczyk is not as familiar with what happens in the three-way budget conversations because he's sitting in the Minority. But it doesn't -- we don't deal directly with agencies. The Executive would present at the table language that the Executive supports, even if it's suggested by one of the agencies.
So I don't know which agency may or may not have presented this to the Executive. What I do know is it was proposed by the Governor.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:By my own admission, I'm not in the room where it happens, but I am curious to know at those backroom meetings if the Executive brought this language to the table saying, This was offered up by X department. Can you say any area of the executive branch that this language was brought forward from?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I don't know that the rooms were in the back, by the way. It could be a front-room meeting, a middle-room meeting. You know, I don't know why you'd characterize it as a backroom.
But I don't know the answer to your question.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:When did you first learn of this language or first see it?
SENATOR GIANARIS:It's a good question, because the days have blended into one another. So some -- what's today, Thursday? Sometime within the last week or so?
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And when did the -- I talked a little bit earlier about the three days necessary to age a bill by normal legislative process.
When did we receive a message of necessity for the bill that's before us now?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Moments ago.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR GIANARIS:If you recall, Senator Walczyk, we stood at ease while we were awaiting the arrival of the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Are you familiar with Section 8 of Article VII of the New York State Constitution?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Maybe.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Let me see if I could jar your memory. Section 8 of Article VII reads "The money of the state shall not be given or loaned to or in aid of any private corporation or association or private undertaking, nor shall the credit of the state be given or loaned to or in aid of any of individual or public or private corporation or association or private undertaking."
Does this appropriation in this budget bill violate that provision of the Constitution?
SENATOR GIANARIS:No.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Are you familiar with Section 74 of the Public Officers Law?
SENATOR GIANARIS:That one I am more familiar with, yes.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Good. So Section 74 of the Public Officers Law states that no officer or employee or state agency, member of the Legislature or legislative employee, should use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for himself or herself or others, including but not limited to the misappropriation to himself, herself or others of the property, services or other resources of the state for private businesses or other compensated nongovernmental purposes.
This bill appropriates $10 million for private attorney fees. Could this $10 million be considered a misappropriation of funds?
SENATOR GIANARIS:No.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So Sections 17 and 19 of the Public Officers Law define an employee and include former employees. Could someone who is removed from office, impeached, fired or unelected access these $10 million for attorney's fees?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I don't know.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Are you asking the sponsor to yield?
SENATOR WALCZYK:Would the sponsor yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I'm sorry? Yeah, I didn't catch your last --
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes, I yield.
SENATOR WALCZYK:No, I didn't catch your last response.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Oh. I said I don't know.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So the Attorney General normally represents employees of the State of New York when they're in their normal course of business, official business on the state clock.
Sometimes the Attorney General actually defers, and so Sections 17 and 19 of the Public Officers Law allow the Attorney General not to represent everyone in some cases, especially where there's conflict of interest or the Attorney General doesn't see fit. They then can access private attorney fees.
And there's a -- you know, a longstanding statute here that outlines what would be eligible and which employees are eligible for that.
The Public Officers Law indemnification to protect employees of the state while they're on the clock, what does this change actually do to the statute?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I think you're asking what the change is from current law that this would enact. We're not technically amending the law, because it's in an appropriation bill.
But to answer your question, what I think you're getting at, it adds, in addition to officials who are being sued or facing actual criminal action, it adds the investigations that might be associated with potential action.
So if someone receives a subpoena or is subject to investigation, they would receive the same ability to access attorneys as people who are being actually party to a proceeding.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT PERSAUD:Does the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And just for clarification, that would be for time that employees are not on the clock, not doing official business, nothing related to their state employment.
SENATOR GIANARIS:I mean, that's an interesting question. And I have delved into this a fair amount because of another former official who is currently accessing significant public funds for his defense.
And from what I gather, the court interpretations of the existing law say that the line is not so clear. It's not like when you're an official you work 9:00 to 5:00 and if you do something at 5:30, you're all of a sudden not on the clock, as you call it.
And so many -- because sometimes allegations against an official, particularly if they are part of a political retaliation, may take the form of something that would be, on its face, personal in nature. If in fact the action is being taken against that official because of what they have done in their official capacity, that is deemed covered currently. That's not anything we're changing here. But that's the way courts have interpreted the existing protections.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, new Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Yes, the Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Can political campaign funds be used for attorney fees for activity unrelated to holding political office?
SENATOR GIANARIS:For attorneys, you said? I'm just trying to --
SENATOR WALCZYK:Yeah, can political campaign funds be used for attorney fees.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
SENATOR WALCZYK:For activity unrelated to holding the office.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Well, again, it's kind of the same answer I just gave you. Which is that definition is -- the answer to that question of what constitutes your official capacity is vague and has been defined very liberally by the courts.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:But this Legislature did recently prohibit public officials from using campaign money to pay for legal fees on sexual harassment litigation. Now we're going to pass a bill that uses taxpayer money for legal fees for investigations of actions unrelated?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I don't think we did that. Much as I might think we should, I don't think we did that.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Why is this law needed?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Senator Walczyk, this law is needed because we are currently in an environment politically where the legal system, the prosecutorial system, investigative bodies of government are being used to target political enemies.
And -- I know you're eager to jump in. Let me finish. And I think that when someone is subject to investigations for that reason because of things they have done officially that are now the subject of retaliation, that we believe that should be covered.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Why would this only apply to charges if we're looking to protect public employees even in their private lives by giving them taxpayer funded attorney fees? Why would this only apply to charges that are brought after January 1, 2025?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I'm sorry, I missed the end of your question.
SENATOR WALCZYK:What's the significance of the date January 1, 2025?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I don't know.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Line 49 of page 830 has a term that I'm hoping you can shed some light on. What is "reasonably likely" defined as there?
SENATOR GIANARIS:"Reasonably likely" is a legal term that has generally been held to have certain meaning that if a reasonable person would find it likely that that is the reason something would have commenced. Ultimately courts decide whether decisions made on that basis are proper or not.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:In the context of this legislation that's being proposed, could "reasonably likely" be because they've launched political or personal attacks against someone at the federal government in the past?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Let me take a look at the language here.
I don't believe simply lobbing attacks would count, because it requires it to be in response to the employee's state employment or exercise of their duties.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:What about somebody's party registration? Would "reasonably likely" be just because they have a different party registration? I know the former sponsor of this bill, when answering questions, you know, mentioned those types of things.
SENATOR GIANARIS:In other words, if someone was being targeted because of their party?
I don't believe so. Because, again, it requires it to be in response to the employee's state employment or exercise of their duties. I don't think simply being registered in a party.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes, I'll yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Who ultimately determines what "reasonably likely" is in this new statute?
SENATOR GIANARIS:That would be the Attorney General. Unless it's the Attorney General who is availing herself of the protections of this, and then it would be the Governor.
And again, if it's -- if there's a question about whether that decision is made improperly, ultimately it would be the courts that would decide if the decision was correct.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So if an employee commits a crime that is outside of their job or position and they're prosecuted by a U.S. attorney and convicted of that crime, they would be still entitled to $10 million in attorney fees unless the Governor or the AG say that they're not? Am I reading that correctly?
SENATOR GIANARIS:My understanding is if they are convicted or found to have committed wrongdoing, then the money would have to be returned.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I didn't catch that last part.
SENATOR GIANARIS:I said my understanding is that the money would have to be returned if ultimately they are found to have committed -- engaged in wrongdoing or convicted of a crime.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So I'm reading about reimbursement for reasonable attorney fees and expenses paid pursuant to this appropriation. There's a 90-day determination by the Attorney General's office. And in the case of an employee of the Attorney General, that determination would be made by the Governor at the -- if the -- by the Governor that the Attorney General's determination was reasonable that, and then it lists the reasons that the Governor or the Attorney General, as the case may be, may not reimburse those attorney fees.
But a conviction, by my read, doesn't preclude that whatsoever.
SENATOR GIANARIS:What lines are you referring to? I just want to follow along.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Page 833.
SENATOR GIANARIS:If you give me a second, I could give you an exact cite. But I think the language suggests that if a person is found to have misused their office or otherwise engaged in wrongdoing, that this language would not apply.
And so obviously if someone's convicted of wrongdoing, that would indicate that that would be the case.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Yeah, that's my read as well. But this entire statute is really about accessing taxpayer dollars to the tune of $10 million outside of their office.
So if they had in fact done things within their office that would preclude them here on page 833 that are lined out, then they wouldn't get reimbursed the attorney's fees. But if they're indeed convicted of that crime that they did as a private citizen not related to their office, could they be reimbursed the attorney's fees?
SENATOR GIANARIS:No.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Are all former employees of the state eligible for this fund?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I believe they are, but staff is checking to confirm that.
We can continue and -- let's assume yes. And if anything changes, I'll let you know.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So that would be all former employees of the State of New York for actions not pertaining to their employment. They could be fired, unelected, no longer serving. And this would be for actions outside of their employment anyways, but as long as the charges weren't brought until January 1, 2025, or later, they'd be eligible for this $10 million fund?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I'm trying to understand your question.
You're saying if they engage in activity outside the scope of their employment? And that would be why they were investigated?
SENATOR WALCZYK:Yes.
SENATOR GIANARIS:I think the language here requires the activity to be something they did in the scope of the employment which is what -- or you're talking about the action, the underlying action that's being investigated?
You understand what I'm saying? There's the action taken, which needs to be official in nature, that is the subject of retaliation.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I'll yield if I'm being asked a question.
SENATOR GIANARIS:I'm just trying to understand your question, Senator Walczyk. Perhaps you could restate it; I'll get a better sense of it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Walczyk, do you want to restate your question?
SENATOR WALCZYK:Sure, I can restate.
My understanding of the change here is that this totally addresses actions that are outside of their role in employment. They're already protected by Sections 17 and 19 of the Public Officers Law if they're an employee of the State of New York or a former employee of the State of New York for actions that they did on the job. The change here and the $10 million taxpayer fund to the change here is for actions outside of their employment.
So my question is about former employees and whether they will be eligible to tap into privately funded attorneys to the tune of $10 million from the taxpayers simply because they at one point worked for the State of New York.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Two things about that. Number one, the language covers investigations, not just charges being brought. Even if in the context of existing employees in the scope of their official duties. So that's one change that we're making.
As it relates to the second part of your question, yes, I think former employees who are being investigated for something they are alleged to have done, if there's a finding by the Attorney General or the Governor that that action is being taken in response to something they did in their official capacity, then yes, this would apply.
And if it is subsequently found that they engaged in wrongdoing, then that reimbursement would not be valid.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:But this would be for alleged crimes that they did as private citizens, correct?
SENATOR GIANARIS:If the investigation is because of -- or deems to be because of actions they took in their official capacity.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And is it true, is my reading right here that the Governor or -- the Attorney General first, but if the Attorney General not, then the Governor -- would be the ones who get to decide which employees can be eligible or former employees can be eligible to tap into the $10 million for crimes that they allegedly committed outside of the office and not within their scope of work?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Well, yes. But it's not like they would choose based on who their favorite former employees were. It's their standards that would require a finding that it was -- that the action was being taken in retaliation for something they did in their official capacity.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:That's why "reasonably likely" is an important term to define in the context of this legislation.
But would you say that it is the Attorney General or the Governor that gets to determine what "reasonably likely" means in the context of this and getting access to the $10 million for a private attorney?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes, you've asked that -- you've asked that question before. The answer is yes, subject to court oversight.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:What court oversight?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I suppose if somebody wanted to bring -- I don't know whether it would be an Article 78 proceeding or what have you to say that the decision was made in error, a court would decide whether the Attorney General or the Governor's determination was proper.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:But as far as accessing these attorney fees, where does the court insert itself into this process?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Well, let's say you are affronted and you somehow have standing -- that someone is accessing these funds and you have standing to go to court to challenge. And you can run to court, seek an injunction against the funds being released, say this is an improper decision by the Attorney General or by the Governor, and then the court system would make a decision about whether you were right or wrong.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:The former speaker said that -- made a claim that this is only related to if a person -- if it's related to their position as an elected official.
But if you look at page 831, starting on line 5, there's a key word. This says it may (reading) consider the totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to such factors as whether the employee has previously initiated or otherwise participated in or supported a criminal or civil investigation or prosecution of the United States government or a United States government official, whether the employee is currently or was previously involved in an investigation by the United States government or a United States government official, whether the employee previously had -- and it continues on.
I was left from -- with the impression from the last section of debate that that had to be considered, but my read says this may be considered.
SENATOR GIANARIS:What may be considered? Whether they were acting in the scope of their employment? Is that --
SENATOR WALCZYK:I could -- through you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Would you like that clarified?
SENATOR WALCZYK:I would --
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes, thank you.
SENATOR WALCZYK:-- not want to read that section again.
SENATOR GIANARIS:I see it. But I'm trying to -- because just before the section you read, the section you didn't read says that the investigation must have been commenced because of or in response to the employee's state employment or exercise of their duties. That's a pretty firm standard.
Then it goes on to say in making that determination you can consider, among other things, the items listed.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Actually, Madam President, I'll go on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Walczyk on the bill.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Nobody is above the law. Public employees are entitled to legal protection; that's what 17 and 19, those sections of Public Officers Law, do. Official acts, on the clock time -- it makes sense that we've had that protection for elected officials and for public employees of the State of New York.
The normal course of business is that the Attorney General represents public employees. If that's not the case, then private attorney fees can be afforded to make sure that people are represented and not bankrupt for something that they do in their official duty.
But there is a totally new precedent being set here today, if this bill passes, saying that outside of the course of their official duties and outside of their governmental work, we're setting aside $10 million to pay for private attorneys for something that someone did as a citizen that could be a former employee of the State of New York, fired by the State of New York, unelected by the residents of the State of New York, impeached by the Senate, this chamber, in the State of New York, and they would still have access to $10 million of taxpayer money for private attorney fees as long as the Attorney General or the Governor says so, for crimes committed off the clock.
It's not about public service or upholding the principles. It's bad, and I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Thank you, Senator Walczyk.
Senator Martins, why do you rise?
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Martins on the bill.
SENATOR MARTINS:Madam President, I want to start by thanking Senator Krueger and thanking Senator Gianaris for answering questions that were posed to them on this issue. I know this is something that perhaps -- I'm going to guess, Madam President, there's nobody in this chamber that feels really comfortable about what we're being asked to do here, if we were all to just look at each other and answer that question honestly.
I'm taken aback, and I can only imagine how it was received when it was brought back to the Majority Conference Room a little more than a week ago and presented for everyone to take a look at and say, Hey, you're going to have to include this as part of the budget.
But I will say this. I know -- I know that it has been a real concern of this body and everyone in this body, including the Majority, that we not use campaign funds to pay for legal defense, that we not use public monies to reimburse criminal defense. I think it was even alluded to just a few minutes ago by Senator Gianaris with regard to certain monies that have been requested and have been reimbursed. But those were after the fact.
What we're being asked to do here is actually write somebody a blank check for up to $10 million. And I would just ask everybody to just sit back and consider that for a moment, what that means. If someone is in fact investigated, that person's going to walk in and say, I didn't do it. I'm being investigated, I didn't do it. Because if they do walk in and say I did it, we're not defending them. So they're going to say, We didn't do it.
Now, you know the investigators aren't going to come in and say -- and share their investigation, because that's not what they do. We know that. So if you're comfortable advancing $10 million of taxpayer money on something that to my knowledge this has never been done before in this state -- ever -- sure. If somebody is prosecuted, investigated for official acts as an employee or an officer of this state, we have an absolute responsibility to make sure that we protect them for official acts. If they were in the course of their duties, yes, I don't think you'd get a single person in this room that would say no.
But for outside acts? Frankly, Madam President, that makes me very uncomfortable. And I am surprised that it doesn't make every one of my colleagues in this chamber very uncomfortable to be associated with that and to say, Well, don't worry about it, don't worry about it, we'll be able to get it back. We'll go back and get the $10 million from them if they're actually found guilty. That's not how this works. That's not how this works.
The precedent we are creating by proposing this legislation demeans this state and this chamber and the efforts here. And if it wasn't, you wouldn't have gotten it within the last week. We wouldn't have had it presented to us this way. And everyone in this room wouldn't be fidgeting right now with the responsibility of actually having to vote on something as absurd as what they've put before us right now.
You know, there does come a time when we have to sit back and say, What is worth it? What are we willing to do, what are we willing not to do. Because if we are going to put taxpayer money and validate criminal action with no more than just, Hey, I think I'm being personally persecuted -- well, I guess that's why we take votes.
But I'm very disappointed in how this came about. Very disappointed to hear that it was the Governor who presented it within the last week. Hell, today is March 69th, so sometime around March 60th it was proposed.
If you don't believe that campaign funds should be used for criminal defense, if you don't believe that taxpayer funds should be used to pay for former government officials in their legal defense -- and you know who you are here in this chamber who have bills that have been proposed in print, have made public statements critical of those who have sought reimbursement who have gone into their campaign funds to reimburse themselves for legal expenses. You know who you are, and so does everyone else, because you're on record as having done that.
If you believe that that is wrong, there is no way, Madam President, that you can vote for something like this in good conscience. Be guided accordingly.
I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Thank you, Senator Martins.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Senator Helming, why do you rise?
SENATOR HELMING:Thank you, Madam President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Helming on the bill.
SENATOR HELMING:Thank you, Madam President.
Over the last couple of days as we've debated the budget bills, we've heard over and over again about how crucial proposals have been excluded from the budget. Several of my colleagues have asked questions about adequate funding for our fire departments. We've expressed our concerns about a lack of adequate funding for some of our schools. We've talked about how we needed more funding for local roads, how we shortchanged direct care workers. We failed to establish reasonable reimbursement rates for our community health centers. We did not restore previous capital funding cuts for nursing homes.
And you know what? Those concerns weren't just coming from this side of the aisle. Senators from both sides expressed concern and frustration about this budget process and about the priorities that are in this budget. And now here we are, and before us is a proposal that includes $10 million of taxpayers' money to be used by state employees and elected officials to hire private attorneys for defense against crimes they may be accused of, not even related to their employment.
And I just want to put that into some perspective. And I can do a lot more, but I want to get out of here too. But let me put this into some perspective for everyone. That is almost double the cost of the proposal to fund increased EMS services across our state and create a statewide comprehensive emergency medical system plan, which was intentionally omitted by the majorities in both houses and the Governor.
Taxpayers should not be on the hook for the personal legal troubles of their elected officials, who are supposed to be public servants, especially at the expense of our crucial health and safety programs. Budgets are opposed to be about priorities. This is a completely unacceptable use of taxpayer funding, and I don't think it reflects the priority of anyone in my district, and I'm sure the majority of New Yorkers would agree with that.
Madam President, I will be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell.
There's a substitution at the desk.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Senator Krueger moves to discharge, from the Committee on Finance, Assembly Bill Number 3000D and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 3000D, Third Reading Calendar 969.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The substitution is so ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 969, Assembly Bill 3000D, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Myrie to explain his vote.
SENATOR MYRIE:Thank you, Madam President.
I will be voting in the affirmative for this bill; a lot of important resources for our state to continue to function. But I just want to voice my serious concerns with the appropriation language that has been discussed, for many of the reasons that have been discussed.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Myrie to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Gounardes to explain his vote.
SENATOR GOUNARDES:Thank you, Madam President. I'm supporting this bill.
I just want to correct something that was said during the debate. It was referenced that the three-day waiting period was created during 1797. Actually, it was 1894.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR GOUNARDES:So I didn't want this debate, which I know many people will look back on, to have that error contained in it.
So 1894 was when that provision was first included in our State Constitution.
I vote aye.
(Scattered applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Gounardes to be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar 969, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik.
Ayes, 40. Nays, 22.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:The bill is passed.
Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR GIANARIS:And that completes the budget process for this fiscal year.
(Applause.)
SENATOR GIANARIS:It's like golf applause.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR GIANARIS:At this time please recognize Minority Leader Ortt for concluding remarks.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Minority Leader Ortt for concluding remarks.
SENATOR ORTT:Thank you, Madam President.
I've never felt done so early and yet done so late at the same time. Right? Nine-thirty, great. Forty days late, less great. But -- but it's done, and we can all be thankful for that part.
I want to thank all my colleagues, the Majority Leader. I want to thank Deputy Minority Leader Mike Gianaris as well as my deputy, Senator Andrew Lanza. They're out here all the time, long hours, and they work across the aisle to try manage this and land this plane. As we all know, it is not without difficulty. And I appreciate the work they both do. And I certainly again want to thank my deputy, Senator Lanza.
I want to thank our Finance ranker, Senator Tom O'Mara, who sits through -- this was a real long one. They had to sit through all the hearings in February and then they, you know, deal with March, which is supposed to be sort of the bad month, but that kind of bled into April. That was a bad month, and now May is kind of a tough month.
But they do a lot of questions. And of course his dance partner, Senator Liz Krueger, the chair of the Finance Committee, who does I think a very good job trying to answer all the questions we have to the best of her ability, no doubt, and even if we're not always satisfied or thrilled with the answers, I believe she does the absolute best job she can to provide the answers to the fullest extent that she knows.
So again, I want to thank the staff on all sides -- my staff, who gets the bills and has to dig through the bills. I want to thank -- I have to say I want to thank the other side. They got -- we got the bills this year in really a great way where we were able to go over them, brief them, and we were able to sort of move this along. I thought that was really excellent compared to maybe some years past. I know sometimes it's out of our control, but I appreciate it.
I certainly want to thank the staff on the other side. I know from four years in the Majority the staff does a lot of the work. They are up all hours of the night, they're up on the weekends, and they get very little sleep. And so to all the staff who have been involved in negotiations, in drafting up the bills, on the Majority and Minority side, thank you for what you do.
And to my members I want to thank all of you for your participation, for your engagement, and for representing your constituents and doing the job that you were sent here to do. There's a role of the Minority, and our role is to ask questions and highlight things, whether the Governor, anybody in the Majority or anybody at all wants those things asked.
And these are bills that are produced. I've been on both sides of the aisle, Majority, Minority. These are bills that are very often put together sometimes last minute and they don't go through the aging process and we do the best job we can to try to dig through and highlight them for not only our constituents, but for all the people here in the State of New York.
I want to touch on -- obviously there was a lot of themes that the Governor laid out and I think everyone laid out when session started. Affordability, right, that's a big topic. It's certainly a good buzz word. Everybody uses it. That's how you know it's good, because everybody uses it -- Democrats, Republicans, socialists, you know, whoever it is, they all use "affordability."
And yet when I look at this budget, it is hard for me to come to the conclusion that we have made things more affordable for New Yorkers. I've said it a lot, and I'll say it again: If spending more money made things more affordable, we would be one of the most, if not the most, affordable state in the country.
Now, I do believe some of my colleagues in the Majority really believe that the more we spend, the more good we can do. But whether you believe that or not, most people in New York, they don't believe that. And you want to know why? Because they're leaving New York. See, if they believed it, they'd stay here. If they believed that what was happening in the ever-increasing taxes and the spending was working, they would make their own investment in New York. They'd invest in a new company, more jobs, a new house.
But they're not doing that. And despite everything I've heard, all the data backs me up. We are hemorrhaging people. Those people pay taxes. Those people foot the bill for the ever-increasing tab that we call state government.
We have increased this budget by $10 billion over last year's budget. Ten billion. And we watered down the Governor's -- the checks, right, the big rebate checks that were going to help people, I don't know, get ice cream or maybe buy a bag of groceries, whatever it might be. Those got watered down even further after the budget negotiations. So we spent $10 billion, but we couldn't -- those checks, those pesky checks going back to the taxpayer, they were a little too lucrative. We had to trim those back a little bit.
And when I say this budget doesn't do a lot for affordability, don't just take my word for it. Even some people in the majority agree with me. This budget doesn't address the main issue of affordability. Even though it was the word on the tips of everybody's lips.
Now, public safety. The Governor, yet again, said she was going to make major improvements to public safety. She was going to deal with discovery, and she was going to deal with masks.
Now, we had a mask law in this state for a hundred years or more, and no one had an issue with it because we don't walk around wearing a mask unless you're up to no good or it's Halloween. We don't wear it -- no one had an issue with it because it wasn't an issue unless you were a bad guy. And once upon a time we didn't care about helping out bad guys. We sure do today.
So the Governor made the effort to restore that law, and instead we have whatever this is. Which I think some of my colleagues have said is really nothing. Now, I'm not a lawyer -- which is good news for a lot of people, probably, out there. But I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be one. But we have a lot of lawyers in this conference and in this Legislature. And the lawyers that I trust, my colleagues, have all said this will do nothing. In fact, it won't even do what was once reported it was going to do. Once it was reported that it would be like an additional charge, like a hate crime. It's not even that. It's not even that. It's nothing.
Sadly, while I applaud her efforts to fix it, I do not applaud the Governor's efforts to go around declaring victory. This is not a victory, certainly for the Governor. It's definitely not a victory for New Yorkers and for public safety. It may be a victory for those who helped water it down or didn't want to go back, people who think that somehow wearing a mask is a civil right. It's not. You have no constitutional right to wear a mask in the commission of a crime, to conceal your identity in the commission of a crime.
I've read the Constitution, no lawyer though I am, and it says nothing, cover to cover, about wearing a mask. You have -- that is not protected. Now, again, medically, go ahead. No one has a problem with that.
But for anyone to declare victory, that somehow we did something on masks, shouldn't be a lawyer either.
Discovery. Now I remember, I can distinctly remember reading an article in the New York Daily News -- not one of my favorite publications -- but I read it anyways. And it was from a couple of my colleagues, who said: We've got to do something on discovery. And you know what I thought when I read it? He's right, we should do something on discovery. Because the number of felony cases that are dismissed simply because prosecutors can't meet unrealistic deadlines is a shame and an affront to public safety and justice.
And by the way, all those things, if you rewind the tape, go back to 2019, I bet -- I bet you'll hear Senator Lanza saying that was what was going to happen, I bet you'll hear members of the Republican Conference saying that was what was going to happen. And lo and behold, we were right. I wish we weren't, but we were right.
And again, don't take my word for it. You can go to DAs, you can go to members of the Majority. They said the same thing: There's too many felony cases being tossed out. We've got to do something about it.
Well, there's a lot of -- like a lot of times with lawyers, there's a lot of words and there's a lot of paper that was printed, but you know what it does? Nothing. Nothing. It doesn't roll it back, it doesn't change it substantially, it doesn't make it safer. The same cases that are being tossed out will still be tossed out. And there's even some prosecutors who have the temerity to call it out and say it's nothing, like Ray Tierney from Suffolk County. And I'm sure in the coming days more DAs will come forward and say this is not what we agreed on, this is not what we worked with the Governor on, this is a failure to ensure public safety and make sure more cases aren't being tossed out.
I mean, we can talk about the ridiculous energy policies that continue in this state that this budget does nothing for, or continues. We could talk about what's happening to the Nassau hospital. Maybe the most egregious thing, obviously, is what we just concluded with. So egregious that there had to be a tag team to debate it, that there had to be a two-people defense of it because it was so bad and so disgusting. And it is.
And I know my colleagues, some of them that have been here for a minute, I know, because I've talked to them over the years, and I've heard them debate on this floor when they were on this side of the chamber. And I heard them express outrage sometimes that we would allow (lowers voice) campaign dollars to defend somebody.
But now we're going to allow taxpayer dollars to defend somebody. And not just any somebody. It doesn't say somebody. But this -- where did it come from? Why? Why is this being done? What is the cause? And then there's a legal term for that, which of course I don't know. But there's no doubt a reason you need to do something. Something triggers it. What is it?
You know what the best part is? The public knows. You're not fooling anybody. You're not fooling anybody. And if they don't know, I'm going to tell them. And so is everybody else on this side of the aisle. Because this is gross. I mean, there's $255 billion, a lot of gross things in here. This is gross, that we would say 10 billion of taxpayer dollars goes to defend somebody privately, a crime not committed of any relation to their job.
And I know something about that, Madam President. I know something about that. Because I was prosecuted. And you know what my feeling of that was? It was a political prosecution. And you know what? I was right, because I'm here to tell you about it. And the person who prosecuted me, he's not.
So I know about political prosecution. And I've seen them up close. And I see them happening ever more across our landscape. The lawfare is real. The tit for tat is real. And this is disgusting.
Imagine if the U.S. House of Representatives had set aside a hundred million dollars for former President Trump at the time, to defend himself against the multiple indictments. What would have been said over here? I can only imagine what it would have been like.
So you're darn right we're going to call this out for what it is. You are darn right. And you're going to vote for it. And I've been there. I know, I know how that feels when you've got to hit that yes button, you got to put your -- your hand's got to be down because you're in the majority and you've got to vote for that budget no matter what's in there. Now, maybe there will be some brave souls, and they'll raise their hand. Well, I guess it's too late now, it's already been voted on. Not enough brave souls.
And it's really a shame that a budget, we could sit here and debate the dollars and the programs and where money's going and where money's not going. We can talk about whether we're really helping the people who need to be helped in this state, the people who are on the fringes, the people who are wondering if they have a future here. We could talk about it all day long, talk about whether we're going to provide affordable energy, reliable energy, whether we can help provide affordable grocery prices in this state, whether we can help provide jobs to people who darn well need them. We could talk about that.
But instead of that, you know what everyone's going to be talking about tomorrow is this. So whether you think you did the best thing for New Yorkers or we think you did the worst thing on the budget, that this found its way in there is offensive to me as an American and as a New Yorker and especially as a taxpayer. And I am proud of the comments that were made on this floor in relation to that part of the budget as well as the budget as a whole.
So, Madam President, I am glad we are done. I look forward to seeing everybody next week when no doubt we start 25- and 30- and 50- and 100-bill active lists. But New Yorkers are not going to forget this or the other litany of things in this budget that do nothing to help them, that do nothing to make things more affordable, that do nothing to make things safer, and in fact do things that make the opposite. They're going to drive up costs, make things more expensive, continue to make things unsafe, less safe -- except if you're a person of power or influence. They still get what they need, they still get what they want, no matter what anybody says.
And so for that reason, Madam President, I am proud to vote no on every single bill in this budget. I am -- thank you for your indulgence of my remarks. I wish everyone a nice long weekend, and I will see you next week.
(Applause, standing ovation from Republican members.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Thank you.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:At this time please recognize Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins.
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:Thank you so much, Madam President.
And, you know, to my colleague across the aisle, when you said you were happy about the earliest, the latest, I understand. Two things can be true.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:And, you know, I too am very happy that we have come to conclude this budget season.
Of course I too want to acknowledge all of the great work that has gone on to make this happen, and I will start certainly with my Deputy Majority Leader, Senator Gianaris.
Thank you so much, as usual, for making sure that all the trains ran the way they were supposed to and that, you know, the debate happened in ways that enlightened us as well as got the work done.
And of course I want to say the same for Senator Lanza. Thank you for your coordinated efforts.
I also want to make sure to thank my Conference Chair Senator Serrano, who has, you know, really guided us through so many of the things that happened over the past few weeks.
Also, obviously, I talked about what your statement was, Mr. Leader, but it's always good to work with you even during these times.
And I also want to commend Senator O'Mara for holding it down and making sure that Senator Krueger has some partnership.
But I really, really, really want to thank you, Senator Krueger. Because we watch you, all of us, in awe, the way --
(Applause.)
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:It doesn't matter what you ask her, how you ask her, you know, she's ever-patient, she's always the teacher.
And you're just so smart and so good at it. So thank you. Thank you.
Of course I want to thank Governor Hochul and Speaker Heastie for their partnership in this process. We spent weeks, as I usually say, rowing in the same direction in order to get results.
I also want to thank -- and again, as was said, all of the staff do incredible work during these very, very difficult and stressful times. I do want to shout out my senior staff. And I'm really happy to hear that you are happy the way things were rolling out. So I want to really thank my senior staff, Jonathan Lang, Dorothy Powell, Dave Friedfel, Mike Murphy, Leah Goldman -- I'm sure all of you are everywhere. Thank you.
To the Secretary of the Senate, Alejandra Paulino -- and I will tell you that she's got something for all of you when we're done.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:And to my staff that, again, makes my life so much easier right here, led by Jonathan Alvarenga -- and again, thank you for -- all of you, for keeping us going.
Also, obviously, to my colleagues on this side of the world, tireless efforts on every area, every subject, every -- every part of this budget. I really thank you for all of your work, your cooperation, your input, your insights. It is -- again, you know, every budget season is different. And this one, you know, I think it really took a lot. So again, I thank each and every one of you for what you've done.
And of course my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well. Your input, we hear you. And we appreciate that, you know, we're trying to doing what we need to do together, and everyone's efforts matter.
I want to talk about the budget. And in talking about it, I know that we could talk about process. We could talk about lateness. But in this moment I want to talk about contrasts. Because while here in New York we've spent the last month fighting for working families, in Washington, under the current leadership, it seems to be doing the opposite.
For example, while they propose slashing SNAP benefits, cutting programs that help families access healthy food, we're investing $50 million in food security through hunger prevention and nutrition assistance in Nourish NY.
You can't call for a nationwide baby boom while actively undermining the infrastructure families rely on. Here, in this budget, we provided $8 million in baby benefits, distributing 10 million diapers to new families while also providing free school meals to our children. Because caring for our kids and feeding them shouldn't be up for debate.
And while they talk about cutting veterans healthcare and support for services, we're expanding eligibility for the Gold Star Annuity, funding mental health training for veterans, and enhancing services that help our veterans transition home with dignity and support.
And while they push tax giveaways for the ultra-wealthy and mega-corporations, we're maintaining the lowest middle-class tax rates in more than 70 years. We're issuing inflation checks to put real dollars back into the pockets of working families. We've expanded the child tax credit because New York's families come first.
And while they try to gut environmental protections, walk away from climate science, defund clean energy -- we're making the largest Environmental Protection Fund investment in state history. We're directing a billion dollars towards climate resiliency and clean energy infrastructure, including 450 million for building decarbonization, 250 million for zero-emission transportation, and 200 million for renewable energy. We also secured 500 million in clean water grants, because we understand the health of our economy is linked to the health of our planet.
While they look to cut education funding and ban books, we're increasing support for public schools and libraries, fully funding Foundation Aid, expanding BOCES career and technical education programs to ninth grade, and increasing salaries for BOCES teachers. We're allocating 400 million in childcare funding, creating capital grant programs for both SUNY and CUNY infrastructure improvements. We're launching the New York Opportunity Promise Scholarship to open pathways for adult learners, boosting community college support across the board.
While Washington seems to be more interested sometimes in laying roadblocks for state infrastructure improvements, we're moving forward, committing 3 billion to modernize the MTA and improve transit infrastructure across the state. We've also increased CHIPS funding to repair our roads and extended work-zone speed enforcement programs to protect workers and drivers alike.
While they ignore the mental health crisis, criminalize people in crisis, we're expanding access to inpatient psychiatric beds, launching Daniel's Law pilot programs, and enhancing crisis response systems. We're improving discharge planning, expanding assisted outpatient treatment, and creating new standards to ensure care is accessible, respectful, and effective.
While they cut funding to reproductive health grants and continue to criminalize a woman's right to choose, our budget puts additional funding towards accessing abortion care, including new money towards our Abortion Provider Training Fund, while also ensuring that New York hospitals are equipped to provide lifesaving care in emergency pregnancy situations.
While they sow fear and neglect public safety needs, we're supporting victims and communities, funding youth development and community violence intervention programs, increasing discovery reform resources, and establishing a new Office of Gun Violence Prevention to coordinate smart, data-driven safety strategies.
And while they threaten to gut affordable housing programs, we're continuing historic investments in housing, from $1 billion to support new housing development in New York City -- including NYCHA -- to expanded programs across the state for renters, homeowners, Mitchell-Lama and land banks. We're piloting a statewide Housing Access Voucher Program, boosting home ownership and supportive housing opportunities, and tackling vacant units with targeted repair funds.
We didn't stop there. While Washington has imposed tariffs that threaten to cripple our small businesses, our budget stands up for these same businesses by providing tax relief and paying off their $8 billion unemployment insurance debt.
While they target our middle-class workers, our budget increases weekly unemployment benefits, expands apprenticeship programs, supports farmworkers and food production, restores funding for the arts and cultural institutions, strengthens protections against wage theft and deceptive business practices and waives civil service exam fees to open doors for more public service careers.
This is what this budget is about: Choices, values, priorities. In this budget New York has made a choice to stand with working people and to invest in people. We've decided to strengthen our schools and our hospitals, not to starve them. To expand access to food and housing and not rip it away.
And while Washington continues to take more from New York than it gives back, we'll keep doing the work. We'll keep investing in people. And we'll carry that responsibility forward when we leave this chamber today, because that is the promise that we make to every New Yorker. That is our promise.
So again, I want to thank you.
To all the mothers -- and that's probably about everybody, in some way, shape or form -- Happy Mother's Day.
And we will see you next week.
Thank you, Madam President.
(Extended standing ovation.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Is there any further business at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:There is no further business at the desk.
SENATOR GIANARIS:I move to adjourn until Monday, May 12th, at 3:00 p.m., with intervening days being legislative days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAYER:On motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Monday, May 12th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening days being legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 10:00 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)
Highest impact first.
Fund Education, Housing, Family Assistance
Fund State Capital Projects
Fund State Agency Operations
Fund Local Services
Update State Budget Laws
Set 2025-26 State Budget
Fund State Government Operations
Extend Government Funding Period