New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, please call the house back to order.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The house will come to order. Miss Peoples Thank you.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Thank you very much. If you would now call the city's committee to the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: City committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. City committee members, Speaker's Conference Room. Miss People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Madam minister members have on their desk an a and a b calendar. I would like to move to advance both these calendars and take them up immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. On a motion by Ms. People Stokes, the A and B calendar are advanced. We're gonna be on debate, folks. So if you're gonna be in the chamber, please take your seats. Page three, rules report 171, clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number 1,005 c, rules report 171, budget bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Governor's message is at the desk. Clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: I hereby certify to an immediate vote Kathy Hochul, governor.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: An explanation has been requested. Mr. Brettlow.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, absolutely, madam speaker. Today we start the third of a series of budget bills. This bill before us today contains major components of legislation that are necessary to implement the state budget as it pertains to public protection and general government. This bill includes legislation related to public safety, insurance reform, lobbying and procurement and other government provisions.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Paul Massano.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Yes. Thank you, madam speaker. Will the chairman yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the chair yield? Yes. I will. Chairman yields.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Good morning, mister Crowley.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Good morning, sir.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Or is it afternoon? It's afternoon. Sorry.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: It's morning somewhere.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Time flies when you're having fun, I guess. So this is our third bill. I did want to ask again, this being our third budget bill, do we have a financial plan yet? If not, when will we

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: receive it?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I don't have a complete financial plan in front of me. This bill does not contain much appropriation is in it and we

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: will have a financial plan as soon as possible. And I go to same with all funds funding, state operating funds and all your gaps? Yes. Okay. And now we know that New York is facing an affordability crisis in the state which has driven out migration of over a million residents since 2020. Are there any specific provisions in this bill that will help lower the cost of living and make state more affordable for New Yorkers in this bill?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, I'm not sure if there really was an out migration. Our population has been basically stable. Yes, people are moving out, but they're being replaced by people moving in. Okay. Okay. You know basically this bill is public protection and has nothing to do with population

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: So maybe we'll see some future bills something that's going to help affordability for our New Yorkers families and

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: That's a good statement,

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: yes. Since this is public safety, public safety concerns continue to be a driver of residents, I think leaving our communities as well. Are there any targeted measures in this legislation designed to address crime and enhance public safety without taking away the rights of citizens?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, it depends on how you define the rights of citizens, but in this bill we have legislation that would ban the production and sale of ghost guns and three d printed guns. We also have the provisions on the lawful use of drones and which drones can and cannot be possessed by the general public.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: I would ask my next question, I wanna ask something. I was looking through this bill being public safety, and I know you're you're aware of the safety and staffing crisis going on inside our correctional facilities. And last year, to address those specific concerns, the Governor's Office of Employee Relations, DOCS, and NYSCOBA, They came together and it was supported by all the unions of the state of New York for specific recommendations to improve the safety inside our correctional facilities. I did not see that in this bill. It is not in this bill. Can we see that addressed in a further bill or will we not see anything to those concerns?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Are you referring to the the use of drones? I mean, I'm not

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: No. I'm sorry. I no. Not drones. I was talking about public safety within our correctional facilities.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, we're continuing the use of the National Guard until we can staff up, and the governor done various things to increase the likelihood that we took.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: I understand that point, but the point I was trying to raise is halt reforms that were recommended by the governor's office of employee relations docs, a host of recommendations that would improve safety inside the correctional facilities.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Didn't see

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: it in this bill. Could we expect to see that in another bill or will we not see any of those?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I started answering that. That has to do with drones legislation that we are referring has to do with safety because it forbids the use of drones to drop in the fairness articles into our correction facilities.

[José Rivera — Assembly Member]: There

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: are people who are trying to smuggle in firearms or weapons of, not mass destruction, but contraband Mr. Being smuggled

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Prowl, there's another area that a number of us have been trying to follow too. It was a provision that has been vetoed by this governor I think twice, multiple times, and every time it's been vetoed, should be done in the context of budget negotiations. It's a death gamble for our corrections officers, which we know would help with the recruitment, but especially the retention of our corrections officers. And we know we have a shortage of corrections officers because you said we have National Guard in there right now. The death gamble would protect the pension for the family members of our seals should they die when still working in state government. I did not see that in this bill.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: We are continuing to work on our pension bills and this would be a pension bill. It's not being addressed in this particular

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: So this could be addressed in

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: the future?

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: So there is a possibility this provision could be addressed in the future?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: In the future, yes sir.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Okay. And I guess that would say same hold true for the bill last year that the governor vetoed that would have provided a twenty year re twenty year terror rating statement retirement for our New York City corrections officers. The same provisions we passed last year for the police departments, New York City PD, and the FDNY. And the governor vetoed that bill and the concern, you know, she vetoed the corrections officer bill the same day she signed up for the fire department. And I think my concern is where we have a decrease of the number of members in the New York City corrections officers. That could be possibly under discussion in the future bill then is that fair to say? Yes. All right. I want to pivot to some of the immigration proposals in the budget. If we may, the first question I'll ask if you want, and I did mention in committee, part LL of the budget, this bill makes a number of immigration changes in various, various subparts. Can you point to any specifically appropriation that is linked to this program, these programs to pay for it? Will there be an appropriation or is this just more policy in the budget?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Any funding will be locally in the state ops bill, not in this bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Okay. I have some additional immigration questions, if I may. I know that this legislation, especially relative to the two eighty seven agreements, in my county one of them have a two eighty seven agreement right now and they work, you know, with ICE. So this would void that agreement, is that correct?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes. Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: So why is it that you believe that New York should permanently bar local governments from entering into these two eighty seven agreements even when multiple counties across the state are currently using them and have them.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: We really don't want to use local resources for federal functions.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Are you concerned that removing state and local agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement in cases where individuals may also pose a criminal risk?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: This

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: is civil enforcement I believe.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: But if there is no cooperation, if we have criminal aspects, wouldn't that be problematic if we can't have that cooperation?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I'm just going through the bill as we speak. There is nothing in here that precludes that.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Okay. Will move on then. These agreements are optional for localities, these two eighty seven agreements. Why should the state put itself between the judgment of sheriffs and county officials and the needs of the community they directly serve? Doesn't local officials know better the needs of their community?

[Deborah J. Glick — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I'm going to can I yield my time to Ms? Cruz? Certainly.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: You. Thank you, Mr. Hello, Ms. Cruz. Sure, absolutely. The agreements these two eighty seven agreements right now are optional for localities. And my question is why should the state put itself between the judgment of local sheriffs and county officials and the needs of their communities they directly serve if that's something the sheriff who is the chief law enforcement of that community determines is appropriate to keep that community safe?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Thank you for the question. You know, with the changes today, what the state is doing is ensuring that we are not using taxpayer dollars to enforce federal law. I do wanna, refer to your earlier question, there is nothing stopping the local authorities from cooperating and working with federal authorities to make sure that we are doing anything other than enforcement of immigration laws. In the example you gave of criminal law enforcement, that is not stopped here.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Okay. Well you just said you don't want to use taxpayer dollars in the enforcement of federal law, right? But these are local taxpayer

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: In the of immigration law.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Yes, understand that. Yes. But county sheriffs or county budgets, are county property tax dollars that are paying for their operations that they seem fit. So now we're telling these counties how they can spend their local tax money to keep their communities safe. Because you said taxpayers, you mean state taxpayers, right? Or are you saying obviously this bill would make sure that county taxpayer dollars can't be spent to keep their communities safe.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Well it's the same answer, it's still taxpayer dollars whether it's county or state.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: But if the sheriffs have these, want to keep their communities safe and they have these agreements and are talking to federal ICE officials. If someone comes in and there's a criminal background in that individual, say they're in the jail and they're in the jail, they committed a crime and then they can't communicate with federal ICE on that issue.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So let me back up to understand In your your particular example, how did the individual that came to the attention of ICE, I mean of the local sheriff come to the attention of the local sheriff? They were arrested by the local sheriff for a crime, correct?

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Okay. And then in that particular example, you're saying why wouldn't the sheriff be allowed to then after the person was arrested and charged with a crime, be able to call ICE and say we have someone that's been arrested and charged with a crime. Correct?

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So in that particular instance, what we're saying is you can, you as the sheriff should still be able to do that. You can arrest a person, you can charge a person, you can work with your local district attorney's office. What you should not be able to do is violate the person's constitutional rights by handing them over to ICE before they can actually go through the system. And I think arguably a lot of us here would want to make sure that if the person did in fact commit a crime, and I would venture to say many of the district attorneys that work with all of us here would want to make sure that that particular person, if they were charged with a crime and did in fact commit a crime, actually go through the process and do the time. And at the end, if they are to be deported, that's a whole other process. What we're saying is for the purposes of what the the sheriff should be doing, it shouldn't be enforcing immigration civil law.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Okay. And do you believe the state really has the authority to prompt counties from making these decisions on how they want to keep their communities safe and doesn't this really infringe upon local rule and local control and home rule? I

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: think it's less of what I believe in what the law says. I think the law is clear in that there are certain instances where we as a state can legislate those sections.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Do you think that the centralized control of this immigration policy will weaken law enforcement's ability to respond to community needs and keep them safe?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Actually, I'm gonna answer this one differently. It's less yes. Of It's less of what I believe, but in this particular one, I actually do believe that it's the contrary. I'm gonna use the same example as before. If a crime is committed in one of our communities and someone is arrested and someone is charged, we should want them to go through the process and not be kidnapped by ICE and turn over to a third country sometimes or even to their home country where the victim who is often our constituent can't have their rights and their day in court and see the person go to jail for what they did to them. That is actually more dangerous to the safety of our community.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Okay. One other question. What would happen if say a sheriff or a local police officer were to notify ICE that they had someone in their facility if they were to do that and violate that agreement? What would be the repercussions? How would that be handled?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So I want to make sure that I'm understanding your example correctly. Walk me through the scenario. Person gets arrested, they're in detention, officer picks up the phone, calls their contact at ICE and says, have someone in detention. Right?

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Right.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So under the changes that we're putting under the changes that we're putting through today, there's two questions that would be asked. First, if there's no official two eighty seven g agreement, the questions would come in place because as of the time that this bill gets signed, there shouldn't be one in existence. First, does engaging in the activity or what here would be picking up the phone, look like an agreement between immigration authorities the way that the two eighty seven g agreement would. And second is the purpose of the activity, again picking up the phone and calling to engage or assist immigration enforcement in or is it for another law enforcement legitimate purpose? I highly doubt that he's picking up the phone to say, you know, get this person a lawyer. They're probably picking up the phone to say, I have someone here who is undocumented and would you want to pick them up? And if you take that a little bit further and this is happening repeatedly, there's an argument to be made here that if it looks and it smells like the two eighty seven gs agreement, then it's part of what this law would say is not

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: possible. I

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: understand. I just wanted to know what would happen in that situation. And I know you mentioned about if someone commits a crime if someone commits a crime, what if that what if that individual already had a criminal record on file and then they were released and they came back, how would that work?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So I want to finish answering your first question and then we can go to this Sure. What would happen is the attorney general's office can step in to make sure that they are investigating and if there is a basis for finding that there was either a violation if it's the first time or a misdemeanor if it's the second time that it's occurring, take the necessary legal steps to address it.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: So does this bill have penal charges against an individual who were to violate this language of this law or is this in another section of law that they would be applied to?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Only the section on the MELT Act has that, not for the cooperation.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: And then remind me of your second question.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: If an individual I know we were talking about you where we talked about someone committed a crime, they have to go through the process. What if this individual had come in, was arrested, they looked, and he was for some reason, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime, but still here. In that case, even under this law, already convicted on the books, but were released because maybe because of our bail reform laws, any reason, We released, went out into the public, arrested again, then the sheriff and the deputy find out this person had a criminal record they were convicted for. They can or cannot communicate with ICE and say, we have someone here. Or would they they couldn't do that or could they?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So let's turn your statement a little bit and let me just verify something.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Turn it however you want.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yeah.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So in an instance like that, if in an instance like that, if there is as you mentioned someone who committed a crime, paid their time, got out through the number of examples you gave, went back into the system and the law right now would say no, you cannot communicate with ICE if it's going to look like a two eighty seven g agreement. However, there are times when ICE will come back with a judicial warrant for that particular person. If they have a warrant from a judge, we're not saying you can't pick them up.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Couple more questions and then I'll be done. Sounds good. The Department of Homeland Security reported two seventy five assaults of white phosphorus between in 2025 compared to 19 reported assaults during the same period in 2024, a 1347% increase. For 2025 homeland security reported 66 vehicular attacks against ICE officers compared to only two in 2024. That's a 3200% increase. Given the undeniable increase in violence, does this measure make law enforcement officers more safe or less safe?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Can you hold that though for one second? Sure. I want to make sure to clarify something that I said earlier for the legislative record. Sure. A one off communication between the ICE I'm sorry, between the sheriff's office and a pattern of communication between the sheriff's office and ICE in the earlier example you gave would be what would violate the pat a pattern. You actually need a pattern because a pattern is what would make it look like there's an actual agreement.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Okay.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: And now back to your current question. You if I remember correctly, you asked given the examples

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: the stats.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: If this law would make

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Our federal given the history of the the increase in violence against ICE officers, vehicular assaults against ICE officers compared to 2024, and obviously those numbers speak for themselves, does this measure make our federal law enforcement officers more safe or less safe?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Well that's not a subject matter of this bill, but I would argue that if law enforcement officers respect the constitution, behave in a way that isn't putting people's lives in danger, and sometimes their own, we'd have a different result right now.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: I know this legislation talks about can you other areas where they can go or can't go. Can you give a specific example of ICE agents in New York entering a house of worship school or hospital? Do you have specific examples?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes. Right here in Albany. I wanna say it was about two months ago because it's not just about entering. If you are trying to go to church, you're trying to go to service and there is an ice band waiting right outside of it, it is the equivalent of if they went inside. You're still going to be afraid to go to church, and you're still going to be afraid to exercise your right to to observe the religion that you believe in. So right here in Albany, two months ago, we had about 10 people coming out of a mosque that were targeted by ICE and kidnapped. And

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: given this is a state of New York basically against the federal government, obviously

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Can you say that a little

[Brian Manktelow — Assembly Member]: Yeah. Given given that

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: this you know, obviously, this is

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: action by the state of New York versus cooperation with federal government. So undoubtedly there will probably be lawsuits filed after this. So when that happens obviously who's going pick up the cost of that lawsuit, the state taxpayers?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That's not contemplated by this bill. Okay. But I suspect that it's going to be the same way that it often happens. Okay. Where it will be the attorney general. And I also suspect that given that this legislation will protect every single New Yorker because as you will hear, there's protections for everyone. This isn't just about undocumented people. This isn't just about immigrants. It's about every New Yorker. People are going to be happy to make sure that their government, their state government is protecting them.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Thank you Ms. Cruz for your time. Madam Speaker on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Yes. Our third budget bill. I'm definitely voting no against this bill for a number of reasons. Number one, we are still waiting for a financial plan That is critically important. We're talking about a quarter of $1,000,000,000,000 budget, three bills. We still don't have that in front of us. We should have had that in front of us before we voted on either one budget bill. It's critically important. That should be a requirement. Another reason I have concerns about is there are no halt reforms as part of this. Hopefully it can come up in a future bill. There is definitely a safety and staffing crisis going outside our correctional facilities, and the governor's office or employee relations, docs, and the unions all recognize that and they supported a number of recommendations that would help improve security and safety inside our correctional facilities, especially given the fact that we have a shortage of corrections officer and we're using national guards. And I think it fails to recognize since the implementation of halt in the first three years of that program, incarcerated individual assaults on other incarcerated individuals increased over one hundred and sixty nine percent. Incarcerated individual versus assault on staff increased over seventy six percent. And contraband during that time increased over 3032%. Every week we hear stories of assaults on stories on our corrections officers across the state. And when they when we try to take action, we need to take action to protect our CEOs from this dangerous environment that they work in, and we aren't seeing it take place, unfortunately. The death gamble, which would protect the pensions for our corrections officers and their families should they die while still working in the state is something that would has been asked for, been beatled three times by the governors as they put it in the budget. Why we would not put that in the budget to protect these dedicated individuals and their families to make sure that would certainly help with the recruitment and certainly retention issue given the fact we have a shortage of 4,500 corrections officers and when governor hochul fired 2,000 spending nearly at least over a half $1,000,000 $500,000,000 on national guards and it's growing. So that's an issue that should be part of this budget hopefully can continue. The other area I wanted to talk about is the twenty year reinstatement for our New York City corrections officers. It was vetoed last year by the governor, the same day she signed up for the fire department. We passed and supported for the police and fire. They have a this is hurting their recruitment and retention efforts. And the stats are staggering. In 2021, there were 8,098 New York City corrections officers. By 2025, there were 4,975. These individuals now who are coming in, going go sign up with the fire or police department because the benefit is better. They're going to transfer from corrections to the police and fire department because the benefits are there. I don't know why we don't take action on that front. And I hope as we consider these tier pension bills, we take care of the death gamble and we take care of the twenty year reinstatement retirement for New York City corrections officers to match New York NYPD and the FDNY. I didn'92t talk about it here I'ninety sure it will come up but one of the issues with auto insurance which has been a big part of this debate, this budget negotiation for policy, it'92s important I hope as the negotiations come out that we can certainly quantify to ensure that the premiums are actually reduced for New Yorkers so we shouldn't be going through all of this if there is not a way to quantify, improve, and show that New Yorkers will actually benefit from a reduction in premiums. I would like to talk about the immigration piece too. I mean, the number one responsibility of government is to keep its citizens safe. Now that we cannot have we're saying to our local sheriffs, we cannot cooperate with ICE with these two eighty seven degrees. My sheriff was using it. It was a cooperative agreement. Better to work to see people inside a correctional facility than having to chase down the street. It's a violation of home rule in my opinion and local authority. It's not ensuring public safety. Our local communities, they don't want to be sanctuary counties. I know New York City wants to be a sanctuary city. I know the governor wants the state to be a sanctuary state, but these counties do not want to be sanctuary counties. And like I said the number one responsibility of government is to keep its citizens state. These policies don't ensure that. They jeopardize it. It's better to get an individual like I said. The other area that I'm not really talking about here maybe I'll come up is the issue with masks. You know, why are we telling federal law enforcement what they can and cannot wear to provide them safety and the things that they've been looked at, the challenges, the assaults we've seen on our federal law enforcement officers, and then also there were provisions here that would allow people to sue them. I mean, what kind of message are we sending to our law enforcement? Every day, our law enforcement, federal, state, local, they risk their lives to protect us and our communities. And they are under assault. They are under assault in our streets. They are under assault inside our correctional facilities. And to me, to many of my colleagues, it just seems like the policies that we continue to advance in this house continue to tip in favor of individuals who commit crimes, sometimes often very dangerous crimes over public safety, over crime victims and their family, and certainly over the law enforcement officers who do a dedicated job to keep us safe. And just to remind you I will remind you of a combination of dangerous policies that came together. First, federal and state. We have we had an open border. No immigration border patrol at all. So an individual come across the border. Basically, federal government released them. Where did they come? They came to New York City because we're a sanctuary city. When they were in New York City, what did they do? They committed a crime. Because there are a lax bail laws because of the sanctuary status, they released that individual to the community. What did that individual do? They traveled down to Atlanta, Georgia, and that individual murdered Lake and Riley. And there are other stories just like that, unfortunately. So, madam speaker, my colleagues, there's so many problems with this bill. There's things that we should be addressing that I talked about that I hope come down the line, whether it's relative death Campbell to the twenty year retirement, but there is some big problems with this bill from my perspective. Know there's going to be more discussion from our side with more specific questions on some of these policies, but given these facts and what this bill says, there is no way I will be voting for this. I will definitely be voting negative, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Peoplestokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, if you could please call the corporations committee to the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Corporation committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Corp's committee members Speaker Conference Room. Mister Blankenbush.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to be asking questions on the insurance reform. Will the speaker yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Pratlow, will you yield? Mr. Pratlow, yield.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: Okay. In the governor's recent budget announcements that she's been making, she was talking about in her final budget of lowering insurance rates for New Yorkers. Will we see any of these proposals in future budget bills? They should

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: be in the bill we call TED, transportation bills. There are a couple of items in this bill, but the bulk of the fraud reduction bills will be in the transportation bill.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay, thank

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: you. So let's talk about the two that are specifically in this bill. Will these two reforms that is in this bill, when they go into effect, will they lower premiums?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: They should help or go toward lowering premiums. I don't know if themselves they lower premiums, but one of them is to forbid insurance companies from using things like your education and your zip code and things of that nature to set your rates that will lower rates for some people that are being assessed at a higher premium than others with the same driving qualities?

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: Okay. Let's first talk about the flex rating. My understanding with the flex rating is that we are doing away with the 5% for upward rating, but we're not taking away the 5% for lower rating. Is that correct?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Alright. I think we are but at a later date. Pardon me? We are but at a later date. We're taking away the

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: Well, it says it in this bill.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Or in in

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: this says budget that we're taking away the 5% upper window. Am I wrong?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: No. You you are you are correct. Fluctuating increases are repealed after six months. Fluctuating decreases are repealed after four years. Okay. So

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: with doing away with the upper five increasing premiums for the upper 5%, would it not Would the insurance companies not look at taking a lower rating in an individual year because they think they're going to be frozen into that lower rating because of the fact that we're taking away the ability to raise that for 5%?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: They still have the ability to raise the raise. They just need a prior authorization.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: If the insurance company wants to raise the rate by 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, they still have to they still have to go through the DFS according to this rule.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: K. Now because of that, does DFS have enough staff and actuaries to handle all of the insurance companies that are going to ask for increases of 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% every single year? Do they have enough staff to handle all that?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I would assume they do, and if they don't, they will.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: And so when you're talking about they will, we're talking about do we have any additional funding in this bill to hire more people, to hire more actuaries, put more staff on.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Mr. Blankbridge, this is the way rate increases are done now and it is working. So I don't believe there will need an additional staff.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: We are going to increase that workload on DFS if in fact an insurance company has to do a filing for a 1% increase, which they do not have to do right now?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I think if any FTEs are required, that will be taken care of in the appropriation bill.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: Okay. We talk about underwriting and risk. And I understand that some of the proposals in this on occupation and homeownership and all of that other stuff is debatable. We could agree or disagree on whether that affects rates or not. But the one thing that absolutely does affect rates is the zip codes. Now, most of the people, the majority of the people that are sitting in this room have more drivers in their ZIP codes than my ZIP code. And I'll give you an example. I we have about a 110 a 115,000 people in my ZIP code. Not all drivers, but a 150,000 population. If you take a look at where you live or where the majority lives, you're going to see that there's more drivers, more risk, more risk for accidents, more risk for theft, more risk for fraud, more risk all across the border. Now so what this bill will do by taking away the ZIP codes, you're gonna have to because they're gonna have to spread the risk, my constituents are gonna pay more insurance premiums because of the majorities of the population is not with me, not in my district. But here's another example of how Upstate New York, well the North Country, I don't even call me Upstate New York, the North Country is going to pay a premium because of the risk factors between New York City, for example, and Jefferson County. It doesn't make any sense for me as an underwriter to take away the zip codes.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, first of all, Blankbush, I have to disagree with the numbers that you used. I live in a city of 70,000 and we have two zip codes, which means that there are 35,000 people for the zip code as opposed to your 100 plus individuals. And secondly, insurance companies are not being precluded from using a group of zip codes if they are using an area for their determination as to what the rates are. The case so half of my district is one entire city and there are 70,000 people there and there are two zip codes.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: But isn't there a factor that counties that are around each other are included in that zip code too?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Zip code is determined by a post office. They Correct. You obviously have one post office that's serving a 100,000 people and I have two post offices that are serving 70,000 people.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: Well, when I said I have a 115,000, that's not in one that's not even in one zip code by the way. We have different zip codes in the county so I'm using the whole county as They can use

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: a group of contiguous zip codes. They a group of contiguous zip codes. They just can can't use one zip code.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: Okay. Alright. On the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: First of all, the 5% upward restricting the 5% upward increases in premium, and as a one way street going from, going up but not going down.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Here

[Ken Blankenbush — Assembly Member]: here's my problem and what I'm thinking is that if in fact an insurance company wants to lower its premiums, they're gonna look at it and say, if I lower the premiums by five percent this year because we're submitting that to DFS, am I gonna be blocked? Am I gonna lock myself in Because I'm not going to be able to if things change, if risks change, if accidents change, if profitability changes, am I going to lock myself in to that lower rate? Because now every single point of whether it's a 11%, 2%, 3%, 4% is going to have to be going through DFS. Now, anyone who has been at all in the insurance industry, like I have, knows that DFS and the bureaucracy doesn't work very fast. So if you're asking for an increase in premiums, you have to prove it to DFS right now. So every insurance company in New York who wants to go up 1% has got to submit all of those claim all of that paperwork and justification to DFS. You can't tell me that DFS has the capability right now with the people that are sitting over there, the capability to handle that workload. So I it's got to increase their budget. It's got to increase the bureaucracy over there because it's slow bureaucracy right now. I can imagine what's going to happen if every insurance company in the state of New York only wants a 1% increase. The other thing too is with the underwriting. DFS already has regulatory tools and actuarial experience to police the factors that are by a case by case basis. We are passing a statutory ban that completely ignores data driven risk assessments. Think that when we as a group pass a bill, we are really not looking down the road a year from now or two years from now or three years from now. I still believe by using taking away zip codes away, we're gonna hurt my constituents and I therefore really can't accept this as as a a proposal or a reform in the insurance industry. So I'll be voting no. Thank you madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mr. Slater.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for questions, please?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yield? Yes. I will. Sponsor yields.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Thank you, chairman. I'm going to begin if we can with the state disaster assistance which is part of this bill. Proposal to enroll New York in cooperative emergency compacts was omitted from this legislation. Is that accurate? Say again, A proposal to enroll New York in a cooperative emergency compact was omitted from this legislation.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: We did that outside of the budget. That's been done already.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: It's been done. And that was done is there a reason that we did that outside the budget, not part of this?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: That's not fiscal.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: These agreements could have been but we already so you're saying that we are already in a cooperative?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: We passed the legislation.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Was it signed by the governor?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I don't know. Not yet. We haven't sent it to her yet.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Was it passed by the senate?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes. Yes.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: And so we were just waiting for the governor to sign it?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Waiting for the governor to call for it.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Understood. Then I will quickly pivot to the next round of questions regarding the Orange County IDA monitor language.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I knew that was coming.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: I bet you guessed it. I feel like we talked about this recently.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes, we did.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: I thought so. So why don't we start with what's changed since the last time we spoke about this since it was part of one of the extenders that we saw come through?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, what we had done in the extend was actually to hold off the Orange County IDA until the final agreements were made and this budget was produced. So what we have in the budget now is the final decisions as to what's being done with the Orange County IDA. This part ensures that the state inspector general and the independent monitor have the power to recover costs from the IDA and the local development corporation by allowing them to suspend the IDA and the LDC's ability to enter contracts or provide financial incentives when they do not pay any amounts owed within thirty days.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: I'm so curious as to why this wasn't part of the original proposal that we discussed about that we discussed and that we ultimately passed.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: It really wasn't a proposal last year when we did the extender. It was basically a stop gap waiting for us to come to the final decisions and put it in this budget that we're voting on today.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Why does the budget expand the Orange County IDA monitor to include the Orange County Funding Corporation?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Because there have been agreements between the IDA and the LDC that were suspect in the manner in which they took place. So, what we're doing is increasing the authority and the ability of the monitor to look closely or more closely at those decisions.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: And so, really what we're doing is we're giving one unelected bureaucrat the approving authority over local economic development projects.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, you know, he his part of the problem, and I I really don't wanna bring politics into this, but, you know, hey. When you sue yourself, the and then make a settlement. Well, the IDA and the LEC are the same board of directors. They're actually talking to themselves. Okay. So, there is the opportunity for things to happen that we don't want to see happen.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Is there an appeal process if the monitor disagrees with the board? I believe so. Can you describe what that appeal process No.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Actually, appeal process they could always appeal. There's always an appeal process.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: And what would that appeal process look like? Go to court. Just like everyone else in New York, right? What safeguards exist to prevent politically motivated interference in local projects?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: How do you mean safeguards? I'm I'm sorry sir? How do you mean safeguards?

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Exactly that. I mean, if we want to prevent politically motivated interference in local projects by the monitor.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, there are we have I think we have existing laws that would cover that.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: This budget requires that the IDA and the OCFC pays eligible monitor related expenses incurred since the monitor's original appointment within thirty days of notice. If either entity fails to make payment, any new contract, financial assistance agreement, or project approval entered into thereafter would be deemed legally ineffective until the outstanding costs paid in full. Why does failure to pay oversight costs automatically invalidate future contracts and development agreements?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, what's happening in the I the the monetary has not been paid in a while, and there is no way for the monitor to collect that unless we put it within this piece of legislation which we will be doing now.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Do we know what the cost owed is?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I think it's 50,000.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: 50,000?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Between between 50 and $75,000.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Understood. And just curious, why are we making local taxpayers and economic development entities being forced to pay not only the monitor salary but also litigation costs?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, the litigation has been brought about is being brought about by the ADA on the on the monitor. So they would be responsible for paying those costs.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: I understand. Well, thank you for clearing all that up. I'd like to pivot if we can to some of the immigration policies that are being proposed.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Do you mind if I yield to Ms. Cruz for those questions?

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Not a problem.

[Scott Bendett — Assembly Member]: Thank you Ms.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Cruz. I appreciate your explanations here. Just some clarifying questions. There seems to be in regards to local governments approving a zoning variance or issuing a permit or certificate for the construction or reuse of buildings for immigration detention facilities. The question is what happens if they so if they're as we know, there's been instances or proposals of utilizing existing facilities for immigration attention immigration detention facilities by the federal government. So how would this proposal impact those?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So all that this proposal is doing is requiring additional time for the public to respond. Right now, it's around sixty two days and it would make it a hundred and a hundred and eighty or more.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: And so does that apply to existing applications or existing proposals?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: It would be for applications going forward.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Going forward. Okay. I appreciate that. One of the other issues in the Bevans Act that I'm curious about, When we allow individuals to sue any person, are they suing them individually or are they suing them in their capacity, in their official capacity? Are they suing the agency that they report to? What does that look like?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: It would be under their official capacity as they would be acting under the color of law.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Understood. Would that also include the agency that they are working for?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: It could.

[José Rivera — Assembly Member]: It could.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Okay. Appreciate that. One of the restrictions that I understand is being proposed dealing with inquiring about a person's citizenship status deals with the administration of public programs. Can you describe to me what kind of public programs would fall into that category?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Can you clarify your question? Do you have specifics in mind?

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Yeah. I mean, right now, my well, my question is, it's prohibiting a state agency from inquiring about an individual citizenship status. So what programs would we be administering that would require that question to be answered?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Well, right now right now, if there and this would actually continue. If it's a federally administered program, we wouldn't prevent it from being asked because it's part of the application and the request of information.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Mhmm.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: But if it's short of needed for that determination, there should be no reason why it's being requested.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: So, if someone is applying for Medicaid, would that question be allowed to be asked? Yes. If they're applying for benefits through OTDA, is that a question that could be asked?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Depends on the benefits. Because there's some benefits that OTDA administers on behalf of the federal government and there's some benefits that they are carrying out of administering on behalf of our state government.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: And so the benefits on behalf of the state government, if someone's applying for those, could you give me an example of what one would be?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Certain disability programs, housing programs that are administered by OTDA that are not federally don't have a genesis in the federal government and those programs would not be allowed to ask that question.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Housing and disability programs depending on what program specifically then would not would not allow the citizenship question to

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: be asked. Correct.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Understood. You you spoke earlier about judicial warrants. I'm just curious. Do you are you able to quantify how many judicial warrants are executed by federal immigration officials in New York?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: No. But I can tell you that about sixty percent of the people that have been detained or kidnapped by federal government in the last year and change did not actually have a criminal record or even a federal warrant.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Right. But my question was about the judicial. So I'm just making sure I understand on the judicial warrant that is cited in the proposal, how does one qualify for a how does one obtain a judicial warrant? What would be the criteria

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: for something? You'd go in front of a judge and request it and depending on what it's for, there's going to be certain criteria in the law that would have to be met. It it would require upon approval an actual signature from a judge.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Right. And and so I was hearing the conversation earlier and so if someone commits a felony and is not here legally, then you were saying before that they would not then be eligible to be communicated to immigration officials while they're being processed. Is that accurate?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Wait. Walk me through a real life example of what you mean.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Exactly that. If someone who is here illegally Mhmm. They are not

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: You mean without documentation status. Yes.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: They committed felony

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Uh-huh.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: And we have them in custody. And rather than going to immigration, your proposal that we're talking about here or the proposal, I don't wanna quantify it as yours, the proposal would prohibit law enforcement from taking that next step to notify federal immigration. Is that correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: As long as it's not part of an ongoing agreement, the law that we're moving through today would not change that because it's not if the communication is for the purposes of the enforcement of federal criminal law, not for the purposes of enforcing immigration law. So we wouldn't change the practice on the first example.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Right. So regardless of the crime or the severity of the crime, there really is no level of which there's a trigger in the proposal that would allow

[Unknown Assembly Member (referred to as Ms. Hooks/Hicks)]: Judicial warrant.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Federal immigration officials to be notified.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So this is about preventing a pattern that then looks like an agreement. This isn't about a one off, this isn't about an instance where there would be a judicial warrant because if ICE is that concerned with that particular individual, they can go and apply for a judicial warrant that's not that difficult to obtain. You could even obtain it by Zoom these days. But this is not changing the practice of actually allowing law enforcement for the purposes of law enforcement to communicate with federal agencies.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Understood. Understood. Well, thank you very much for answering my questions. Madam speaker, if can go on the bill quickly with my remaining time.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: I have grave concerns over the direction that we're going in with this proposal. My understanding is that judicial warrants are very slim. Very, very slim in regards to enforcing our immigration laws here in New York. And the fact that it doesn't matter what kind of crime you commit doesn't have connection to notifying immigration is similarly concerning. You know I have to go home to my district and talk to the Gorman family who recently lost their daughter to a tragic situation and when you hear what they have to say they talk about a system that had failed their family. And I am not convinced that the changes here rectify or correct the systems that they have identified in that tragic case. And while we continue to pray for and mourn the loss of their daughter, obviously, the direction that we're going in, I think fails to meet the needs that they have described to us publicly.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Stokes.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Thank you

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: very much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss People Stokes?

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, if you can call the labor committee to the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Labor committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Labor committee members, Speaker's Conference Room. Miss Forrest?

[Phara Souffrant Forrest — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. As the chair on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill. As

[Phara Souffrant Forrest — Assembly Member]: the chair of the task force on new Americans, the only body in the assembly formally charged with supporting our state's immigration population. And as the daughter of Haitian immigrants, I am proud to highlight some of the amazing policies in this bill. This package includes many of the task force priorities which are long overdue. I am relieved that this bill includes dignity not detention, which prohibits ICE contracts with local jails, that it prohibits both formal and informal collusion agreements between local law enforcement and ICE, and ensures children are protected by their schools. Still, New York deserves critical guardrails that close all doors to the widespread collusion between local law enforcement and ICE that tear our families apart. We deserve the full New York for all act which I will keep fighting for. Along with the safe access to care act, which I introduced to keep ICE out of our hospitals. This bill also creates an office of immigrant trust within the office of the attorney general and I am confident that r a g James will protect our communities and enforce all measures in this package. This issue deeply impacts me, my community and the entire state. More than 20% of my constituents are immigrants and the federal administration's deportation agenda a k a the kidnapping regime is a constant threat looming all over us. This bill starts to answer the calls of the thousands of my constituents who have reached out to my office, and I'm sure they reached out to yours too, in the last year to express their support for New York for all and the other protections for immigrants that are included in this package. These all these issues also speak to me as a woman of faith. The Torah, the bible, the Koran, all say that we must protect the foreigner as our neighbors. The bible asks over and over again, am I my brother's keeper? And again and again it repeats, yes. The migrant, the visa holder, the TPS recipient, the new American is your brother and you will keep him. This is more than just a policy issue or a budget line, this reflects the moral ideals of the people of New York State. This bill is a critical step towards a critical step forward and I will never stop fighting for all New Yorkers regardless of where they were born, to have access to safe and a dignified life that we all deserve. I want to thank my speaker for his courage, the hard work of my colleagues who meet in the task force for new Americans and the incredible advocates who have fought for many years. And I also wanna say to those who are hiding in our communities that you do have people who care. You don't have to live in fear because we will keep on standing up for you even though you are forced to go and hide your your personhood. This package brings new protections for our immigrant neighbors, family, and friends and for that I will proudly vote in an affirmative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Gandolfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have some questions on the immigration portion of this bill, so I would ask the chairman to yield and then he may yield to Ms. Cruz.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Cruz, will you yield?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Certainly. Ms.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Cruz yields.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: I appreciate that. So, I have questions on part LL here. So, my first question is this would prohibit any detention facility, local state from contracting with the federal government for the detention for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement?

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. If ICE is still making civil arrests, if they can't make an agreement with a facility locally, where are they supposed to detain that individual?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I mean there's there's federal facilities. If they have a judicial warrant, they can apologies for that. They can pick them up unfortunately at work or at home. If they have a judicial warrant, there's nothing stopping them from doing their job the correct and constitutional way.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Right. So they can't make an agreement, let's say, with a jail in Nassau County or Suffolk County. If there's no federal facilities in the region, would they and they decide now they have to fly them out to Stop it. Somewhere in the Southwest, let's say Texas, Arizona to put them in a federal facility there.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Can you repeat that last part before you said Arizona?

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Sure. If they if they can't contract with a local detention facility to to detain that person during the processing of their case, they might have to fly them out to, let's say, Texas for a federal facility there. Does it concern you that then they would separate them from their family that might be local and force them to fly them across the country for the duration of their case?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I mean, it's what's happening now. There's federal facilities yet the federal government is choosing to ship someone who could be in a New York State detention center that is run by the federal government to Texas and, you know, worst off a foreign country that's not even their own national country.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Right. But this would prevent let's say they've decided we want to people we arrest in Nassau County, we would like to detain them in Nassau County while their case is pending. That way they could be closer to their family. Would this prevent that? So

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: let me back up in your example. This is one instance where the person's being arrested or this is just there the ICE agent picked them up somewhere and put them in this particular detention facility?

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: There's no involvement of let's say local police or anything. It's ICE doing whatever civil enforcement they're doing, whether or not it's a criminal illegal immigrant or someone who was just here who has not committed any further crimes, but they're still electing to make a civil immigration arrest. Now they need a place to detain them. They could not contract with Nassau or Suffolk County to do so?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: No. They could not. If they are picking up a undocumented immigrant, they would be able to put them in the exact same places they put them now. Again, I repeat that hasn't stopped them in spite of having local available detention facilities run by the federal government from just pointing out a map and sending them somewhere else.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. But there's been some changes in the way things are being run-in that agency in the federal government. If they decide so even if they decided they would like to make an effort to keep people who have not committed any further crimes closer to their family. They could not do that. This

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: bill doesn't contemplate that part. It only says that they cannot use local facilities.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. So they would have to send them some okay. I gotcha. Now this would also even if it's not a municipal facility, it would also kind of slow walk any new contract facility that they might want to build. I know earlier you mentioned currently there's a sixty day period if there's any new approvals, permits, zoning changes, that's moving from a sixty day period for comment to one hundred and eighty days?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I think you describe it as slow walking. We would describe it as transparency and making sure that the community is aware.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: The sixty days wasn't enough for transparency? No. Okay. And why is that? Were hearings not being held by municipalities? Because I've seen a lot of news reports where the community has gone out and spoke up and sometimes those facilities end up getting canned and they don't move forward. But it seems like it was working within that sixty day period.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Give me a second. So it's our understanding in some districts including Orange County public has felt like there wasn't enough time for comment and response from the community.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. Alright. Thank you. And now, moving on to the prohibition on agreements between local law enforcement and ICE or the federal government here. This would prohibit only two eighty seven gs agreements or any type of agreement whether formal or informal?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Would also prohibit any other form of intergovernmental agreement.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. Would this I think

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: they're called ISGAs. Okay.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Would this allow local law enforcement to honor a detainer request that comes in from ICE if they arrest a non citizen for any crime really?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So there's case law of the second department right now that says that if the detainer itself is only for the purposes of immigration enforcement, they it cannot be honored. And this does not deal with that part.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: It does it does

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: And if there's no valid criminal reasoning for detaining them, they cannot be detained.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. So, we had a couple examples recently in both Suffolk and Nassau Counties. There was one individual arrested for arson. He it did not rise to the level of available offense, so they would have to release him. They worked with ICE to then turn that person over to their custody? Would they be able to do that if there were no federal criminal charges pending even though they had a pretty serious criminal charge locally?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: In the in the example and I'm familiar with the case, but I don't remember specifics. Mhmm. Was there a judicial warrant? Do you recall?

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: That I'm not sure of. I went on public reporting. I just know they were not able to set bail for the individual and the reporting that I've seen from the the public statements of the district attorney.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So I I wanna walk through because it would have to be a determination post this law passing of what exactly is their interaction and does it look like and smell like two eighty seven g. It wouldn't be about a one off situation or about and I wanna clarify from earlier, it wouldn't be about just simply communicating with eyes. It would have to look like a pattern. So let's say it's that particular instance plus another instance plus another instance, it's about the behavior beginning to look like there's an actual agreement rather than simply communication.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: And it and it would have to look like in effect, they were deputizing, the federal government was deputizing the local law enforcement.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. And I just want to clarify because so in in the case of there was another case in Suffolk County and we don't have to get too down into details, but a similar situation where they were arrested for what people in the house might disagree, but was a serious crime to to me in my opinion and to our district attorney. They couldn't set bail and they also because of the protect our courts act, what they did was set a desk appearance ticket to allow the individual to leave the courthouse but coordinated with ICE to then allow them to go make an arrest. Would that be permitted if that becomes a standard practice in those situations? Maybe not a one off, but they kind of use that tool to get this person off the street.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So who was coordinating with ICE in that particular?

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: I'm not sure if it was the police department or the district attorney's office.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So, it it would come down to if there's a pattern.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. So, they're they're actually okay. So, I think it would be prohibited in my opinion because a pattern has already been taking place where there's gaps in the the bail laws. So, our local law enforcement sometimes uses the fact that someone's here legally and committing crimes to have them put in custody of the federal government. So, I think that would constitute a pattern and no longer be permitted under this language. Is that correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Can you repeat your question?

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Sure. So if they continue to use that kind of operation where a crime is committed by someone here illegally. They can't hold them on bail, they will coordinate with ICE in the area to say, alright. We're releasing this person. You at this time, you can follow them away from the courthouse, from the jail, and make your arrest there. Would that

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Well, if someone's here an undocumented status

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Mhmm.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: And the behavior of the law enforcement agency and that of ICE begins to look like ICE is deputizing the local law enforcement agency, whether it's the district attorneys or the police in that instance or even the court. It's the deputizing and beginning to look like it's deputizing local law enforcement that then looks like a two eighty seven g and would be not be permitted pursuant to this law.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. So I think locally down by us and NASA and Suffolk, NASA has a two eighty seven g but in my opinion what we're we're talking about does kind of look like a two eighty seven g agreement. So, I suppose that will no longer be permitted. So, thank you for those answers. Now, onto the language dealing with law enforcement wearing masks to conceal identity. Where is that happening and why would a law enforcement officer want to wear a mask to conceal their identity?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I mean it's happening everywhere in New York. I see it in my neighborhood all the time. We've seen it in the news throughout the entire country. Arguably for many of us who have to do constituent services for the folks who end up being the target of many of these kidnappings or their family members, we could give you an answer as to why we think this is happening and it's generally to conceal identity. It's impossible for me to actually answer you why they do it because I'm not in their mind or in the mind of whoever's leading that particular operation or agency. But arguably, it's so that we can't identify the people who are often committing atrocities right in our community. Okay.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Could it be in some instances, we've seen ICE agents have their photograph taken, their personal identifiable information posted online along with the names of their family members, their home address, their phone numbers, which has led to harassment and arrests for that kind of harassment. By not allowing them to, let's say, conceal their identity, but they'll still have their police markings, their badge number, and what have you. Are we potentially putting some law enforcement officers at risk for having that information posted online shared widely and opening them up to harassment

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: and possibly violence? I would say harassment Harassment is a crime. So if someone harasses officers, they could be subjected to charges right now. And we have plenty of law enforcement agencies throughout the country and other federal entities that engage in law enforcement activities who choose not to wear a mask. Okay.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: There's a carve out for like a PPE style mask and n 95 is that correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes. Yes.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. So

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: For someone who needs it medically or a situation that requires it medically for

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: the Okay. So if officers were wearing an n 95 or any kind of, I don't know, a gas mask for riot control or any kind of situation like that, that would still be permitted?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay. And how would it be determined if it was an appropriate use of that? Let's say some officers are wearing n 90 fives while making these arrests and someone alleges that they're violating this law because it does kind of conceal their identity. Well,

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: it would be the DA who makes that determination.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: The local DA would have to Okay. Make that Alright. Thank you, Ms. Cruz. Madam Speaker, on the On bill

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: the bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm concerned with the language in this bill here that we're moving backwards in terms of public safety. It wasn't that long ago that we had a real migrant crisis in New York City and in the future, if a new federal administration comes in, we might see that happen again. And, by handcuffing law enforcement and not giving them tools to get dangerous individuals off the street, we are setting ourselves up for some real problems in the future. In on Long Island and Suffolk and Nassau Counties, there have been a number of situations where someone who is here illegally is committing pretty heinous crimes, but under our bail laws, they don't rise to the level of being able to set bail. So what the local agencies have done is coordinate with ICE to make sure that when they are released from police custody, the federal government can step in and get them off the streets. And what this bill does is prevent that from happening again in the future. So, we are moving backwards on public safety. It's unfortunate, but I'm going to have to oppose this budget bill, and I would recommend that any of my colleagues who care about public safety and supporting our police officers should do the same. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Jensen.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the Chairman of Ways and Means yield for a palate cleansing question?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the chair yield?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes, I will.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Chair yields.

[Assemblymember Jensen]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my understanding that in part T as in Timothy, the provision for independent dispute resolution has been intentionally omitted. Is that correct? Yes. Do we foresee that section being added to a future budget bill next week?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: It could be, yes.

[Assemblymember Jensen]: Okay. Thank you very much, mister chairman. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Levine.

[Charles D. Lavine — Assembly Member]: Wonder if miss Cruz would yield for a couple of questions.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Miss Cruz, will you yield? My apologies for

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Cruz, yes.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Giving you sideways.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Charles D. Lavine — Assembly Member]: So is there a distinction between a two eighty seven can you are you able to hear me?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Charles D. Lavine — Assembly Member]: Is there a distinction between a February agreement?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: The folks behind me, I can't hear you. Go ahead.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Alright. I'm

[Charles D. Lavine — Assembly Member]: I'm gonna speak more softly. Is there a distinction between a February agreement and general cooperation with ICE?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes. A two eighty seventh agreement often comes with signatures from both sides, agreements on training, agreements on who controls the activities of the local law enforcement, and actual deputizing of that local law enforcement to do the job that would otherwise be done by federal law by ICE.

[Charles D. Lavine — Assembly Member]: And does this bill prohibit cooperation with ICE? No. And does it prohibit authorities from receiving petitioning for, asking for, and receiving judicial warrants to arrest or detain?

[Harry B. Bronson — Assembly Member]: No. Thank

[Charles D. Lavine — Assembly Member]: you. I have no further questions.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Durso.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the chairman yield for a quick question?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Would the chair yield? So I will. Chairman Yelts.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Thank you, chairman Pretlow. So we discussed this earlier during some of the one house discussions. There was and then the governor's initial budget, there was a $17,000,000 in the budget for workers' compensation fraud to be given to local DAs to be able to investigate that.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: But now I see that in this budget bill, it's going to be collecting funds 0.4% of the total estimated statewide premiums for worker conversation assessment.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: It's capped at

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: I'm sorry? It's capped

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: at 0.4. It's not giving them 0.4.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay. So it doesn't it's not going to be zero. It's It

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: could be 0.1, it could be zero.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay, and now do we have a rough range or idea of how much money that will be?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: We provided $7,000,000 in this current budget, we are providing our $7,000,000 for the workers compensation fraud unit. Okay.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: So, it's $7,000,000

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: plus $5,000,000 for it has it as abatement board, there's $5,000,000 for New York State occupational health clinic network. Which comes together in total $17,000,000 in total that we're providing.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: So my my question for you is how much money will be provided to local DAs to investigate workers' compensation fraud, specifically to the local DAs? The 7,000,000. 7,000,000. So it it obviously went from 17. Correct? That was in the governor's initial ask down to 7. Do we know how that's going to be distributed?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes. I just said. $5,000,000 goes to hazardous abatement. $5,000,000 goes to New York State occupational, and $7,000,000 goes to the DA's.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: No, I understand. My question is $7,000,000 do we know how that's going to be distributed? The money that's going to

[José Rivera — Assembly Member]: the DA's? RFP.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Do I build it to be an RFP?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: To the

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: board. So it's going be an

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: RFP, so the DA's offices will do an RFP to the board.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay, and then the board is going to decide essentially how that money is distributed upon need? Yes. Okay. And now do we feel that I mean, obviously, we feel that $7,000,000 is enough to be able to investigate the workers' compensation fraud even though the DAs were really looking for 17? Yes. We do. Okay. Thank you, chairman. My next group of questions will be for miss Cruz if she would yield for some questions.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Cruz, will you yield?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes. Miss Cruz yields. Thank

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: you, miss Cruz. So in regards to and excuse me, I apologize. I lost my place. State employees cannot cooperate with federal immigration and law enforcement. Correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That's correct.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Can you give me a definition of state employee? When it comes to

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Oh, go ahead.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: The the attention of this bill. I apologize.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So it's anyone who works for the state other than law enforcement.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: So in other words, us?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay. And now what would constitute working with local law enforcement with immigration or ICE?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I'm gonna read you a list so give me a This one right? So it would be using state resources including but not limited to time spent while on duty for immigration enforcement purposes. Disclosing personal identifying information, questioning, interrogating or investigating a person for the purposes of immigration enforcement, questioning around immigration status unless for voter registration purposes, administering a benefit or otherwise required under the law, permitting immigration authorities to access access to non public areas of state and local facilities without a valid court order or a judicial warrant, permitting immigration authorities from engaging in immigration enforcement at poll sites where doing so would violate federal law or prohibit federal troop interfering at poll sites. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. No. There's more. Let me let me read you more. Yes. Using immigration authorities as interpreters, collecting information regarding immigration status, and that's it.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay. So so essentially, any state employee, right, cannot work with federal law enforcement or immigration really on anything. Correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay. So now is that in the course of their duties only or as when they are home as a private citizen? So in in other words, just for crazy example, someone that works in this chamber or or whether they're an elected official or they're a state employee are home on their own free will, right, not at work, and they decide to call immigration on someone who is yes.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: And I have breaking news.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Yes, ma'am.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: You and I are not considered state employees, so it would not apply to legislators. So let's make it somebody else.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Oh, so

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: In your example.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: So I I have information to go the other way saying that we are state employees.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I don't make the news. I just break them.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay. That's fine.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: This particular For the purposes bill, we are not considered employees.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: So but we fall understate employee.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Not for the purposes of this bill.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Right. But is it specifically written in this bill that elected officials and their staff do not fall under state employee?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Hold that thought. I wanna make sure that I'm 100% clear. It was originally correct. Even more breaking news. I hate to admit you were right and I was right in the beginning. We are in fact employees of the state of New York under the law.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So I wanna make sure it's crystal clear.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: No. No. It's fine.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I was comparing with counsel.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: I appreciate that.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: I know

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: that I know that hurt for you to do. I know. But I appreciate it.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Please never tell your father that I said you were right.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: I won't say him a word. The seven people that are watching only the ones that know. So so with that being said, now I'm gonna ask another question.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Go now back to your example, your home.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: So your home, it's it's it's whether it's me or and my concern is to staff state employees. So anybody who works in this building is a state employee.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Mhmm.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Right? Our staff if you're home not working and doing your duties at work and you are home and you decide that you wanna call customs, local, you know, not local, but federal agents, ICE, however the case may be, to report maybe something the ferrous going on at the house next door to you or whatever the reason is, someone may call. They are still a state employee. Are they prohibited from doing that?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: This would not be in the course of performing the duties as an employee of the state, so it would not apply.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: So it's only in the course of

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Performing their duties duties as a yes. That's correct.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay. Perfect. So now, when regards to and and it may have been answered already, so I apologize. When we were talking about law enforcement officers wearing mask, identification marks, identity wise, I believe it said they have to either have a the name of their agency on some on some way, shape, or form on their person. Right? And they also have to either have a name, badge number, or some type of shield. Is it or any of those? Or does it have to be all? Think

[Al Taylor — Assembly Member]: it's all.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Checking. Give me one second. Yes. It is an or. Any of those identifying pieces would work.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay. Thank you. And then just for my final part of this, and I I apologize I'm going taking one step back. It also says municipal governments and their employees will also follow all the requirements placed on state employees in addition to ensuring that municipal governments do not utilize their government resources for immigration enforcement purposes. So in other words, anybody that works for a municipality, village, town, county, or state

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That is correct.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: But only in the course of their work duties. So if it's making a call from their office, that's a state or a municipal office, anything like that. But private time alone

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That's correct.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Anything like that, they cannot be charged with any type of crime. Correct? I

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: do wanna make sure that your example didn't raise this, but I wanna make sure it's clear for the record. In your example, it sounds like it was someone who saw something while they were walking on the street, not while on official duty. If any of the information that leads them to think that a crime is being committed or that they're sharing this particular knowledge with the federal agency, ICE being the federal agency, it's something that they came into during their official duties. Just because they call after hours does not exclude them from this. So I'll give you an example. Someone on our team or someone in one of the agencies comes to the information that there's a Jane Doe in a particular address that happens to be undocumented. They don't like them. They're like, oh, I'm gonna hold on to the information and call after hours and get this person picked up by ICE. That's information that came into while they were working for the state. And they would have never known that information but for that interaction. In that instance, it would violate the law. Let's say instead, they happen to go to a restaurant, they come into knowledge of a particular crime being committed at that restaurant. After hours, they wanna go and call. That's a very different example, and that would not be covered by this.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: So I I I understood. So as long as it's not during your essentially time you're supposed to be at work?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Time you're supposed to be at work, knowledge you would have gotten through work and work only.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay. So if again, I I like silly examples, but I just wanna make sure we have it. If an employee of the state or municipality is on their lunch break and they're taking a walk

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Lunch break is

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: they and they see a crime being committed or something like that, they are not allowed to report that crime to a federal agent, correct, because it's during the course of

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: work day. Different.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: No. That's why

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: I'm asking.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Because you're saying reporting a crime that has nothing to do with this. This would be for immigration enforcement purposes. Right. So that's not a crime.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Well, no. No. No.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: I

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So so you so if you wanted to report the particular person on on a lunch hour because they're committing a crime, you can pick up the phone, call 911, call federal law enforcement. But if you happen to look at someone, you're like, oh, this person looks undocumented during your lunch hour. I'm gonna call ICE.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: No. Of That that I understand. But in if if there was a crime, god forbid, being committed, you know, an assault, anything like that, and you decide to Oh,

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: you call the police. Then nothing stops them from calling 91 or the police.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: But you cannot call federal law enforcement. Correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: You could call why would you call the FBI if someone's being assaulted at a restaurant and not 911?

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: What so if okay. So if you

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: would could call them. You could. But

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: I understand that. I just like to have everything, you know,

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: just to I I understand it

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: It's just a question. But now if you do call 911 or the police and because of that crime being committed at that time, it does lead to federal law enforcement being called, but you are not the one to call them. You're not at risk of anything

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That's not contemplated in this bill, that's completely separate and apart from it. Because the because you your interaction in with law enforcement and calling law enforcement was because you saw a crime and it was for the safety of the community or for whatever was happening. It wasn't because you looked at the person and wanted to enforce immigration law

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Right.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: By picking up the phone and calling.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Got it. Okay. So it's just essentially but but it's not specific to just ICE. It's any federal law enforcement. Correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: It's immigration enforcement.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: So not just federal enforcement. It's federal immigration enforcement.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: That's correct.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: So if I was to call the department the federal department of labor, right, to complain about a contractor or something like that, does that I'm okay with doing that. It's just you cannot call

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: This law does not contemplate that. There might be other laws that do and that regulate what a state employee can do in these situations. I'm not aware of them, but this particular section of the law in today's budget does not.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Okay. I just want to make sure. So if if the Department of Labor was out investigating wage theft or anything like that and they were to work with the the the Federal Department of Labor, right, in regards to anybody using undocumented workers, paying proper wages, anything like that, and it leads to a federal investigation or anything like that.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That that's beyond the scope of this. In the purpose of the particular investigation you're talking about, it's about the violation of federal labor laws.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Correct. It's not to report somebody. I'm it it or call federal immigration to report a person specifically. It's about an act. So the Department of Labor is not precluded from still investigating

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That's correct.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Anything. Thank you, miss Cruz. I appreciate it.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Miss Gonzales Rojas.

[Jessica González-Rojas — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill. On the bill. I rise today in strong support of key sections of this budget bill before us. I do so as someone who deeply believes in public safety. I do so as someone who believes in the dignity and the humanity of immigrants. And I do so as a representative of one of the most diverse immigrant rich districts, not only in New York State, but in the entire country. In my district, families speak dozens of languages. They come from every corner of the world. They're working class families. They're mixed status families. Immigrant families who came here seeking safety, opportunity, and the simple promise that if you work hard, care for your family, and contribute to your community, you belong. That's why my father came here and countless members of our communities. And what constituents want and every New Yorker wants is the same. They want to feel safe. They want their children safe from gun violence. They wanna feel safe sending their kids to school, going to work, going to worship, seeking medical care. They want to know that their constitutional rights and their dignity matter. That is why these sections of the budget bill we are voting on today are so important. One section recognizes a growing threat to public safety that we cannot ignore. The proliferation of ghost guns, machine gun conversion devices, and three d printed firearms. Communities across our state are already grappling with the devastating consequences of gun violence. Law enforcement officials and advocates alike have raised alarm bells about unserialized firearms and conversion devices that can turn a handgun into a weapon capable of mass harm in seconds. Public safety requires us to evolve alongside technology. We cannot allow dangerous loopholes to undermine the gun safety laws New York has worked so hard to enact. This legislation takes responsible action to address emerging threats before they become even more widespread and deadly. Because protecting public safety means preventing violence before tragedy strikes. And public safety is not only about what we prevent. It's also about whether people feel safe enough to participate in public life. That is why another section of this bill is so deeply important. It says something simple and fundamental. Our schools, our hospitals, our houses of worship, our libraries, domestic violence shelters, and institutions of higher education must remain places of care, learning, healing, and refuge, not fear. When immigrant families are afraid to take their child to school, to seek medical care, to report abuse, or attend religious services because they fear civil immigration enforcement, all of us are less safe. Fear isolates communities. Fear drives people underground. Fear weakens trust. And trust is essential for public safety. Communities are safer when people feel secure enough to seek health care, report crimes, cooperate with institutions, and fully participate in civic life. I also strongly support the provisions in this legislation that prohibits state and local agencies from entering into or renewing so called two eighty seven g agreements that deputize local law enforcement to carry out federal civil immigration enforcement. And let me be clear, local law enforcement should be focused on local public safety. Our schools, hospitals, and public institutions should be places of service and of trust, not extensions of federal immigration enforcement. Because when immigrant families fear that any interactions with public institutions could put them at risk, communities become less safe, not more safe. And as someone who represents immigrant communities every single day, I've heard directly from students and families living with an extraordinary anxiety and uncertainty. Young people wondering whether enrolling in college would put their families at risk. Parents afraid to engage with institutions that should support them. And that's why I'm especially thrilled that in this legislation includes language from one of my bills to protect immigrant students in our public university systems. Specifically, the legislation will make it unlawful for any employee or officer of our city and state university systems to request the specific details of students' immigration status except when required by a judicial warrant. And let me be clear, students should come to our colleges to learn, not to live in fear. A young person pursuing an education should never have to wonder whether asking for academic help, financial aid, advising, or campus resources will expose them or their family to immigration consequences. We should be opening doors to opportunity, not building systems of surveillance and fear. And finally, another important section of this budget bill affirms a basic democratic principle. Constitutional rights mean little if the people have no meaningful way to enforce them. Because rights are not just words on paper, they are promises. Promises that people are treated are treated fairly. Promises that people will have due process. Promises that no one is above accountability. And when those promises are violated, people deserve recourse. That strengthens public trust. Because true public safety is rooted in accountability. It's rooted in fairness. It's rooted in communities knowing that institutions exist to protect them, not harm them. The truth is this, we do not have to choose between public safety and immigrant dignity. We do not have to choose between constitutional rights and community safety. We can and we must do both. We can keep communities safe from gun violence while also protecting the dignity of immigrant families. We can strengthen public trust while also ensuring accountability. These sections of the budget bill will move us forward towards a New York where families are safer from gun violence, where immigrants can live with dignity and less fear, and where our constitutional rights remain meaningful and enforceable. We can build a New York where people are safer, freer, and treated with dignity. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Tanussis.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield regards to immigration?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Padlo?

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Oh. Regards to immigration.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Immigration? Miss Cruz, will you yield? Miss Cruz yields.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Thank you. Miss Cruz, I just wanna clarify some things. A few minutes ago, when you were asked by one of my colleagues, they asked you in regards to the communication between state employees and federal immigration officers. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you said that this legislation would not necessarily affect one off contacts, but it would affect a pattern of contact of contacts. Is that correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That's only for law enforcement. Correct. Yes. It You said state employees. So it's only for law enforcement. We're treating state employees and law enforcement separately in this one.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Okay. So can you give me an example then where a law enforcement employee would necessarily only contact federal immigration once and not build a pattern?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Okay. We need to separate them first. There's state employees and then there's what's deemed law enforcement officers under this law. Which one do you wanna go through the pattern with?

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: I wanna talk about police, meaning state police, and, of course, this bill also affects municipality police. Correct?

[Phara Souffrant Forrest — Assembly Member]: Hold hold on. Hold on. No.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: No. I I know. That's what he's saying. So So I know that you keep saying state employee law enforcement, but for the sake of making sure that we have a clear legislative record, let's refer to them as state employees or law enforcement regardless of whether the law enforcement is municipal, state troopers, or or local. Would that be okay?

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Sure. Let's just make it Let's just make it about police.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Let's just make it about police. Okay. So in your example, you're asking me I just wanna verify that I understood the question correctly. Under what instances would the two eighty seven g provision of this bill be violated or are you asking me what would constitute a pattern of deputizing the local enforcement?

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Right. What I'm asking you is an example of where it would be one off contact with federal immigration officers as opposed to a pattern of conduct which would violate this potential law.

[Phara Souffrant Forrest — Assembly Member]: He's

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: asking for an example. So what would be the So while I don't love this example, I'm going to give you what is permitted under the law. It's a county in somewhere in the state of New York that never before had a two eighty seven g agreement and an instance happens where they arrest someone and they call ICE to notify them that they have someone under their custody that happens to be undocumented. First time they've ever done it, never do it afterwards. This is the only communication that would not constitute a pattern of deputizing. Now I'll turn that example a little bit different. So a a particular county that happens to currently have a two eighty seven g after the legislation takes effect, The two eighty seven g agreement has now ended and they continue to behave in the same way where it is clear that their local officers have been deputized are and are doing the job that generally would otherwise be done by an ICE agent. And they do so in the same way that they would do it now, in spite of the law now changing and in spite of no longer having a two eighty seven g in effect.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Okay. So what you're saying is that every county or in this state basically gets one freebie. Right? Is that what you're telling us? I

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I mean, it's kind of a crude way to put it, but, you know, it's just one but Right. Okay. Let's say they do one in January and another one in July and sometime in November and that's it. Yeah.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: So just just to put it in context so the people out there understand what we're talking about here.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: There are And it's also not just about the communication. I wanna make sure that I'm clear on that because one thing is picking up the phone and saying, oh, we have someone here detained. A completely different thing is add to that example. They are also engaging in other behavior that is only generally done by ICE. They create stop traffic stops simply to determine who might be undocumented. They are checking immigration status. There's other behavior that would go into that. It's not just about, oh, they picked up the phone and communicated. That's not just

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: the only Right. But that but that does affect that communication, doesn't it, miss Cruz?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Coupled with everything. Yeah. What's the purpose of the communication? The communication might just be to inform ICE that we have somebody in custody. The communication might be to say, we happen to do a traffic stop to check for immigration status and now we have this one person and then this other person, that's begins to look more like the behavior of a 27 g.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: So just to just to just to be clear, someone that, for example, maybe potentially was charged with a crime and potentially was sentenced on that crime and did jail time or prison time, for example, once they were to leave that system, state employees, whether they be corrections officers or anyone working on the state level, would be prohibited from contacting immigration officials if that person is undocumented. Correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So I wanna make sure that we have it clear that corrections officers are carved out from from state employees.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Okay. What about

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So it would not apply here.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: But in your particular instance, if I and it actually happens now and we're not changing that pattern, Someone has done their time, they happen to be undocumented, usually there's going to be a deportation, one of their fellows, they can pick them up in the same way that they would now. We are not stopping that process. We are not telling the federal government how to do their part of the job. We're saying we as a state are no longer going to be doing the job for you.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: But that's not even doing the job for them. That is basically prohibiting them from contacting the federal government. Correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So right now there's sections of the correction law that we are not touching and not repealing, and there are already often procedures that allow the communication to happen between the correction facility and ICE at the end of their of the person's sentence.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Sorry. I'm a little bit confused here. I just wanna clarify everything.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Absolutely.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: The bill before us today prevents cooperation between state employees, including law enforcement, and federal immigration officials. Correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes. Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it also excludes law enforcement and correctional facilities staffers officers.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: It excludes it. So are you saying to us today that police officers do not, there's no

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: any type of restraint on police officers? Earlier when I tried to separate the two examples, you keep using interchangeably state employees and police officers. We are treating the requirements for police officers and the type of cooperation, communication, etcetera in one way and we are treating state employees differently. It's why I don't want to use those two interchangeably. I wanna use law enforcement officers or police officers and state employees or county employees separate.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Okay. But either way, this bill affects the way that whether you wanna say police officers or state employees, it affects their relationship or or the ability to work with federal immigration officials. Right? Isn't that the point of this legislation?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I mean, the answer is yes. But it treats them differently how each other

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: can do it. Right.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes. But it treats hold on. You asked me the question. I'm gonna answer. Yes. But I wanna make sure that we're clear and that it treats each of them differently for different purposes. What kind of communication can happen? At the end of the day, we don't want anyone stepping into the shoes of the federal of federal law enforcement for the purposes of immigration enforcement. But the way in which we've carved out the pattern of deputizing under two eighty seven gs that would be not permitted under the law anymore and the pattern of utilizing state resources if you are a state or local employee are treated differently for actually for the purpose of of the example you gave because there are instances under the law that we're not touching where communication can still happen.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Okay. Thank you. But I've just it was very, very simply, it affects that relationship. It certainly does not make it easier for law enforcement or for state employees or whoever to actually work with ICE. Correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: We're not trying to make it easier. We're trying make it harder. Right? We're trying to make sure that we protect people's constitutional rights.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Okay. Perfect. And that this will take effect no matter what time type of crime any defendant potentially was convicted of. Right?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Well, let's actually touch it because if I remember correctly, you are a former prosecutor. Right?

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Correct. In The Bronx.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: No. What I as a survivor of a crime and you as a prosecutor, wouldn't you want that whoever made whoever committed a crime against me actually pay the time? And and, you know, because it isn't just about, oh, they got arrested, they got charged. Let's, yes, run them through the system, making sure that the constitution is is actually followed, that their rights are protected, and that the rights and what the victim needs actually is taken into account. Because why would you want someone deported in that facing court?

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: You know, it's funny you bring that up, miss Cruz, because in my time at the Bronx district attorney's office, what I saw a pattern of, were people, defendants many times that were undocumented. And what would happen was they would commit the crime. They would come before us. They would either plead guilty or they were found guilty. They would be sentenced. They would be released eventually after serving their sentence, and then three, four months later, they'd be back again with a new victim that they created, new charges that they're facing, and that would continuously happen in a pattern. So it's not a really Are

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: you in the bill or are you asking me a question? I'm sorry.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Well, I'm responding to your question, which is what I would like to have seen as a prosecutor. That's why don't you agree that having the same individual come back every time because they have committed a new crime I got this. And they weren't necessarily rehabilitated during their time?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Can I ask you a clarifying question? Because I'm not understanding

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Let me just finish the question. I can ask you if it's

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: okay. Sure.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Wouldn't you agree that it would be that it wouldn't benefit society if a criminal defendant who continuously committed crimes was sentenced, did their time, would come out again, commit a new crime with new victims, and continuously did that in a revolving door, would you don't you agree that these laws would not benefit society because they would not actually help municipalities contact federal authorities to have these people deported? So I wanna make sure a couple

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: of things. One, this bill does not touch the ability of docs to let ICE know once a defendant has completed their sentence. We are not touching that. Two, I'm not sure how that's different from a regular US born person committing a crime and getting out and coming back in. I'm not sure what what the person's immigration status and has anything to do with the example you're giving me, so I wanna make sure that I'm that's the question that I was trying to clarify? It's I do wanna make sure know where you're going with this and so that's why I wanna put on the table the clarification point that in an instance like that, doc still has the ability today and will continue to have the ability. We are not touching that. That at the end of the person's sentence, if they are inclined to work with ICE the way that they do now, continue to do so.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Okay. Just to go back on what you said, miss Cruz, I just wanna clarify something. Okay? As you know, I'm the son of immigrants. Right? You as well. Correct, miss Cruz?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I'm an immigrant myself.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Oh, you're an immigrant yourself. Mhmm. Even better. Okay? So it's not about their immigration status. It is about their actions, and it is about the public. So when there is a situation where someone that does not have the right to be here, but instead of contributing to society is committing crimes against the people here, then yes. I think there should be and I believe most New York State residents would agree that there should be accountability not just in terms of rehabilitation or in terms of sentencing, but also accountability in terms of immigration authorities. Don't you agree, miss Cruz?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So I wanna clarify yet again that this legislation does not touch the ability of docs to work without Thank

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: you, miss again. Mister Simone?

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Thank you. Madam speaker, I have a few questions on the immigration aspect of this bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Cruz, will you yield? Yes. Miss Cruz yields.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Under subpart f regarding law enforcement wearing masks, will undercover officers be forced to identify themselves? No. What about personal protective equipment if there is another outbreak, say the hantavirus or another pandemic?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: They'd be allowed to use it.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Would violations of the ban on wearing face coverings by law enforcement be a desk appearance ticket or bail eligible?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: The first violation the first instance would be a violation and the second one could be bail bail eligible.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Thank you. How does requiring officers to show their faces and identification strengthen public trust and accountability in law enforcement interactions?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: You know, right now, I represent a community that's terrified of talking to the police because of everything that we're seeing. It isn't just about the interactions with that one particular law enforcement agency here being ICE. It is also about what these actions are doing to a community's relationship with law enforcement in general. When there is no transparency, when you feel like it's a vigilante situation and you can't tell who's coming after you, you can't tell if it's someone trying to kidnap you off the street or if it's an actual law enforcement agency at times. That does something to the trust in law enforcement in general. What we're doing is holding people accountable, we're creating transparency, and we're making sure frankly that we're protecting the trust that people in New York should have in law enforcement.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Thank you. How would this bill help prevent confusion, misconduct, or impersonation by ensuring the public can identify who is exercising state authority?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: You know, there's been unfortunate situations. There's several stories of immigrant women who have been kidnapped by people portraying to be ICE and actually kidnapped, raped, we don't wanna imagine what could continue to happen if people feel like they have free rein to impersonate law enforcement. What this will do, and and it's happening, you know, right now, there's local law in New York that requires officers to identify themselves when interacting with the public. All we're saying is that any law enforcement agency in that is operating in our state should have that same transparency. You and I when interacting with them should know who they are and what agency they represent.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Thank you. How does this legislation balance legitimate officer safety concerns while reaffirming that public officials exercising government power should remain accountable to the community they serve?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So, you know, the transparency piece here of knowing who's in front of me and what agency they represent will in turn create trust. And our carve outs of allowing certain face coverings during certain situations and actually excluding officers who are in undercover operations actually keeps them safe as well.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Thank you. On the overall immigration legislative package, how will it help ensure immigrant families can safely access schools, hospitals, courts, and places of worship without fear of immigration enforcement?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: There's been over the last year several instances throughout the state of ICE detaining and kidnapping people on their way to church. People who did not have a criminal record and who were on their way to church. There's been instances of people right in front of right here as I mentioned earlier in Albany, right in front of one of the local mosques, 10 people were taken. There's been instances of folks trying to comply with the law and having non permanent status. Some of them have had asylum, some of them have had juvenile why did the word escape me right now? Juvenile special status who were detained in spite of actually having immigration status were detained. And on or near these locations, right in my community there is a corner that became unfortunately very popular for ICE, and it's right down the block from a school where they were parking themselves and actually picking up people as they went down the block to work. No judicial warrant, only literally pointing at people and tackling them right down the block from a school. What this bill is going to do is to make sure that when our kids are going to school, when their parents are taking them, when they're going to church, when they're going to a hospital, they have the assurance that there are policies in place to keep them safe so that they can continue to go to church, they can continue to live the life that they should be allowed to live in dignity.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Thank you. How would creating an immigrant trust office within the Department of Law help immigrant New Yorkers navigate fraud, exploitation, and legal concerns?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: You know, this office I think has been sorely needed for a long time and I'm very glad to see that it's happening. The section of the law that includes all of the immigration provisions right now is going to need someone to actually be able to enforce it. Because what's a law requiring these kinds of things that we're discussing today if there's no teeth. And this is the office that will be able to investigate and enforce when necessary. What this will tell the public, what this will tell New Yorkers is that we are not just passing legislation to get a headline. We're passing legislation to actually create real change and to hold people accountable when they're bad actors.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Thank you. What are the economic benefits of ensuring immigrant New Yorkers can fully participate in civic and economic life without fear?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Can you repeat that?

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: What other economic benefits of ensuring immigrant New Yorkers can fully participate in civic and economic life without fear?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I have numbers for you. So, there are about four and a half million immigrants in New York with about 650,000 of them being undocumented. Simply by looking at them, you can't tell who's who. Add to that the millions of US born or naturalized citizens who are in fear because of everything that's happening. The economic benefits are people can go to work, people can have purchasing power, people are able to contribute to our tax coffers. I remember when we did the green light bill, if my memory serves me correctly, the contributions and taxes to New York State were in the billions by undocumented New Yorkers. And these are people who contribute to our coffers, but cannot in turn receive the money. And if we are putting in place protections so that they feel safe when they go to work, so that they feel safe when they're going to shop, then that's a much better situation for the economic state of New York.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Thank you. In what ways could these policies help reduce fear among mixed status families and prevent children from avoiding school or services?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So one of the things we saw locally in my community and I think this is something that can be said about a lot of communities was that at certain points there was a decline in the number of kids going to school. Many of these kids are US born kids with undocumented parents or parents in a non permanent status. That's that could be TPS recipients, that could be asylum seekers. The if a parent is seeing on TikTok because we've seen them on the news, because we've seen them, that in their neighborhood, there's ICE raids or bans or the presence of ICE, they're not gonna wanna go to work. They're not gonna wanna take their kids to school. And placing these protections in place will let them know that we are, as a state, doing everything that we can to make sure that when they go to school, when they go to work, they're safe and protected. Or as much as we can, in short.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: Thank you. I have no further questions. Madam speaker, on the bill. On the bill. We should be proud of today though it is so sad what our country has become. Nowhere in America should masked agents have our citizens alike and immigrants, the majority who have not committed crimes, even though that is a talking point from one side. The majority are good fellow Americans. They are people like my cousins and me mama. I am a son of an immigrant. The immigration aspects of this bill are about transparency and public trust. I am proud that the legislation to ban law enforcement including ICE from wearing masks is included in this package. Right now, mothers are afraid to send their kids to school. Workers are afraid to go to their shops and construction sites. Communities can't tell the difference between ICE officers and impostors. If you're not breaking the law or abusing your power, why do you have to wear a mask? Communities can't must tell the difference and trust their law enforcement. Why this bill applies to

[Philip Steck — Assembly Member]: all law

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: enforcement. Government power should never operate in the shadows, and we're doing this for people like Jorge Rites, a US army veteran of the Iraq war, who was driving to work and they blocked his vehicle through tear gas canisters, shouted his car window. He was detained for several weeks missing his daughter's third birthday and his family did not know where he was. A citizen of The United States was apprehended because of the color of his skin and where his cut his family came from. We're passing this for Nurul Aman Shah Aloom, a legally a legally resettled refugee living in Buffalo, New York nearly blind, elderly, and medically vulnerable. He was reportedly detained by border patrol, later released out in the middle of the snow and cold, and left to die, and he died. We're also doing it for Kevin Gonzalez, an 18 year old citizen born in Chicago diagnosed with stage four colon cancer living in Mexico. Kevin's undocumented parents who were following every rule attempted to cross the border to see him during his terminal illness but were detained. We're doing this for folks who were sent to gulags in other countries without due process. This is not against public safety. It increases public safety and trust and transparency and accountability. We all know why they're doing it. The man of the White House is doing it to spread fear and cause pain, not to enforce the law, not to go after criminals because as my colleague had said, the vast majority of immigrants who are being detained without due process have committed no crime. Overstaying your visa is a civil offense. So I am proud and humbled and moved that we are passing this immigration bill which will make us safer. You're gonna hear in the coming weeks that it won't make you safer and we stand up for you know who and you know that. But we know if the criminal in the White House was really wanted to stop, really wanted to solve the immigration

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: issue. Speaker, point of order.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Why do you rise?

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Calling our president the criminal in the White House is beyond the pale. I'm trying to give some latitude to mister Simone as he's wrapping up, I hope, but that's that's really not the kind of decorum that I think we should be showing in the assembly chamber. Thank

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: thank you. If we could just keep our remarks to the bill.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: I'll keep my remarks to the bill but I was stating a fact. So

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Colleagues, we will remain civil here today and speak solely on the bill in front of us here today. Mister Simone.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: I just wanna conclude today that this immigration package we should be proud of. It will increase public safety. It will help begin just begin, and we need a national law as well, and we will hopefully do that in a few months. Protect our immigrants across this country. They committed no crime by coming here to feed us, to go to war with us, to like my mom did, came here for the American dream thinking they were safe. We want you to come more to this country, immigrants from around the world to fulfill the American dream and today we begin to protect our fellow immigrants, New Yorkers, Americans. We should be proud of this vote and I support and I vote aye on this bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, Mr. Riley.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a few questions on the immigration issues?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Cruz, will you yield?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes, Mr. Riley.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Cruz, yes.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Thank you, Ms. Cruz. So I wanna first start off with asking a question of how does section 34 I of the municipal home rule law amendment comply with article nine home rule protections?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Hold that thought. Okay. Can you repeat that question?

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: So how does section 34 I of the municipal home rule law amendment comply with article nine home rule protections?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So the purpose of this language is to make it clear that the language in the bill in no way allows local governments to expand the authority of municipal government employees to participate in immigration enforcement and applies regardless of the adoption of county charter amendment to the contrary.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: So is has there been any thought of the encroachment on municipal home rule law? Could this expand further where there would be an encroachment on home rule authority? And would it violate the state constitution?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So localities could still do things that are more protective than this, but this is giving clarity that that is this is the floor. So to your statement, we don't believe that it actually infringes on repeat your senses. On

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: On home rule.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: On home rule.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Authority under the constitution.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes. Because what we're saying here is that this is setting a floor in creating clarity.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: So just in comparison, state law and the state constitution has a floor in allowing citizens to vote. Home rule has been taken into account where municipalities have moved to allow those who are noncitizens to vote. Is there is there an opportunity now where the home rule aspect could now be limited?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: This has nothing to do with that.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: I understand that, but it could be set in precedent. That's why I'm asking you.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: We disagree.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Okay. What objective standards define immigration enforcement purposes for employees subject to penalties?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: You you want me to read the long list again? Remember that list I read earlier? I'm happy to read it again for the record if

[Harry B. Bronson — Assembly Member]: you Well

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Sure. The employees so we're saying well, alright. So we'll we'll differentiate. So law enforcement is excluded. Right? And you and we did and we determined that

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Say that again?

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Law enforcement is excluded.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Because we're treating, as I mentioned to your your colleague, we have state employees and law enforcement. Even if law enforcement happens to be state in nature, we're treating them differently for the purposes of this bill.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Okay. So for instance, someone who's a state employee that works for Haida. For who? Haida.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Mhmm.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Right? High identifying drug trafficking identification. Right? Now that's not necessarily a law enforcement. They're state employees. Would Haida

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: be I have never heard of this agency so

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: You've never heard of Haida?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I've never heard of it. So if you can tell me the actual

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Okay. Well, they're regional offices that work in identifying high trafficking drug locations.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Now I know who you're talking Yes. Okay. Okay. So in that instance, you're asking if those particular entities are considered law enforcement or state employees for the purposes of this bill? Correct. Are they considered peace officers or law enforcement under the law? They're employees. Can they make an arrest?

[Harry B. Bronson — Assembly Member]: No. Then they

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: would be deemed state employees.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Say again. I'm sorry.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Then they would be deemed state employees.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: So then they wouldn't be able to work in cooperation with any federal task force that involved immigration?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Is this one of the this one of the entities that generally would work in a task force or in cooperation? Because I don't think I have enough information about how the this particular agency does what it does in order to determine

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Who's on.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Who's on. Like, who's on it?

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Well, it's it's kind of like a information center.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: An information center.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Yes. So, you may have analysts that are state employees that work for DCJS and they're assigned DCJS. To this Haider unit and they can be participating and sharing information with federal task force.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Is the FBI on it? Is it a federal part of a federal task force or connected to?

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Well, there's there's a whole bunch of agencies both federal, state, and local that participate. And oftentimes, those analysts are not assigned to those individual agencies so they wouldn't fall under the law enforcement exception in this

[Harry B. Bronson — Assembly Member]: bill. So,

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: you know, I I think that example is so unique that I think we'd have to look at the actual behavior and the work that they're doing. And I mentioned earlier, if it looks like a two eighty seven g, if it smells like a two eighty seven g, then it's a two eighty seven This is this note, this is similar that if they behave like law enforcement and they're working like law enforcement, then it's probably law enforcement. I'd have to take an actual look at how they're defined in that section of the law to be able to tell you. I'm gonna see if a team member here can find it, but it sounds like from their activities that they may actually be considered law enforcement. Even if they're not assigned to a particular agency, their sole purpose is to be part of a law enforcement cooperation group.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: So without that being clearly defined, they the analyst could still be violating this law.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Correct? Well,

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: what's the behavior?

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Well, let's say it involves where it ex escalates to notifying for a civil immigration.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So let's separate it because the way that you're describing the example is what would apply to a state employee, not what would apply to a law enforcement agency. So if in your example, let's say we go back and look and they're oh, at that. High intensity drug trafficking areas is a federal grant program administered by the White House. It assists federal and state and local and tribal law enforcement agencies in operating within the critical drug trafficking regions across The United States. It sounds like they would be law enforcement. And so in that instance, in the example you gave, it's the kind of behavior that we are regulating here for local employees, for state employees. Let's now move into the realm of given their behavior, they're law enforcement. So let's look at whether the example you're giving would violate or not the law that we're passing today. Does that work?

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So So in your example, because they're law enforcement and they're carved out, the work and because of how unique the cooperation looks in this particular task force is, we're not touching that in this in this legislation.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Okay. Fair enough. So one question that has to do with the liability piece that's mentioned. Why does the legislation react retroactively create liability back to 01/01/2025?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: You know, I think there was a lot of stories that began around that time throughout our communities of people's civil rights being violated, of them being detained without warrants. And so in thinking through when we began to see a search that's why that date was chosen.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Interesting. Okay. Thank you for that answer. I guess my next question is, so are there any safeguards to prevent arbitrary enforcement of terms such as facilitate access or sole purpose of immigration enforcement?

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: What do you mean?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Do you mean?

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: So what what constitutes facilitating access to federal immigration enforcement agents? So what is the what is the

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: example who would be facilitating the enforcement?

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Well, it would be someone who's violating this legislation.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Would it be a state employee? State municipal employee?

[Matt Slater — Assembly Member]: Let's go

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: with state employee because that's what this law is doing. Right?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: No. Okay. Can you just repeat the question to make sure I have the answer that I think is correct.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: So what term how how do we determine specifically Got it. Facilitate access meetings?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So I'll give you an example.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: But I do wanna make sure that we mentioned there's going to be policies in place and further training to make sure that our state employees are educated about these changes in the law and what their requirements will be. Let's use an example. Someone's working at OTDA. They're a front facing employee. They come into contact. Someone's applying for a benefit that does not require an immigration question, related question. Yep. And so they're in the middle of their application and they're in a particular state office and they're in a private part of the office, not in a public part, and all of a sudden ICE comes in and says, we're looking for Jane Doe. And Jane Doe happens to be the person that the particular employee is sitting down with. And the employee says, here you go, and permits them access into what it would otherwise be considered a private area of that particular state agency.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: So that's facility?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That that would be a violation of But this again, there will be further policies delineated to in training. Importantly, there's training. We wanna make sure that people know.

[Al Taylor — Assembly Member]: So but we

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: don't say what the training is. I have one last question. Has was there any consultation with the attorney general's office to see about whether this would violate the supremacy clause? This whole entire legislation.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: There was consultation with the attorney general on a lot of things, but there is a firm belief that this bill does not violate the supremacy clause.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Well, do we think it's going to potentially impact federal financial financial aspects for the state? In other words, money that's gonna come from the federal government.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That's not for us to determine or decide. That's for the federal government.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Okay. So do we ever do analysis for fiscal impact on any legislation that we present?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: If there's a financial implication, yes.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Well, since this is a budget bill, I would assume that there is gonna be financial impact.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Now, mister Reilly, you and I know that this particular bill is not necessarily a budget bill. Well,

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: it's says it You

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: know what I mean.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: I understand that. But that's the reason why when we ask for on the bill, madam speaker.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: But if I may, before you

[Michael Durso — Assembly Member]: wanna bill

[Al Taylor — Assembly Member]: on the bill. We're talking about

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: a budget bill and we're asking for specific financial inquiries about how we're spending money and yet we're moving forward with policy without that money being delineated and without us knowing a financial spending plan. Some of the questions and some of the comments and some of the things raised specifically tie into funding, which is what we're talking about right here. It's on the board, budget. A, one zero zero zero five. There's c. It's a budget bill. We are specifically going to impact New York State's finances with policy that has been put in to budget bills. You can't get more fiscally irresponsible than that, and that's what we're talking about. And we're talking about home rule for our local governments is what I started with. We need to really think about things that we put forward, and I hope that people will open up their eyes and their ears and start listening and maybe working together where we can actually get things across the line that won't have such a significant impact. And maybe have some open dialogue where we can come to an agreement and make it work best because the words on paper don't transition to the street or to the courtroom the way we always say it will or the way we think it will. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Angelino.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm gonna ask some questions regarding part c sub a, which deals with convertible pistols and three d printing.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: May the chair yield? Chair yields.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Yes. I was expecting someone else.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: You want someone else? I can give you mister Dinowitz if you'd like. Mister Dinowitz, did you have to answer these questions? Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Dinowitz,

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: I'll answer his questions and then some. Thank

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: you, sir. And this is a pretty lengthy portion of this budget bill. And as I was reading it, I got three electronic devices here. So my questions might be a little disjointed and I'll go from one to the other.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Don't worry, expect that.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Don't worry. Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. So we'll start with the convertible pistols. And that's the that deals with the cruciform is the word they use. And for those in the room, there's a piece inside a pistol that's sort of shaped like a cross. I think it looks like an x. But anyway, I think they take crucif you know, cruciform out of crucifix. But that basically is used in almost any striker fired pistol. And that means it doesn't have a hammer. It has a spring and a mechanism. And there's one type of pistol that uses that pretty regularly, and that's Glock handguns. Was there any engineering consultation done about this particular cruciform trigger bar that you're aware of?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Was there anything done about it,

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: you said?

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: No. Was there any did anybody speak to any engineers about this particular part before crafting this bill?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: I I I wouldn't know. Neither would I.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: But I I know we're we're attacking the most popular handgun in The United States. There's millions of them. Every law enforcement agency in New York except one uses it.

[Philip Steck — Assembly Member]: I don't know if I would

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: call it attacking, but okay.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: How is an ordinary citizen supposed to know if they are buying a lawful product?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Well, if somebody is purchasing a product which could kill somebody, I would hope that they would make it their business to find out if they are purchasing a lawful product. Okay, but And dealers can't sell those.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Okay. Right now you can purchase many of them. So I know there's going to be some sort of clause in here that after a certain date you can't transfer or purchase this type of handle?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: I believe it's May, sometime in May 2027.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: So what happens then? Anything with that cruciform style trigger bar can't be sold in New York State?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Yes. What the bill does is it creates a crime when a dealer in firearms sells on or after 05/31/2027 convertible pistol, one that can be easily converted to a machine gun.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Okay. And it's not just Glocks that do that. Glocks are the most popular.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: That would be the most common.

[Philip Steck — Assembly Member]: That's right.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: So are we just doing this by popularity of the type of handgun? Or is it actually some sort of did any engineering advice go into which ones should be prevented?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: I mean, if you would like to recommend some additional ones, I'm sure we can include it in future legislation.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Oh, there's there are others. And this in reading this, again, it's pretty voluminous and also it it deals with three d printers and this, and that's why it's a little disjointed. But there's a great deal of latitude given to the superintendent of the state police. Are you familiar with that part of this?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Well, I don't know if I would characterize it as latitude. I think the superintendent would be given, it will be part of that person's job to to address this and and there would be certain decisions that the superintendent could make.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: And again, disjointed. I I understand there's, a a study group, SUNY, DCJS, superintendent, and others, and that's to see if the three d printing aspect is even feasible. Is that correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Yes. Okay. I mean yes.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: So some of my questions are going to presuppose that this law does go into effect regarding three d printers. But getting back to the superintendent of the state police, is there any limiting language on the superintendent that constrains his decisions on which handguns would fit this criteria?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Checking. I mean I think it gives certain guidance.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Can you clarify?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Specifically are you

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: No, was asking, it gives great latitude. Is there anything that the superintendent can't just add any pistol he wants in there if it fits this criteria?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: I I I I think it would have to be enumerated in the legislation.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: So is the legislature delegating, you know it seems like the legislature is delegating the superintendent of state police can decide a, b, and c bad, you know, e, f, and g good.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Do you want us to decide that? Yes. Okay. Well, let me let me just read you what the bill says, and then you can decide. The superintendent of state police is authorized to promulgate rules, regulations and policies necessary to effectuate the provisions of this act. Such superintendent shall, prior to the effective date of this act, and annually thereafter publish a list of pistols that the superintendent has determined to be convertible to pistols as defined in the penal law. So it does charge the superintendent with promulgating the rules and determining which types of guns are the ones that we're talking about here.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Thank you. I also noticed that retired police officers are exempt from this. And in the language, it says these striker fired crucible trigger barred type handguns are uniquely dangerous, but we're allowing thousands of people to carry them anyhow. Does that make sense? Yes. Why does that make sense?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Because I think we, all of us collectively, I'm sure, have confidence that both police and retired police are able to deal with that better than the average citizen.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Okay. The average citizen, I agree with. But there are firearms enthusiasts that are much more knowledgeable, much more proficient with a handgun than a lot of law enforcement. And those are the people who are really gonna hurt here. We're creating two classes. You know, I I had to carry a firearm because it was required and, you know, my proficiency was passing. But there are many civilians who could out shoot me and by re you know, just exempting a whole class of people with a uniquely dangerous weapon doesn't seem prudent.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Is is that a question?

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Apparently not. You nodded yes. No, was just standing there

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: waiting for you to put the question out.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Regarding this, we're the most popular handgun in The United States, millions of them, and we're going to say in New York State, unless they modify their blueprints, they that weapon cannot be sold new anymore in New York State. Is that correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Well, I think we've already decided that. Yes.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: So what is this going to do to the person who owns 12 or 13 Glock pistols? Is that are they gonna be harmed in any way because the value is gonna go up or down?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: No. They would be kind of grandparented in.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Okay. And I see there's something in there about general business law section eight ninety eight that defines immediate family, but it doesn't really define immediate family. It just repeats it. It says it can be transferred amongst immediate family. And do we know

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: what immediate family is? Well, would have to check, but off the top of my head, I would guess maybe it's spouse, parent, children.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Okay. But it doesn't it refers us back to August, and I was hoping for a definition there. Maybe I just didn't find it, and I was hoping one of your staff might be able to clear that up.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Well, if you want, I'll be happy to look through it during your time and I'll I'm eventually find

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: just worried that it's going to I don't know if it's going to create a demand because it's a more it's a rarer piece, and it's gonna make the value go up. Or if it's you can't have it in New York state, the value is gonna go down.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Hot to know. The do you know

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: if any independent firearms engineers or design people were consulted before crafting this? No. You don't know or they were not?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: You asked me if I knew, I said no.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Okay. If

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: convertibility, and that's the sort of the title in this is convertible pistols, there are other convertible pistols that don't have that trigger bar and it doesn't fit into this legislation. What are we gonna do about that?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: This legislation covers what it covers. If if we have to amend it at some point, we'll do that. But this is what it covers.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Okay. I'm going to try and go to the three d printing aspect of

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: this now. Oh, good. Okay.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: So the this bill is going to say that you can't have code that a computer can understand and create a part that could be used to convert a pistol. Am I correct there?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Well, would put it this way. The bill prohibits the sale of three d printers unless the printer has blocking technology. So here on in, yes, that code will be an issue. But people who already have three d printers, no, that doesn't nothing changes.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: I got the hand signal that I only have a couple minutes left. I'm gonna go on the bill, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bell.

[Joseph Angelino — Assembly Member]: Okay. On the bill. So I'm gonna be talking about the cases of Broome versus New York state police, Mcdonald versus Chicago, Heller versus Washington DC, these are all cases that I was hoping that some constitutional lawyer who is a part of this bill crafting would say this is never going to hold up because it's violating a lot of constitutionality. And the three d printer aspect of this is a pretty obvious violation of the first amendment of the constitutional. You know, we allow all kinds of ugly stuff to be transmitted on the Internet, but this one thing, you know, code for blueprints to make a plastic part is gonna be near unenforceable. The we're gonna have to be comfortable with the government looking at every download that goes to a printer, and somebody is gonna have to decide if that code is violating this. I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable having the government reading every download of blueprints or any aspect that's going to my three d printer. Three d printers are becoming ubiquitous. They're you know, I've seen them in hospitals that are making parts, car shops, everywhere. And what's to say if somebody needs to print a plastic trigger for their pistol? And that's a common part that people transfer in and out. I I'm just I'm afraid this section of this budget bill is fraught with unconstitutionality, and, you know, nobody here wants to see criminals converting a handgun into what we're gonna now call a machine gun. We're changing that definition of machine gun to include a convertible pistol after it's been modified, which is already illegal. So no lawful gun owner is going to want to do that. I've said it before. It's a waste of ammo. It's just a it's it's stupid. But, you know, the first amendment does allow for information and words to be transmitted back and forth, and I don't think the government should be scrutinizing that and actually re making hardware impossible to use because it's violating a computer code. And also a lot of these parts, if you change a half a millimeter of a gun part, that changes the code. So I don't know how we're going to ever ever be able to do this efficiently, lawfully, or even effectively. For those reasons on this portion of the bill I will be voting no because it' in the whole bill but I appreciate your time Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Thank you Madam Speaker will chair pretlow please yield.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Pretlow, will you yield? Yes, I will. Mr. Pretlow yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: I hope you're well rested because I know you've had to answer all the questions that have been asked today, so good for you. Thank you. But I'm going to start out by asking you some questions and then I'm going to, with whatever time I have left, probably engage Ms. Cruz in some other areas. But the first area I would like to talk about are procurement reforms that are in part Y of the PPGG bill. That part increases discretionary buying thresholds for all state agencies to $150,000 Correct. So the OGS discretionary buying threshold will increase from $85,000 to $150,000 correct?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes ma'am.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: All other state agencies, SUNY and CUNY, are going from $50,000 tripling it again to $150,000?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay. And I know that the governor had originally proposed that instead of $150,000 it would be $300,000 as the threshold. So there appears to have been a moderating influence placed on what we're seeing in part Y, correct?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: And is that as a result of the controllers pretty public and kind of unusual in a way disagreement coming out and saying that he he didn't like the some of the changes that the governor was proposing regarding procurement and audit?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Well, know, as the name implies, controllers like to control things and mister DiNapoli didn't wanna give too much authority to with to the governor's departments, but so we we compromised.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: It does sound as though the legislature listened to that and made adjustments.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: And at this point, do you know whether the controller has agreed to these changes in their current form?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I'm not sure. Okay. But he doesn't have the authority to veto this, so if it happens, it happens.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Of course he does not, right. Now the governor also, I guess, wanted to eliminate pre audits, initially sought to strip the controller's pre audit review powers for purchases made through centralized OGS contracts, would affect an estimated $2,000,000,000 in state spending. That in part why or is that going to be somewhere else in the budget, do you know?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes, that's not in this part of the budget.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay, do we expect to see that in another part of

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: the budget?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes, maybe not. I'm not sure.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay, we don't know.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Take that as a no.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: All right, I will take that as a no.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: All right.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Will the comptroller still though have pre and post audit review over these contracts that are being, that we just talked about, the OGS, state agency, SUNY, CUNY, those limits or is that what we don't know about

[Al Taylor — Assembly Member]: you?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: We didn't change your authority, we just changed the dollar threshold.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Got it. Okay. And that's great. I mean we certainly don't want to see another Buffalo Billians for sure or some of the .go or any of the other issues that we've had in the past. I'd like to shift over now to part HH, the Reparations Commission extender.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: I see that the New York State Community Commission on Reparations Remedies that they were supposed to prepare and deliver a report in January of next year, 27, under part eight HH, I should say.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: They will get another two years. So instead of thirty months, they'll be able to deliver in fifty four months after their first meeting. Is that correct?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: That is correct. They need more time to staff up.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: To staff up?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay. I did a little researching and it looks as though they have been meeting regularly. Can you give any kind of information as far as where they're at in terms of their work? I know they need more time, but where are they right now?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Do you know? Offhand, I'm not sure.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay. I also see that the one of the changes in Part HH is that members of the Commission shall not be considered officers under Section seventy three and seventy four of the Public Officer Law which deal with ethics rules, conflict of interest and conduct standards. Why is that change being made?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: They're not employees.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: They're not state employees and we had some issues about people on some commissions that were looking for salaries which we're not trying to do here. But basically they're not state employees and they're not considered state employees.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: So if they're not considered state employees, then they will not be subject to the ethics rules, the conflict of interest rules and the conduct standards that officers are?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: To that respect, yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay. Alright. Now I understand in fairness that other commissions like the redistricting commission I think also has some similar protections I believe. I don't know if that was the rationale for this. But, well let me ask you, what was the rationale for this change?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I mean, this just came up in negotiations and it's what we settled on.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Did they request that change?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: I'm not sure.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Believe it or not, I'd like to talk to you next about Part D, unlawful drone operation.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Okay.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: All I really wanted to there's there's a lot I could ask you about it. I do have somebody in my district that is incredibly invested in drones and unfortunately I couldn't pull together his background material that he had sent me in time to ask you these questions. But I do remember, and this part requires, that the superintendent establish the New York State Blue List. That list will outline the only vendors from which the state or any political subdivision in New York could buy or lease drones and drone mitigation technology.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay. Now what about the the average just drone person out in the world that likes drones, that wants to buy drones? Are there any restrictions on where they can buy from or who the authorized people are going be that they can get their stuff from?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: No, it doesn't limit that.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: And yet the bill stipulates that a drone of 5.5 no, point five five pounds and less is a toy, and there are really no restrictions on that. And drones that are larger than that, there are restrictions on as to where they can operate, how they can operate, who can operate them.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: I mean, and I'm, like, my son is planning a wedding next year. Drones are being used in a lot of wedding ceremonies. Being used

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: we'd at still be able to.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: And as long as they're equivalent to a toy, they're I mean, what if we think that that definition is going to not put that industry Well, out of

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: these are we're not putting them out of business. They're more recreational.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay. Okay. Alright. Very good. I've exhausted my knowledge of drones at this point so I'm going to move on. I thank you for your answers. Madam speaker, would you please ask Ms. Cruz to yield for some additional questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Cruz, will you yield?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Certainly. Ms. Thank Cruz is

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: very much. So I'd like to move to the section of the bill that deals with immigration enforcement in schools. And specifically I see that there's a provision that schools may not inquire about or collect information regarding citizenship, immigration status, nationality or country of origin may not disclose or threaten to disclose such information or personally identifiable information to immigration authorities. Is that correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That's correct.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay. My only concern with that provision is that we do have a lot of English as a second language learners. Isn't a certain degree of inquiry about the child's country of origin, preferred language, etcetera. Wouldn't that be important for instructional, you know, competency?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: It's for the benefit of the student, you can ask for preferred language.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay. Okay. So we're not going to be that was my concern is I don't want to be hamstringing educators who are genuinely trying to help the child in the, in progress

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yeah, and you know asking for preferred language is, you're not, in order to determine a child's preferred language and ensure that they're learning and as you say that the educator is able to do their job, you don't need to ask the other questions. But preferred language is absolutely permissible.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay, very good. Thank you. And I see that municipalities and schools may adopt stricter local policies regarding immigration enforcement in schools, but may not adopt weaker ones and that within forty five days of becoming law, state ed must publish model procedures. Do we have any idea of what those model procedures will look like?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: There's already existing guidance that has been provided by the Department of Education, the state Department of Education, as well as the attorney general that's been in place, I wanna say almost a year and a half since its publication. And so that will probably be the basis for the policies that will come forward and it deals from everything with related to the kind of information you can and should request sharing of that information, what to do if ISA show up, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay, so is it anticipated then based on your answer that is it anticipated that the model procedures that will be supplied as a result of the requirements in subpart D of this section will not be significantly different than what has already been disseminated about a year and a half ago?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I'm going from memory here, if I remember the it model was pretty well rounded. There may be a few things here and there, but I don't suspect that it's going to be too different from what's already in policy and that will be in law.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay, very good. Thank you. And then last, I'd like to take a look at subpart H having to do with daycare child transfer policies. So as I'm reading it, the procedures will require that the day care provider so if a parent or guardian is unable to pick up a child at the end of the program hours, including due to detention by federal immigration authorities, that the day care providers have to make reasonable efforts to reach all authorized pick up contacts and that the child be kept on-site until released to an authorized individual or otherwise and that until they do that, they are not to contact the statewide central registry for child abuse and maltreatment. Is

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: that correct?

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay. So my concern with that section or my question really is that day care providers are already mandated reporters under the law. So by this, aren't we then saying to a mandated reporter, aren't we qualifying or telling them that they're not to they're not to hotline or call in unless they've done certain steps first?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: But in your example, are are we saying that someone being detained would be sufficient enough to call, you know, in the city would be ACS?

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: I mean, to me, I think that no, I absolutely don't.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That's why

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: I'm I'm feeling like this section, I'm wondering why it's there because

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Well because I think the purpose is to make sure that we're, I'm going based on what I know from New York City, in New York City, schools and many day cares will have the blue card. And in the blue card you have emergency contacts and anybody else who's authorized to pick up the child. There should, what we're trying to make sure is that we're not separating families inflicting If more pain than a parent is picked up by ICE while the child is at school, there are, it would be the same if a parent had an accident and they and they were and the child was at school. We would want to make sure that we go through the emergency contacts and anyone else who's authorized before we go to the last resort which would be child services.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: And I would think that that's already being done in my opinion. Maybe not I think you are correct. Would think Practice

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: it is we want to now make sure that it's in law so that it's very crystal clear.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Yeah, I just don't see how it's legal. I don't see how it's legal to put a condition in for a mandated reporter and say, I know you're a mandated reporter, but you can't report unless you've done these things first. I I just don't. But anyway, my remaining time thank you so much, miss Cruz. I don't have a pending question. I appreciate your time. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: So I and I only have like thirty seconds left. So I was sort of like the utility, you know, clean up person here asking about a few things that haven't been asked about before. I will be voting down on the bill because of certain areas that were troubling to me along with probably good number of my colleagues. But I do appreciate both the chair and Ms. Cruz for their answers to my questions. Thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Zaccaro?

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. If I could ask miss Cruz to yield for a few questions.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Cruz, will you yield?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Certainly. You.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Cruz yields.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: I just wanted to point to and talk a little bit about a particular section in the immigration law where it relates to the New York State Bevans Act. Yes. And I wanna bring attention to this issue because it is an issue that personally hits home for me in my district as there was an incident that I know I've shared with you through this process. And so I just wanna just get some questions on the record and I would love if you can provide me with some answers to them. And the first one I wanna ask is New York State Bemmons Act is modeled after federal civil rights law that provides a private right of action for individuals when their constitutional rights have been violated under color of law. Is that correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: Now since its enactment, how has this federal civil law, civil civil rights law ensured those who cons who constitutional ensure that those who constitutional violations committed under the color of law are provided relief?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So what the law has done, the one in existence, the federal one, is give people an opportunity that if they've been wronged by our government during an encounter where the government is acting or the individual is acting under the color of law and has therefore violated a constitutional right of the aggrieved person, they can now seek remedy because these things should not go unaddressed. If the government is violating my constitutional rights, I should be able to seek remedy.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Federal or state?

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: And so I I kinda wanna and what's important to the this discussion, is I I my next question I wanna, refer to is time because as I just mentioned, this issue being an issue, that recently happened in my district, but I know that we've seen instances like this across the city, across the state, and across our country for for for quite some time. And so will this act apply retroactively as of 01/01/2025?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: Great. And what impact would applying the New York State Bevans Act retroactively have on those seeking remedies for constitutional violations?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: It's gonna make sure that the people who over the last year and a half or so who have been targeted by our own government and have had their rights violated can actually seek remedy in court.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: Thank you for that. I wanna turn to one more another question here. Is it fair to say that law enforcement will still be able to carry out their official duties if prohibited from wearing mask or personal disguise except under a limited set of circumstances?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Absolutely.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: What impacts, miss Cruz, do you believe this will have on law enforcement and community relations?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I think taking the entire package as a whole from prevent from ensuring that there's transparency and that the law enforcement agents interacting with our community are not wearing masks, but for the few exceptions that we've delineated, as well as indicating that there should be no law enforcement officer acting as an ICE agent is going to make sure that our community feels safer. I remember being a young law graduate working at a domestic violence shelter providing legal services for domestic violence survivors. And I remember this case, I remember it like it was yesterday, miss Jaramillo, who was fleeing an abusive spouse. And the first time she called the police, the police asked her for papers. The first time she tried had been now twenty, thirty years before. And it began to change how she saw police. And she stopped seeking help. And when she was finally able to flee and she told us that story, time had changed. But her perception of the relationship with the police department and her ability to come forward was still the same. I never wanna go back to a time where we have any more miss Jaramillo's who are afraid to say this person hurt me and I wanna seek justice because they might end up deported as it happened in Upstate New York just a couple of months ago.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: Thank you, miss Cruz. I'll yield the rest of my time. Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[John Zaccaro Jr. — Assembly Member]: Two weeks ago, agents from the immigration and custom enforcement came into the Bronx and they detained a 19 year old man named Yehuri Kap Concepcion. And mister Concepcion was born like me and raised in the Bronx. He was one of my constituents from north the Norwood section of my district. And the reality here is that he should have never been stopped in the first place. But what is even more disturbing is what happened next. According to reports, after detaining him, federal agents failed to take even the most basic step, verifying his identity. Instead, they tackled him, violently subdued him, and left this young man with a head injury that required stitches. Physical wounds that may heal far sooner than the emotional trauma and the lasting fear inflicted on that day. Colleagues, moments like this force us to ask ourselves fundamental question. What kind of country do we intend to leave behind? When future generations look back on this moment, what will they say about us? Will they say we remain silent while government power expanded beyond constitutional limits? Will they say we watched federal authorities be used recklessly against our own communities and chose convenience over courage? Or will they say that in this defining moment, we stood firm on the constitution for due process and for the rights of every American citizen? Because ladies and gentlemen, this debate here today is bigger than politics. This debate is about whether power in America remains accountable to the people, And that is why this legislation matters. The New York State Bivens Act is not about eliminating law enforcement. It is not about preventing federal agencies from carrying out legal responsibilities and lawful responsibilities. In fact, ICE has a legitimate role in enforcing immigration law and protecting public safety. But let it be clear that no badge, no agency, and no administration is above the constitution. And when federal officers violate constitutional rights, when they ignore due process, when they inflict harm without accountability, the people must have a remedy under the law. And that is precisely what this bill seeks to provide. Because in The United States Of America, constitutional rights cannot exist only on paper. Rights without accountability are not rights at all. And let us be honest about the America we are witnessing today. When men in tactical gear, faces concealed, emerging from unmarked vehicles, detaining people in our neighborhoods while shielding themselves from public accountability. If an officer believes their actions are lawful, constitution, and just, then they should have never feared transparency. Public servants in a democracy should not operate in secrecy from the very people that they are intended to serve. So, colleagues, imagine just for one moment that you were in mister Concepcion's position. Imagine being chased by unidentified men in tactical gear. Imagine being slammed to the pavement by people whose faces you cannot see. Imagine suffering injuries, humiliation, trauma, only to later discover that there may have been no meaningful avenue for accountability. No American should ever have to live through that fear. And let us remember, saying we were following orders has never absolved anyone of responsibility for violating constitutional rights. The consequences, madam speaker, are real. The physical injuries are real. The emotional scars that our communities are facing are real. And perhaps most damaging of all, the erosion of public trust is real. And at a time where law enforcement agencies across this nation ask communities to trust them, how can trust survive if accountability disappears? How can any young person look at law enforcement with confidence after experiencing something like this? This bill before us today answers that question with clarity. It says that New York's constitutional rights still matter. It says that no federal official is beyond accountability. And it says that if any administration, be it republican or democrat, attempts to weaponize federal power against the people, this state will firmly stand on the side of constitutional protections and the rule of law. So today, madam speaker, I rise not out of anger, but out of conviction. Conviction that this country is strongest when our liberty is protected. Conviction that justice means nothing if it is reserved only for the powerful. Conviction that democracy serves only when the people are never forced to fear their own government. Because the promise of America, madam speaker, has never been perfection. It has been the courage to confront injustice and determination to become better than we were yesterday. And that promise belongs to every single child and family in the Bronx. Every single child and family across this great state. And every American who believes in that freedom and dignity are not privileges granted by government, but rights guaranteed by the constitution. And long after this debate ends, long after these votes have been cast, history will remember whether we chose silence or we chose principle. So today, madam speaker, I choose principle. I choose accountability. I choose the constitution of The United States, and I choose to stand with the people of this great state, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do that today. Thank you so much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Bailey.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have a couple questions on part c, sub part a's. If I believe Mr. Dinovitz would yield for a few questions.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Dinovitz, will you yield?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: I will. Alright.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Dannots, yield.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: So real quick, in reading the language, I'm specifically on page six. We're heading down line 42 over to page seven. There are exceptions as far as when we are looking at the disposition of a convertible pistol or the transport or shipment as merchandise of a convertible pistol. For disposition to persons, we have the military, we have law enforcement, we have police. And then on page seven, we go over and we put some time frames in place. And, you know, it goes back to a conversation you were having a bit ago with my colleague. One has to do with immediate family members, which would be spouse, child, stepchild, and the such domestic partner. Within that, if you're looking at it, it indicates that the sale, transfer, disposal, transportation or shipment of a convertible pistol to a duly licensed dealer in firearms oh, I'm sorry, wrong one. Let me get to the family owned one. The sale transfer, disposal, transportation, or shipment of a convertible pistol between members of an immediate family as such term is defined in the section 898 of the general business law, provided that such convertible pistol was lawfully owned and possessed by such seller, transferr, or member of the immediate family of such seller or transferr prior to that 05/31/2027 date. There are also pieces in there that you could transfer it and the dealer could then do a private sale from person to person as long as the individual who is initiating that transfer lawfully owned and possessed such convertible pistol prior to 05/31/2027. So if I have my Gen three pistol on my pistol permit legally right now in June, I decide to legally transfer that to my son. Based on the language in this legislation, that indicates I would be able to do such. Is that correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Okay. Now my son wishes to transfer that pistol two years later. Is he able to do that? No.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: No. To whom would he be transferring it to?

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Maybe he wants to transfer it to his brother. Well,

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: relative is too wide a term.

[Philip A. Palmesano — Assembly Member]: He can

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: through a firearms dealer.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: He'd have to go yeah. He'd have to go through a firearms dealer.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: I completely understand that when I read this language, the sale transfer disposal transportation or shipment of a convertible pistol between members of an immediate family, as such term is defined in section 898 of the general business law, would allow me to transfer it to my son. Then my son wants to transfer it to his brother, so we're going to go up on page seven to line eight. A private party to private party transaction conducted through a duly licensed dealer in firearms. The sale, transfer, disposal, transportation or shipment of a convertible pistol to a duly licensed dealer in firearms or licensed gunsmith by private party who lawfully owned such convertible pistol prior to 05/31/2027. So would my son be able to transfer it to his brother in 2028?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: I don't see where brother is included in parents, not parents, spouse, domestic partner, children or stepchildren, number one. Number two, my notes indicate that he can go through a dealer if the private party owned the firearm before 05/31/2027?

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Correct. I transferred it to him as immediate family. Now because he does not fall into the definition of immediate family with his brother, then that would then fall into a private party transfer.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Right.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: He obtained that pistol in July 2027 because I was able to transfer it to him legally. Now he wants to transfer it to his brother. Can he do that legally in 2028?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: There's no I don't see any restriction for private party to private party if it's through a dealer. So you want him to kind of have succession rights, something which you all oppose when it comes to tenants I might add, but separate issue.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: So I guess my question would be, in reading the language of this bill, any pistols that fall under this criteria that are legally registered on law abiding citizens permits currently today, they can follow the the same rules and regulations until 2030 right on through unless something else comes down from the state that tells them differently if they go to a dealer to conduct their private sale?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: It would if if we're talking about transfers before private party to dealer, you're talking about that now, right? If the private party owned the firearm before May 31 year.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Okay. So my son got it in July '27. So what does he do with that pistol?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Well, that's after 05/31/2020.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: I understand. So what what happens to that pistol?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: He owns it?

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: He owns it. What if he decides he doesn't want to own it any longer?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Well why would he want to do that?

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: I'm not sure. He would like to transfer it to his brother is what he would like

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: to Well I've said probably more than once, he can go to he can transfer to another private party but he has to do it through a legitimate dealer.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Correct. But he didn't lawfully own it before 05/31/2027. So are you indicating that after 05/31/2027, if anyone wants to transfer one of these pistols to someone else to have them put it on their legal pistol permit, then they're able to do that through a dealer.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: That's what I'm that's what I'm saying.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: So the transfers can continue on.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: After that date, again private party to private party through a dealer.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: You're welcome.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: So then on line seven, page seven still. I've just we're staying right up in that top section there. Maybe you can help me understand the language in that. The sale, transfer, disposable transportation or shipment of a convertible pistol by a duly licensed dealer in firearms or licensed gunsmith to a private person or another federal firearms license. So are we contradicting ourselves between number five and number seven?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: No.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: We're not. Okay. Let me continue. So it indicates a federal firearms licensee

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: I don't know what she's reading.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Or licensed gunsmith where such convertible pistols immediately preceding owner and possessor prior to the licensed dealer or licensed gunsmith was a private party who lawfully owned and possessed such convertible pistol prior to the 05/31/2027. So what does that line what is that telling me?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: I'm still trying to find where you're reading from.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Page seven, line 14.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: My page is different? Page seven, line 14. Is this what you are reading for a digital firearm manufacturer?

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: I'm under Part C, Subpart A.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: My page numbers seem to be different. I have no idea why by

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: the way.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Yeah, don't know. I printed mine off before I came over. So if you look right under sub part A, it appears to be page four, five, six and I'm on page number seven.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: What's the complete subdivision numbers? The number, the letter, the roman numeral?

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Subpart a and I'm under I'm sorry. I'm on part c, subpart a. My apology.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Part C. Well, I'm sorry but we seem to have some different

[Mary Beth Walsh — Assembly Member]: Okay so

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: let me see, if we go to yep it's still page seven, line 14.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Hold on a second, I'm going to try to find you.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Alright. Can we come back to that answer?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: He has something different. Let's let's get this done now because

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Alright. I'm running out of time.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Page seven, what line number?

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Page seven, I got to get my glasses, line 14.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: Okay, the sale, transfer, disposal, etc. Yep. What's the question?

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: My question was, so you're telling me under part number five there on line eight, a private party to private party transaction conducted through a dual license dealer in firearms. So my son could transfer it to his brother after 05/31/2027 under that part. When I read number seven, it indicates that, you know, the licensed gunsmith to a private person or another federal firearms, you know, a duly licensed dealer in firearms licensed gunsmith or a private person, which kind of is the same of what number five is saying, but it has that the individual who initiated it had to lawfully possess it prior to 05/31/2027. So my question was, are we contradicting ourselves in that section of the law?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: If

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: he wants to get it into the hands of his brother, he would sell it to the private dealer and the private dealer would sell it to his brother. Just they they won't do it it would have to go through the private dealer as I've as I've mentioned.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Completely get that. They have to legally right now do that. Yeah. So but number seven indicates it brings up the day of the May 31. So I guess I need what does number seven who does that pertain to?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: I'm sorry, say it again.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Number seven, line 14, who can you give me an example of who that would be then?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz — Assembly Member]: The sale, transfer, disposal, transportation or shipment of a convertible pistol by a duly licensed dealer in firearms or licensed gunsmith to a private person. A private person will be a person other than the gun dealer. The gun dealer can sell it to somebody else or transfer it to somebody else.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: So that would be different than a private party to a private party transaction conducted through a duly licensed dealer? Yes. It is. Okay. Thank you very much. Have a from Ms. Cruz, please. Go ahead. Thank you. It is part LL and we're in subpart C. And real quick here, going down to line 51 where it indicates and it goes back to an answer that came out earlier during the debate.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: I'm sorry, you said Part LL? Part LL. Yep, just want to make sure I'm following with you. Subpart C. Hold that thought.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Alright. It's actually article 15 dash a a. I don't know how your pages are. Okay. Go ahead. So line 51. So it indicates all offices defined in article one of the public officer's law. So in Public Officers' Law, it defines what state and local officers are, many of which are constitutional positions. So earlier in debate, it was discussed that if we were out and chose to make a phone call when we were off hours, not in our official capacity, that we could do that. That this didn't follow us from that standpoint because we were in our own

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes. Except, and I made this caveat earlier, if the information that you came into was obtained during your official hours in your official capacity, You can't just learn that Jane Doe, and I keep using that name, was undocumented at 02:00 in the afternoon while at work and then it's 05:55 and you say I'm gonna

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Bailey.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Miss Cruz? Well, since I'm standing. Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill.

[Jessica González-Rojas — Assembly Member]: On the bill.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: It's 4AM in Queens, New York. You're fast asleep with your small children in your apartment. All of a sudden in the dead of night, you hear a knocking. Hearing nothing else, you go back to sleep assuming that it's the wrong apartment. In a moment, a battering ram plows in your in through your front door and the screaming begins and doesn't stop. Guns are pointed in the faces of your babies and in your face. All you can see is the light of one of the flashlights blinding you from recognizing who has just invaded your home. You're directed to move to not allow your children to excuse me. You are directed not to move to not allow your children to move or everyone will be shot on-site. You can now see it's men with vests, but you cannot distinguish which agency. And you can see some of their faces because others are covered with masks. Fear and terror occupy your mind and your heart and you think the absolute worst for you and your child. They then ask you to identify someone, a cousin who has not lived there for at least two years and to your knowledge, lives out of state. You're dragged into the light with your two year old in your arms, a gun in your face and you're threatened with your life to produce your family member by the end of the week or you they will come back to find you and your children. Welcome to the new reality that many of our colleagues have to live through in our communities every day. My constituents, our constituents are subject to this type of terror on a daily basis. Threats of violence and brutality at the levels we've never seen before. Breastfeeding mothers ripped from their babies, working fathers without a criminal record, detained or imprisoned on their way to work. Excuse me. Kidnapped on their way to work. Families at immigration court trying to comply with the law we tell them they should comply with. Detained without due process. Families separated on their way to church. Women seeking protection from local law enforcement for an abusive husband now detained and deported. Toddlers and children separated from their parents and deprived of basic care for themselves. Businesses raided, blocks targeted, random community members grabbed from the street and without a warrant simply because they look like immigrants. Without as much as the semblance of constitutionality or illegal justification whatsoever. Run and they will catch you. Attempt to reason with them and they might shoot you, and protest and they might kill you. This federal regime's unprecedented violence, lawlessness, and failure to abide and respect our country's constitution have brought us to this critical moment. We cannot turn away. We cannot deny the way that immigrants have been treated in our community. And that anyone that looks like an immigrant or dares to defend an immigrant is now a target of this administration. This is no longer just a project, a campaign promise, or something that will never happen in our country. While we call this an immigration package, these protections go beyond immigrants. They will protect the rest of us who may have status, who may be United States citizens, but who may also look black or brown or like an immigrant. They will protect those who fight every single day and stand with us. This historic change of our state laws is a gigantic step to protect the constitutional rights of every single New Yorker. The package today includes various portions of legislation championed by many of us here. From New York for all, to the right to education, to the New York civil rights act, to the MELT act, and much more. All of this legislation tells New Yorkers that we, as a state, are not going to remain silent and not act in the face of our federal government turning on its people. That we as a legislature are on the right side of history, it will not leave them unprotected while rogue agencies and federal officials turn their back on the constitution toward a wannabe king. New York is home to four and a half million immigrants with almost 650,000 of them being undocumented. Since January 2025, they have been living in fear of being ripped apart from their families often in inhumane ways, by an agency that behaves like a lawless militia and often lacks actual legal authority to carry out these atrocities. During the election, we were told that there would be mass raids focused on immigrants with criminal records. But the statistics tell a very different story. Under the current administration, 60% of the New Yorkers who have been picked up do not have a criminal record. We have seen people arrested while complying with law. We tell them go to court and then we'll arrest them while they're in court. Going to see their asylum officer for a case they might actually win. Fewer the stores we actually hear of people detained with actual criminal records and with actual warrants. These are our New Yorkers, the folks who work in our community, the families next door to you and I. Their kids play at our schools. They shop at our supermarkets. They go to the same churches and to the same hospitals. But unlike you and I, they fear leaving their home to be kidnapped right off the street by our government. There are outrageous instances of racial profiling leading to the arrest of United States citizens, to the kidnapping and detention. Because what happens is they ask questions later and when they figure out that this is in fact The United States citizen, they get released. But I wanna walk through a couple of things that were said earlier to give you examples and to make sure that our legislative record is crystal clear. We don't want our law enforcement officers acting like ICE. We're not saying you can't communicate with ICE. We're saying that we don't wanna deputize them into being ICE. We're saying that they cannot engage in behavior that looks like enforcement of immigration law. For example, creating random traffic stops just so that you could stop people and see if they have papers. Visiting work sites to make a determination if they're authorized workers, and then detaining them and handing them over ties for the enforcement of immigration law. That is deputizing. That is what we're doing today, ending two eighty seven G's and anything that looks like it and is deputizing law enforcement officers because they should be focused on local issues. I wanna tell the story of a young man from Port Chester, New York. We'll call

[Al Taylor — Assembly Member]: him

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: JR and his wife. They were stopped in Port Chester for having tinted windows. And initially, the couple was told that their card would be towed and they just needed to pay a fine. But instead of joining fellow worshipers at church later that day, j r was taken away in handcuffs and brought to the police station where police held him all day waiting for ice to arrive. That afternoon, still inside the prison, he was transferred into the custody custody of federal immigration agents. And despite the fact that JR had status, special immigrant juvenile status, and absolutely no criminal record, he was whisked away to Texas and then Louisiana. Port Chester does not have a formal two eighty seven g agreement. But even without that, local officials can do and assist ICE with immigration enforcement. These informal forms of collusion are hurting our community, are hurting people like JR. And after suffering inhumane conditions while he was detained, being denied medical care, he made the desperate decision to self deport back to Peru. I also wanna talk about a case that happened right here in Albany, and I mentioned it earlier. I'm a firm believer in God and whatever God you believe in, you should be able to practice your religion without the fear of being disappeared from your community while trying to worship. We talk about God bless America and God bless our country and God this and God that. And when someone is trying to worship, they were kidnapped. 10 people right here in Albany. Simply because perhaps they were the wrong religion according to our federal government or perhaps because they look like immigrants. But nevertheless, they were trying to exercise their right to believe in the god that they believed in, and they should have been allowed to do so. And right in my community, down the block from my office, and right down the corner from a school, ICE kidnapped several of my community members while they were walking to work. We know because we've seen the videos, we've heard from the community members that there were people literally being told, do not walk over there because ICE is there and ICE turning around seeing the person and tackling them. You cannot tell me they had a judicial warrant. You can tell me that they saw an immigrant and decided to attack. You've heard from many members about the importance of their bills and their gratitude to everyone. But as you know, our sponsor, our main sponsor, Carinesra, just could not be here today. So she's asked me to read a statement into the record. These policies did not just happen in response to the erosion of human and civil rights. We have all witnessed as of late, but rather the product of decades of lived experiences by myself and many of my constituents. We've been working towards a more humane immigration system for years. One that recognizes the humanity of immigrant New Yorkers and all who endeavor in it. Including law enforcement, one that recognizes the undeniable economic contributions of immigrants in our state. I would like to thank Make the Road, the New York Immigration Coalition, the NYCLU, immigrant defense fund, and the countless clergy, youth, community organizations, and labor unions, even those who don't stand directly to benefit from this. That have poured their faith and efforts into this work because they believe that targeting innocent people is morally wrong and fundamentally un American. I want to thank the speaker for his moral clarity and leadership on this issue. And I'd also like to thank my staff, the staff for the hours they've committed to this work, especially assembly counsel Alana Sibin, and my chief of staff Justin Westbrook Lowry. Lastly, I wanna thank my colleagues who are unwavering in their support of immigrants, and I wanna thank assembly member Cruz for her for graciously agreeing to defend this in my stead. We celebrate this win today, and we remain clear eyed that there is more that remains to be done. I personally wanna thank the thousands of immigrant New Yorkers that many of you got to meet who made their journey every single week to Albany to tell us that all they wanted was to be treated with dignity and for us to protect them. On a personal level, I wanna thank assembly member Reyes and the speaker for giving me an opportunity of a lifetime to debate today and for never giving up on those immigrants. I wanna thank the assembly team that got us here today. Jen Best, Alana Syven, Jen Ashley, Miguelina Camilo, Michelle Melot, Patrick Dottaro, Janice Nieves, Arm Armand Alpar, Hannah Dominguez, Aubrey Olivia, and everyone else past and present because this has been in the make for years. And everyone who spent endless hours writing, rewriting, prepping, and listening. I also want to thank the governor's team for their feedback and working with ours to make sure today happened. And I want to thank her in advance for signing this into law. And I want to give a huge thank you and recognition to my own team, especially Robin, Evelyn, Jesse, Laura, Xavier, Jennifer, Kevin, Enrique, Kimberly, Alex, Jamie for helping us fight on the ground to protect the very people who will be impacted by this legislation. They are the ones who respond to the dozens of kidnappings that have been happening in my community since January 2025. They're also the ones who have helped me with legislation, two pieces that ended up in this package today. Bills that will enshrine the right to education for our children and ensure that they're protected in our schools. I wanna also thank my colleagues today. Today, we're voting to protect those who cannot vote for us. The ones who worked so hard for the chance of the American dream, but have now become the target of hate and vitriol. The ones who, like my mother, who came here to this country with a small child in her hand, who packed everything and left a career behind, a home, the family she knew, to a country from a country riddled with civil war and narcoterrorism, in fear for our lives. For a foreign country where she did not know the language, did not possess the right papers, simply for a chance to survive and to have me grow up to be somebody. The ones like my mother who simply want to send their kids to school, go to work, go to church, and raise that family without having to have an emergency plan of what I was to do if ICE ever picked her up. Today, we stand on the right side of history for them. Lastly, as I do sometimes, I wanna say a few words in Spanish, especially for my constituents.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Romero?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: That was really beautiful. I'm like very emotional from that.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Are you on the bill?

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: No, have some questions sponsor. Question? Does this law

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: change Miss the existing Cruz, will

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: you yield?

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: Oh, sorry. Thank you. Does this law change the existing requirements on qualified immunity? No. And does this legislation create any new substantive rights as it relates to the constitution?

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: No. Great. And can you

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: please finish your statement as it relates to your Spanish statement, please? Thank you.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: The last thing I will say is

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Madam speaker, this is clearly circumventing our house rules. You can't yield a time to your to another member.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: She just said finish your statement. She didn't yield it.

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: I was asking her to finish her statement.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Waiting for the robot.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Just one moment, please. Sure. Miss Romero, please ask your next question or go on the bill. Sorry. Please ask your next question or go on the bill.

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: No. It's okay.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: You can ask the question. Can ask

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: the question. Okay. Okay. On the bill. On the

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: bill.

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: On the bill.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Trying to usurp the rules. You have to follow along with the rules.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Do you

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: know what thing

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: you would like for our youngest?

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: On the

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: bill. Please proceed in order.

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: Thank you. The bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Gabriella Romero — Assembly Member]: Right now, there's an imbalance in how state, local, and federal officials are held accountable to The US constitution. While a federal law allows people to sue state and local officials for constitutional violations, no fruitful, substantive equivalent exists for federal officials. People injured by federal officials have to rely on a Bivens cause of action. The supreme court has limited the scope of this more and more over the years with some judges on the supreme court even calling for the complete elimination of the ability to sue under Bivens and its prodigy. Through this, a dangerous gap has actually emerged. Federal officials cannot be sued, even for willful violations of constitutional rights. I am so, so, so proud of this language, of the person, the assembly member that was able to debate this, of my colleagues. By providing a clear statutory right to sue any government official, state, local, federal, it ensures that no one is above the law. The act that we passed today will cover First Amendment violations, retaliating against a person for their protected speech, interfering with the free exercise of religion, or using excessive force to break up a peaceful protest. We actually recently saw a secret memo that went out to ICE agents encouraging unlawful searches of people's homes without a warrant. I find that to be egregious. That's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment that would actually be covered by this act now for many different reasons, because we're designating homes as protected spaces, but also now you can sue ICE if they violate your constitutional rights. If ICE enters your home without a warrant after this passes, we will have substantive relief. We're also protecting New Yorkers against Fifth Amendment slash equal protection violations, specifically we're empowering New Yorkers with the ability to sue when the government unlawfully targets them for enforcement actions or things like tax audits on the basis of their race, national origin, or political ideology. Without this ability to sue, without this ability to enforce the constitution and our civil rights, we are rendered meaningless and without kind of substantive ability to actually protect ourselves. By passing this law today, we're ensuring that every single New Yorker's rights are in fact protected and they have an avenue to sue in our most accessible court, New York State Courts. I'm also proud that we're taking further measures to keep all New Yorkers safe. For too long, neighbors have lived in fear of masked ICE agents snatching them off the streets. ICE has entered unwantedly into hospitals, childcare centers, and homes. We know that this is not public safety. Including language from the MELDOC to unmask ICE and designate safe spaces where ICE will need judicial warrants to enter them, is how we move forward with creating true public safety in our communities. Today is a really historic moment in the history of New York State, and I am so proud to be a part of it, to be a member of this body, and to be doing something really, really beautiful in New York. So thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Glick.

[Deborah J. Glick — Assembly Member]: On the bill?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Deborah J. Glick — Assembly Member]: First, let me just say that I'm very proud of our debate today. I want to say that it's important for us to deal with ghost guns. Gun violence is rampant in too many communities and the ability to print undetectable guns makes all of us unsafe and was never contemplated if somebody is an originalist. Ghost guns were never anticipated. But on the matters referring to the immigration sections of the bill. Police officers across this country every day effect arrests without needing to wear a mask. Not only that, they have their name or a badge proudly displayed. There is no excuse, no excuse for federal agents to wear masks like bandits, as they affect, in many instances, illegal assaults on Americans and have not only arrested, citizens who they've disappeared and left their families wondering what has happened. None of this makes us safer. I know that there have been instances of people who are undocumented committing crimes. They are highlighted and publicized, but are much much fewer than the crimes that are committed by our very own citizens. So many Americans who heard our president say we're gonna go after the worst of the worst thought, yeah, that's that would that would be a good thing. But you know what? It is hard sometimes to find criminals because they are not showing up at their appointed court interviews. They are not necessarily showing up at church or going to school. So I have 26 in my district and that's where people have for years lined up dutifully to show up for their immigration court dates to check-in. So this is where our poorly trained but very well compensated ICE agents show up because it's easy. It's not making anybody safer. But more importantly, this climate of fear, the normalization of extra legal activities, breaking into people's homes without a warrant. Frequently mistakenly because they don't do careful work is setting up a climate of fear that to me to me is reminiscent of nineteen thirties in Germany and parts of Eastern Europe where my antecedents came from. This undermines our sense of being one people. The people who have come here at great risk and danger to make sure their kids have a better life than they had, that has gone on since the beginning of this country. And as we are celebrating the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of this country, we should remember that, yes, the doors were open and we invited people until we didn't like the Italians, until we didn't like the Irish, until we didn't like the Chinese, then we didn't like the Jews. So the door is open when we feel like it. And the door is open today if you're a white South African. Why? I have nothing against South Africans, but it is a very clear message and a really poisonous message. And we're not going after people who are a danger. I was in Central New York last fall taking a little trip. And there was a raid on a factory in the Oswego area. And the woman who was the server at the hotel, just casually, was not a very crowded evening, it was during the week, and we got to talking. And she was very upset. She said, I thought they were going go after criminals. These are people who had a job. What's going to happen to that company? They lost several of their people. Who's going to do the work? What's going to happen to that? Are the other people gonna lose their jobs because the company's gonna go under? There are farmers who have had people disappeared. Not just here, but all over the country. And in many places around the country, people are pretty disturbed because they see their neighbors, the parents of their kids' schoolmates, The person who's been working at a local store. In New Jersey, there was an older couple, I believe they were Turkish. They ran the family ran a restaurant. And the kids who were the American citizens were still there, but the mother and father who about thirty or forty years ago overstayed a visa. The whole bloody town showed up and said, where are they? Bring them back. Because it goes to the fabric of our communities. People who are here hard working. Sheriff in Florida said, what are we doing? We are picking up people who are hard working folks who never did anything wrong. The excuse of a broken taillight, we know where that comes from. That's the old Deep South. The parking ticket, oh, you're a big lawbreaker. I wish they'd pull over everybody who has a plastic cover on the back of their license plate in their nice fancy cars that I see on the thruway. These

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: arrests,

[Deborah J. Glick — Assembly Member]: these disappearances are painful, they're disgraceful, they're un American, they are a danger to the future of this country because once they decide, we're through over here, they could start somewhere else. And maybe that would be the LGBTQ community. All of a sudden they don't like us. Well, they clearly don't like us because they've been attacking us too.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Maybe Madam speaker, I believe the member is speaking on the bill and this doesn't seem to be confined to any of the text in the bill. Rather, it's more story time. And considering we are

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: very lucky on the

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: lead time

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Colleagues me. Colleagues, we will speak and keep our comments confined to the proposal before this house, not in another state or impacts on another state. Your comments will be respectful and they will be on this bill in this state, the proposal in front of us right now. You. Speaker. Your point is sustained. Thank you. Miss Glick, you have a few minutes more.

[Deborah J. Glick — Assembly Member]: I believe that this that this bill is important to protect the constitutional rights of all New Yorkers because we have seen the way in which people who have been citizens in this state have found themselves whisked away. This hopefully will prevent that and send a message that we are not going to allow New Yorkers, New Yorkers to be disappeared, that our constitutional rights will be protected, that you have to operate in a fashion that is in keeping with the general purposes of law enforcement and that we will not spend any of our money on federal activities. They've taken enough of our money. This is about ensuring that our communities and the law enforcement officers in our communities are doing law enforcement, not civil federal activities. So I applaud people. I'm amazed that there is the rhetoric that has demigrated immigrants. This is here to protect immigrants because we are I look around, we're all immigrants or come from immigrants. And that's the proud tradition of New York where there is still standing the Statue Of Liberty. So I applaud the sponsor of the various measures that are contained within this bill and believe that it is important for us to stand up for constitutional rights. And sometimes, sometimes you have to illustrate those rights by referencing stories. That has been the proud tradition in this house. Thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Ramos.

[Phil Ramos — Assembly Member (Deputy Speaker)]: Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Phil Ramos — Assembly Member (Deputy Speaker)]: I wanna commend the sponsor and my colleague, Carlosina Cruz, for your eloquent explanation of this of this bill and for bringing this forward. And it's sad that we have to do such a bill like this. And and the reason why we have to do it is because ICE has become an unlawful agency of our government. It become an agency that does kidnappings, that shoots women in the face, that has killed people, that has ripped children out of the arms of their mothers. And that is why we need we're here today passing this bill. And we hear, you know, all the rhetoric around it. And we know we know that this is not about lawfulness or unlawfulness. It's not about people who commit crimes. It's about the browning of United States. That is what this is about. You know? And we hear, you know, we hear the the the argument about this. You know? We constantly hear the people who's who who are against such a bill. They'll say things like, you know, we're not against, immigration. We're just against illegal immigration. Why can't immigrants just go by the go by the same rules as everybody else? And they failed to recognize that the rules have never been the same for people of color in this country. They have never since the founding of this country, a constitution that allowed the owning of human beings. Did not the rules were different. Don't tell us about the same rules. Normally, somebody's born in this country, you're American. Right? That everyone agrees to that. But what about the Asian exclusion act? If you were Asian and born here, you could not be American. What about operation wetback where they went into remember, 30% of United States was Hispanic, was Mexico before the English speaking settlers got here. And they deported Mexicans, thousands of Mexicans who were born in United States. Don't tell us about the same rules.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Ramos, can you please confine your comments to the bill in front of us today?

[Phil Ramos — Assembly Member (Deputy Speaker)]: I'm talking about the historical context that has led us to this bill right here, and I believe that it is germane. As a law enforcement officer, I I served for twenty years as a police officer. Literally thousands several thousand arrests I made over those twenty years. Never once did I feel a need to have to wear a mask because I conducted myself within the law. Today, we have police departments that are town, county, city. We have correction officers. We have all sorts of, police departments here. None of them wear masks. What is so different about ICE? That somehow they need to wear masks. And we know what the difference is. The difference is that they are violating the law, and they don't want to be identified. They don't want people to find any way to to identify what they're doing and and how they are doing it. And in the context of criminals here, because we know this is not about criminals because only a small percentage of the people who are being deported and arrested by ICE are are criminals. It's not about that. And the impression is always given that somehow immigrants, you know, the same immigrant initiative is about criminals. And they think that somehow it was different from before. You know? Do you remember the mafia from the forties? '50? Sixties? Do we remember the gangs? West Side Story is a snapshot of the gangs that were on our street, of Caucasian gangs, of immigrants that we hear. There is no difference. The issue is not race. Issue not the type of immigrant that we have now. Whenever we have poverty in a community, there is more crime because of that poverty. And the solution is not blaming one segment of the community Because throughout history, we have seen that when one segment of the community gets demonized, atrocities follow. And that exactly is exactly what we're seeing here. So I urge all my colleagues of good faith, all of you, to please search your conscience. And while nine while 1% of our country owns more wealth than 99%, that it's unfair to say that the person who wants to mow your lawn is taking some something from the average citizen. So I ask you to search your conscience, and please vote yes on this bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Kissay, you're up next. We were are approaching our four hour maximum, so you have two minutes, ma'am.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Thank you. Thank you, madam.

[Assembly Member Valdez (identity unclear)]: May will the speaker will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Cruz, will you yield?

[Assembly Member Valdez (identity unclear)]: Thank you. May I please clarify that part l l sub part b is modeled after the Westfall Act which places liability on an agency and not the individual officer?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Can you repeat that question?

[Assembly Member Valdez (identity unclear)]: May I please clarify that Part LL Subpart B is modeled after the Westfall Act which places liability on an agency and not the individual officer?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: First, I apologize for giving you my back. The individual officer can also be sued if they are acting outside the scope of their employment.

[Assembly Member Valdez (identity unclear)]: And if they're acting within the scope of their employment,

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: they can be sued in their official capacity.

[Unknown Assembly Member (female, queried pistols and Part LL)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Feferamoto, you can continue on debate for two minutes and thereafter. Everyone gets two minutes.

[Unknown Assembly Member (asked about qualified immunity alignment)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will my colleague from Queens, stand allow me to clarify something, please? A question.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Miss Cruz, will you yield? Absolutely. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Cruz yields.

[Unknown Assembly Member (asked about qualified immunity alignment)]: Miss miss Cruz, it's been just a little conversation. So does this bill, part l l, or any part of this budget bill impact, harm, or diminish qualified immunity? Meaning, no police officer for New York State would lose any of their rights, privileges, or defenses that was established under the federal law that this law is mirroring. Correct?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So I wanna make sure that the record is clear just like you. This is just like 1983. And the principle is if the behavior that the officer is being sued is behavior that is being carried out at the request of the agency, on behalf of the agency, then they can be sued on their professional capacity and the agency can be sued. And they can then turn around and as a defense, claim qualified immunity. If their behavior happens to be on one of outside of that scope of of their work, like you and I, or regular people could be sued in their regular individual capacity.

[Unknown Assembly Member (asked about qualified immunity alignment)]: So as I said, it's not changing anything. It's mirroring the federal law. It's mirroring That is correct. What is the practice of today. That's There's no impact, harm, diminishment of that qualified immunity. It's the same practices that are occurring right now.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: That is correct. If the behavior is one on the be at the behest of an agency during their for their work, nothing has changed.

[Unknown Assembly Member (asked about qualified immunity alignment)]: Thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Bendet. Two minutes.

[Scott Bendett — Assembly Member]: Thank you. Will the sponsor yield for a question, miss Cruz?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Yes. Miss Cruz, will you yield?

[Scott Bendett — Assembly Member]: County jails right now house federal inmates. Would that be impacted by this bill?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Can you say that again?

[Scott Bendett — Assembly Member]: Jails Mhmm. House federal inmates. Would that be impacted by this bill? Could jails still work with the federal government? Right now, we have a 160 inmates in Albany County jail.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: If a county jail currently has incarcerated individuals from from in on behalf of the federal government and it's part of a two eighty seven g or looks like a two eighty seven g, they would not be able to do this. I'm sorry, IGSA. I forget that there's two the IGSA is the agreement with which individuals are held on behalf of the federal government.

[Scott Bendett — Assembly Member]: So would there be any compensation for the counties that would lose that income? No. Okay. So that would be a fiscal impact on the bill. Do you know when the two eighty seven gs program came into effect?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: At least more than ten years ago.

[Scott Bendett — Assembly Member]: Madam speaker, on the bill, please.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Scott Bendett — Assembly Member]: Two eighty seven g came into effect thirty years ago. It was actually put into law by president Bill Clinton. There are three parts to the two eighty seven g law. There's the jail enforcement mode, the war in service mode, and the task force mode. In the jail enforcement mode, that's the one that our, jail in Rensselaer County participates in. When an when an incarcerated individual is in the jail, they run through an ICE database. And in doing so, the community then knows whether or not that individual is wanted for a crime outside of our state, county, or throughout a different country. And in doing so, they contact ICE. I know that my county, Rensselaer County, will be against this.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, Mr. Bendat. Mr. Rivera.

[José Rivera — Assembly Member]: I have a question for the sponsor.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Cruz, will you yield? Ms. Cruz yields.

[José Rivera — Assembly Member]: Quick question. I know it's affecting folks in your neighborhood, but certainly affecting folks in mine. Can you sort of clarify exactly how this is going to potentially protect schools?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: So, it's going to protect the school's ability to teach our kids and protect our kids while they're in our schools. It's going to make sure there's two pieces. One, how we are treating the information that schools come into contact, and how we are treating the children that are in our schools. The information there's going to be a prohibition on inquiring about certain information as mentioned earlier, but for ensuring that we know what the preferred language would be. So no asking of immigration status, country of origin, etcetera etcetera. You know, sharing of that information, of course. Also making sure that if there is an attempt to enter the school by ICE or another federal law enforcement agency seeking to enforce immigration law, that there are policies in place to prevent that from happening unless there is a judicial warrant. Making sure that if for example, a parent is detained during the school hours, that officers don't just show up, ICE officers seeking to also detain the child, and making sure that if a parent is not is happens to be undocumented, they're not preventing from they're not prevented, excuse me, from attending school functions or in any other way discouraged from doing so. That's a summary per se.

[José Rivera — Assembly Member]: Thank you very much. On the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[José Rivera — Assembly Member]: Thank you very much. You know, have the good fortune of representing an incredible high school. You know, in New York State, we have a handful of designated international schools And, my high school, Lafayette High School.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, Rivera. Mr. Gray, two minutes.

[Scott Gray — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will Ms. Cruz yield for a quick question?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Yes. But, I'm also going ask you to speak a little louder. Sure.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Cruz yields.

[Scott Gray — Assembly Member]: This this dusk is not built for somebody six four. So let me just ask real quick on people who have been previously deported and have entered reentered illegally again, and they've committed a local crime. They're in the county jail. Does this permit law enforcement from working with immigration officials on a previous deported because it's a federal crime?

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: It doesn't speak to that.

[Scott Gray — Assembly Member]: Okay. Thank you very much. That's what I need to know. And can I ask chair Pratlow?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Pratlow, will you yell? We're we're Absolutely. Pratlow yells.

[Scott Gray — Assembly Member]: Creaky getting back up aren't you?

[Phil Ramos — Assembly Member (Deputy Speaker)]: Real quick.

[Scott Gray — Assembly Member]: I'm concerned about the workers' comp and what we're placing on the district attorneys. Do we know what the statewide premium is total and what the 4.4% is going to represent?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: This is the the 17,000,000 that was reduced to $10,000,000. Pardon? Are you referring to the original request by the governor for 17,000,000

[Scott Gray — Assembly Member]: It's 4% right now. Right?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: That's the maximum. That is the cap.

[Scott Gray — Assembly Member]: That is the cap. Okay. So we're asking for workers compensation board to prepare a report that will talk about new positions. One of the deliverables is new positions and persons hired for these units. Do we know how much each county is going get? Are they mandated to form these units?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: No, we don't know what the amount is going to be. That will be determined by the board.

[Scott Gray — Assembly Member]: Okay. So they have to hire these people before they know what kind of funding they're gonna receive?

[Gary J. Pretlow — Assembly Member (Bill Sponsor/Manager)]: No. They will they will know what they have to do and then hire the people and base their salaries on the experience of the people that they hire.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Bishaw. Hermelin, two minutes.

[Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn — Assembly Member]: This bill protects immigrants from being wrongfully targeted in sensitive locations where immigrant communities, survivors of violence, and families seek essential services including schools and educational institutions, healthcare facilities, places of worship, social science providers, domestic violence shelters, homeless shelters, courthouses with exceptions, locations where children or vulnerable populations are served. As a daughter of Haitian immigrants and a resident of a community with many immigrants, green card holders and new Americans, I have seen firsthand how ICE officers have harmed our community by wrongfully detaining residents, placing them in custody without due process, tearing many families apart, causing harm, and in some instances killing them. This bill would place needed limits on ICE to prevent overreach and abuse of power when when still allowing the agency to carry out its lawful duties. I thank the speaker and the governor and especially the sponsor for including this much needed language in this budget bill. And I will be voting in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Chang. Two minutes.

[Lester Chang — Assembly Member]: Thank you madam speaker. On the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Lester Chang — Assembly Member]: Thank you. Today's bill should be about the budget. Once again, we include many non budget policy issues and most controversial issues, of course, is right now is immigration. That should be debated not here, but in Washington DC. But why are we creating this tension in our community? Let me say clearly two things. Sanctuary laws and a weakened of law enforcement policies have contributed this tension here. I sympathize many immigrants who came to this country seeking a better life. Some came here legally on temporary visas. Some are overstayed. Others came here on the borders illegally. Those were the choices. They made the choices at all. Just like open a business, not necessarily guarantee your business will succeed or or not. But many undocumented immigrants who try to work hard, stay quiet, blend into our societies, but they are individuals who are here with criminal intent. That's the reality we must acknowledge and face. At the same time, without a weakened criminal justice system, too often our criminals, even The US citizens, are catching release. They're released out in the streets. And with this law, to weaken or eliminate the two eighty seven g created a barrier that we can end up protecting criminals rather than protecting the public. I believe the immigration officers should have access and cooperation with our local law law enforcement and to catch these criminals and deport them. Immigration should policies should be in Washington, not here. For that reason, I will vote no. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Taylor. Two minutes.

[Al Taylor — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Absolutely. Two minutes it will be. It's impossible. Don't wanna do my best. There's too much fear mongering going on. First of all, I I think this is late in coming and I applaud it 1000%. I wanna thank the sponsor, thank the governor, thank the speaker, thank all of those that have stood up and spoke on both sides of the aisle. If we don't get this together, look at us. We're kinda like in different spaces, different places. This is a molecule of what the state and our country is starting to look like, and we could do better. But I have something because I don't wanna go off road and somebody say it's not germane to the conversation. But because someone is an immigrant, it's not necessarily they are a criminal. And just because they are of one ethnicity or another or have money or don't have money or live in a certain zip code, they're not an immigrant. They're not a criminal. And I think we have to stop criminalizing people. What are you talking about the budget in this bill? I'm glad you asked that. I wanna share this just as before I take my seat because we gotta get this together. We are the sum total of what we were created to do, and we have to put some forgiveness in there while I'm looking at something. I just wanna give if we don't do it together, it doesn't get done. If we can't do it together, but there's somebody and I just I'm even gonna try to look for it. But there's a lady standing in the aisle, and she says, give me your tired. Give me your poor. Give me your homeless. Let's huddle together in masses. And now we're saying, you're doing that, you're a criminal. And we're saying, if you wanna serve and protect us, do it. Take the mask off. We don't mind coming along. But just so we're clear before I take my seat, somebody say that's not Jermaine. Cheney, Goodman, and Sherwin. Let's talk about what happened in Mississippi. Law enforcement in collusion with the with the KKK were taking people off and setting them up to die. We've not gotten far removed from that except for they've taken the sheets off and they're doing it a different way. I support this legislation 1000%. In America and New York. We need to wake up.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Taylor. Mister Smullen.

[Al Taylor — Assembly Member]: I voted a friend. On the

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: bill, please.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Robert Smullen — Assembly Member]: This bill is an egregious violation of home rule. Preventing sheriffs from doing their jobs is wrong. Sheriffs are elected to serve their people. They are not agents of the state under political command. This bill is clearly unconstitutional and will be challenged. Policy in the budget is always wrong. This bill is on a message of necessity, but it is not an emergency. And we are simply hiding bad policy in this bill. Why are there no public hearings other than this one debate we're having? Why can't I question the attorney general in public on behalf of my people? Public safety is our number one obligation as a state. This bill harms that concept. I vote no.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Smullen. Mister Moranello, two minutes, sir.

[Angelo Morinello — Assembly Member]: Thank you. I support the concept of protecting the immigrants, but as a retired judge and as attorney, we always look at definitions. And I'm I'm troubled with the fact that there's no definition of what their reference to an immigrant is. My family came over by boat. They went through Ellis Island. They went through all of the processes. They are immigrants. Almost everyone in this, body that came over is from a different country came in, came through the front door, and they followed all the rules. So what I'm dismayed at is there is no definition that a judge or the individuals or the people can assess as to what is the immigrant they're referring to. Are they referring to those that are legal waiting for status? Are they referring to those who have come in with visas or those who've come over in the dead of night over the border in violation of the law? It's not against what the concept is. It's not against protecting, but it's against there's no definition. So we cannot identify. And if we have to go to court, how do we talk about this bill without talking about what immigrants, what individuals are, and which ones they're referring to. Thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Miss Rosenthal, two minutes.

[Linda B. Rosenthal — Assembly Member]: Thank you. First, I wanna say I'm the very proud granddaughter and daughter of Jewish immigrants who were forced to flee Hitler's Germany. The only reason I'm standing here is because of the incredible kindness shown to my family by random strangers and very brave rabbis of Bene Gesserina synagogue in my assembly district. That generational history, a dread that lives within my bones, is why I feel utterly compelled to forcefully stand up for the many immigrants who are being attacked and targeted by the federal government. We, as legislators, have a moral obligation to shield them from the deadly hands of ICE agents, masked ICE agents. We have a moral obligation to safeguard the hope that fuels New Yorkers as they take to the streets to defend themselves and their neighbors from a tyrannical federal government. With today's vote, we're telling the federal government we will not obey in advance. With today's vote, we in New York are speaking up and defending all that is worthy and just, knowing we are on the right side of history. I'm also proud my legislation banning the manufacture of ghost guns in New York was included in the state budget. The support of DA Bragg, law enforcement, gun safety advocates will ensure that people can no longer print weapons of war from their homes. This common sense measure builds on our collective progress and my previous law that banned the possession of goat ghost guns. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Moreno. Two minutes.

[Unknown Assembly Member (surname Moreno)]: In the name of public safety and the rule of law, a rogue federal agency has been given free rein to attack immigrant New Yorkers, rip mothers from their babies, violate our rights to due process, and terrorize our communities. But Trump's ICE and DHS have zero regard for public safety or the rule of law. Just two days ago, ICE agents descended upon 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan in defiance of a court order that said they could no longer conduct arrests there. If these agents show no respect for our ports, we cannot expect for them to respect our right the rights of our constituents. I am proud that this bill begins to do something meaningful to protect New Yorkers and hold ICE agents accountable for their abuses. It contains important provisions like banning ICE agents from hiding behind masks, getting New York State out of the business of immigration detention, and ending formal agreements between ICE and law enforcement. Law enforcement has routinely colluded with ICE, turning traffic stops into abductions. Immigrants attempting to report crimes have ended up in detention, destroying the trust needed for victims to come forward. And in the cruelest of cases, a buffalo father, refugee, a disabled elderly man, Nurul Amin Shah Alam was arrested by local police, handed over to border patrol agents, and abandoned miles from his home, leaving him to freeze to death on a cold February night, just three months ago. This bill is an important step to end the collusion, but we must do more. As an immigrant New Yorker, as a mother, I call on my colleagues to pass the New York for All Act during this legislative session and end all collusion between ICE and law enforcement. Protect our immigrant communities and restore our trust in the legal and criminal justice system. Because this bill is a step in the right

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Moreno. On a motion by mister Pretlow, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: A party vote's been requested, mister Gandolfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. The republican conference will generally be opposed to this budget bill. However, any member who wish to vote in the affirmative may do so at their desk.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority of the congress is generally gonna be in favor of this piece of legislation. However, there may be some that would desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their desk.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mister Manktilo to explain his vote.

[Brian Manktelow — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanna talk a excuse me. Just want to talk a little bit about the constitutional rights that we talked about here on the floor today. As I look at part c, and we've debated that part several times here, I'm thinking about an immigrant that came here many years ago from my district. He came here. I don't know if he was called an immigrant, an illegal an illegal alien, undocumented, but I do know some of the things he was called. And they were not very nice words, and I will never say them on this floor. But I do know this, that immigrant's grandson today, because the bills that we passed here like we're going to pass with part c, does not have the freedom to go purchase guns like that individual could twelve fifteen years ago because we constantly take that right away from an individual who has done everything right never been arrested and I ask you not to support part c if we want to talk about constitutional rights that individual has a right to buy a gun when and where he wants and I hope I make that crystal clear. Thank you madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: How do you vote sir?

[Brian Manktelow — Assembly Member]: I will I will vote in the negative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Manktolo in the negative. Mister Steck to explain his vote.

[Philip Steck — Assembly Member]: Thank you madam Chair. After listening to the debate, I thought it appropriate to read the famous quote by the German Protestant Minister, Martin Niemoller. First they came for the socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me. Scapegoating immigrants is wrong. I vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Stack in the affirmative, mister Taneusis to explain his vote.

[Michael Tannousis — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Actually, I find it a bit ironic. So last year during budget, we passed another mass bill. That mass bill was designed to be able to hold people accountable that are protesting or causing havoc either in the streets or educational institutions. That bill would create a created a charge of a violation that could only be charged if the person who committed the act was actually facing more serious charges. Specifically, in a misdemeanor or higher. So, in essence, and I said it at that time, that mask charge did nothing to hold anyone accountable because that person was already facing more serious charges to begin with. Here today, we have a mask bill that was brought forth, which would charge a federal law enforcement officer with a violation at first, and then if done again, continuously with a misdemeanor. So we are basically punishing the law enforcement officer in the scope of his employment more severely than we would the individual wreaking havoc on the streets and edge in educational institutions and that also was in the process of committing more serious crimes. I vote no on this bill. I'm also want to express my concern for immunity, in regards to qualified immunity for law all law enforcement personnel that protect our community, and do everything it can to make sure the public is safe. And I really am worried that this piece of legislation will put them at risk. I vote no.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Tanusis in the negative, mister Levine to explain his vote.

[Charles D. Lavine — Assembly Member]: The overwhelming majority of Americans are disgusted by the brutal and heavy handed tactics employed by ICE. We were told it would be the worst of the worst who would be taken, and we all support that. That was a lie. Shocked. I'm shocked that that was a lie. The overwhelming majority of those who are taken have not committed any crimes. Now I live in a diverse community, and I live in that community because I want to live in that community. I have friends and people I know who have been taken. These are good people who contributed contributed substantially to our economy. On Tuesday morning, an armed, masked, paramilitary force conducted a sweep directly across the street from my granddaughter's elementary school. She's gonna ask me about that. I don't know what I'm gonna be able to tell her, but it angers me that that occurred, and it was not supposed to occur. So I am going to be voting for this bill. I will not stand idly by while children are terrorized. That is un American. I will not stand idly by why while my community is intimidated. That is un American. And I would suggest that those of us who want to maintain American values ought to look at this and not lie to yourselves. Do not lie to yourselves. And you better stand up. We all better stand up for America, and that's why I'm voting in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Levine in the affirmative, miss Hooks to explain her vote.

[Unknown Assembly Member (referred to as Ms. Hooks/Hicks)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise in support, and I wanna speak to what this bill is really about for my district. It is about safety. The safety of our children and the safety of our streets. I remember the raids. I remember the afternoons when the calls came and the children just kept sitting there in our schools and in our programs, waiting for parents who were never coming through the door. The little ones who didn't understand, but the older ones who did understand. We had we held those babies together because somebody had to, and there was no one else. I have not forgotten a single one of their faces. In my district, a mother leaves for work in the morning and cannot tell her children for certain that she will be home for dinner. A father drops his kids off to school and wonders if he'll be there to pick them up. That is the fear too many of my neighbors carry every single day. Not over something they did wrong, but over simply being an immigrant trying to work and raise their children. No family in New York should have to wonder whether an ordinary day will be the day they're torn apart. I stood with those families then and I stand with them now. And while we keep our children safe inside the schoolhouse, this bill keeps them safe outside of it. It goes after the pistol converters that turned an ordinary handgun into a machine gun on our streets, and after the three d printed untraceable guns built to slip past every law we have. It keeps drones out of our airspace, over our schools, and our neighborhoods. It strengthens orders of protection so survivors are covered the moment they need it. These are the real dangers our families face, and this bill meets them head on. That's the through line for me. A child who is safe can learn and a community that is safe can thrive. This bill protects both. For those reasons, I vote aye.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Hicks in the affirmative. Mister Sampolinsky to explain his vote.

[Joseph Sempolinski — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm gonna be voting against this bill for a lot of different reasons, but obviously, the most controversial to discuss is the immigration situation. Obviously, with my last name, you can tell that I'm a descendant of immigrants. I have nothing but great sympathy for folks who follow the rules and wanna come to The United States Of America. But I'm confused because what this bill does is it takes local law enforcement out of the equation as far as participating in immigration enforcement. This disproportionately affects my district where we have a lot of local agencies that have these agreements. And having local people involved would make enforcement more efficient, would make enforcement safer, would prevent tragedies, would make sure it's easier to go after the worst of the worst. So, this is gonna have the exact opposite effect as what people claim it will. And, the idea that comes from the governor and and people have said today that we want local folks, folks on local issues. Well, if that was the case, you would say you want them out of all federal issues, but there was just one that was picked. And where my constituents get confused and get concerned and get angry is it seems that just there are certain people, are certain elements that simply don't want immigration law to be enforced. And that goes against the rule of law. And there's been so much conflation between immigration and people who are here legally and people who are here illegally. My constituents want people to be able to come here legally, but they want immigration law to be enforced on those who have not followed it and they want to be enforced fairly and efficiently and having local people involved leads to that. So, because of the immigration provisions of the bill and a variety of others which I do not have time to get into, I will be voting no.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Sempolinsky in the negative, miss Butane has to explain her vote. How do you vote, miss Botanis?

[Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn — Assembly Member]: This immigrant votes, yes.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Botanis in the affirmative. Miss Cruz to explain her vote.

[Catalina Cruz — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Today, I vote for my neighbors that were kidnapped off the streets in Corona in Corona Queens. For the moms who put their lives on the risk crossing Eldarian to give their kids a chance. Today, I vote for my immigrant community. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Cruz in the affirmative. Mister Simone to explain his vote.

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: I rise to explain my vote. We should be proud of this vote. This is about public safety. I wanna first thank the speaker and Alana and all the staff that worked on this and we'll keep going to protect all immigrants. But as my colleague said, I vote today proudly for my immigrant neighbors, for my cousins that had been in hiding, for my neighbors, for real Americans that do the work many other Americans won't do. I vote today for the mothers separated from their children. I vote for the veterans who served our wars and for those who feed us. Many who do work other Americans just won't do. But I also vote for public safety. And while I won't get personal this time, the people who are trying to convince you this is about crime are full of it. This is about public safety. There is a directive from on high in the White House to spread fear and anger and division. Immigrants are not the cause of our problems. We have those solutions. If you had the real solutions, you wouldn't be spreading fear and hate and division. It's been throughout our history that we like to blame the other. So I am proud of this vote today. It will increase public safety. It does not endanger police officers. I've had a conversation with my nephew, my godson, and so many who are in law enforcement. They don't wanna be working with federal police who are masked. If you are masked, what are you trying to hide? If you did nothing wrong and you followed the law and due process and enforced real immigration enforcement, you shouldn't fear a badge or being masked. And we have exceptions for law enforcement in certain cases for being masked. So this is a fair

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, sir. Bill. Mister Simone, how do vote?

[Tony Simone — Assembly Member]: I vote aye in affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Simone in the affirmative. Mister Cashman to explain his vote.

[Assembly Member Cashman (identity unclear)]: Madam speaker, I rise to explain my vote. No bill is perfect. And certainly, it is very frustrating to see any policy shoehorned into this budget. The perspective that I have over these last several months is I've held six town halls in my district. I've traveled 14,000 miles connecting with my constituents, listening to their concerns. One of the elements that we've talked about is the auto insurance. I've listened to farmers and families and veterans of my district concerned about the affordability crisis that is crushing them. When we talk about a budget that will make auto insurance more affordable by capping rates and cracking down on auto insurance fraud. That is something that connects with my constituents. When you talk about establishing safeguards that prevents companies from raising rates, that connects with my constituents. When we talk about the crackdowns of auto insurance fraud, that connects with my constituents. And because of that, because of the needs and what I've heard directly from the farmers and the seniors and the veterans and the small business owners, I vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Cashman in the affirmative. Mister Burdek to explain his vote.

[Chris Burdick — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise to explain my vote. The portions of this bill pertaining to our immigrant community are to advance law enforcement, public safety, and peace. Law enforcement because it supports the supreme law of the land, which is the constitution of The United States, protecting the rights of due process. Public safety because it provides for the safety of the immigrant community from lawless and violent actions of federal ICE agents. Such lawlessness does not represent who we are as New Yorkers. They do not represent who we are as Americans. The provisions are for the safety of those in the immigrant community who've done everything right and simply want to raise their families, be productive members of the community, and pursue the American dream without fear for their children and themselves. The preamble of the constitution explicitly states that one of the primary purposes for establishing the constitution is to ensure domestic tranquility, which this will help to promote. I applaud the work of the sponsors of New York for All and thank the tremendous efforts of the speaker and his terrific team in bringing this to fruition. I vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Burdick in the affirmative. Mister Riley to explain his vote.

[Michael Reilly — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker, to explain my vote. So during debate, I raised the issues about the home rule and how this will be a slippery slope moving forward home rule. Now I'd like to discuss another piece of this. You know, we heard a little bit about immunity, right, for law enforcement. And I think there is a little gray area here where we are encroaching on qualified immunity. Specifically, there is no declaration in this legislation that maintains qualified immunity, but there are important legal clues here. Notice what the bill does include. It includes damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and retroactive date where it starts, 01/01/2025. Now the issue about whether those federal law enforcement officers themselves will be targeted by lawsuits, this raises a very, very troubling issue. Because once we open that doorway, we are bringing it down to the state and local level as well. And the partnerships that we talked about when it comes to immigration enforcement, where will those lawsuits delineate between state officers and federal officers. It does not. And I would assume there will be some legal challenges to this legislation. For those reasons, I will be an in negative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Riley in the negative, miss Shrestha to explain her vote.

[Sarahana Shrestha — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am speaking as somebody who became a citizen in 2019, of this country and also as somebody who represents Ulster County, whose district attorney and sheriff both support the immigration policies that we are passing today. I want to note that the ICE activities that we have seen in our communities is enabled by an unprecedented funding that the federal administration enacted at the cost of cutting Medicaid, at the cost of cutting SNAP, things that people actually depend on. And as of June 2025, of the over 204,000 individuals detained since the start of fiscal year 2025, sixty five percent had no criminal convictions and over ninety three percent had no history of violent offenses. This is not an entity designed for public safety. It is designed to wreak havoc and violence in our communities. And for that reason, I call on our federal reps in Washington to abolish ICE. I vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Srashta in the affirmative. Mr. Rivera to explain his vote.

[José Rivera — Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, about every week now, I get a phone call in my office about somebody that's been taken. Their family that's been separated. Children that are worried about where they're gonna be. Parents that are disconnected. Or a husband is now in a holding center and a wife doesn't know what to do. That's been my reality for the last few weeks. Every week for the last few years. And I know that the work that we do in Albany often can be confusing and challenging and slow and inefficient or whatever other word you want to use. But, I feel as though today the difference we're making is tangible. I feel like what we're doing today is making a clear position on where we stand. Not for ourselves, not for the people in this room, but for the people that cannot support us. For the people that don't have a voice. For the people that are worried about not just where their next meal is gonna be, but whether they're even able to leave their home. Today, I'm thinking about the family of Neural Amin. I'm thinking about the high school kid that lost his folks. I'm thinking about my own friend that while not committing a crime ever was apprehended by ICE on his way to work and is now back home in Colombia. I think about the farm worker who was taken when she simply showed up to her hearing. Those are the realities that we're seeing every day in our communities and truthfully, if what we do today can bring a bit more safety to people who really live in fear, then it's an absolutely right thing to do every day of the week. So, thank you very much and I support. Oh, yes.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Rivera in the affirmative, Ms. People Stokes to explain her vote.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker, for the opportunity to explain my vote really quickly. I, much like many people in this room, really think this is a topic that we could have had a longer and much better conversation and discussion outside of the budget process because it's not a budgetary issue. But it is an issue that we are facing today as a society. And some people can, you know, say it's about public safety because that probably makes them feel better. But honestly, in my opinion, it's all about money. There are literally three companies that control all of the federal prisons where these people are ending up going. Three. And one of them just signed a brand new contract for the next five years. Now, if in fact it had been that everybody was being arrested and detained were actually criminals, actually had did some things wrong, harmed some people in our society, then they should be incarcerated. But we know for a fact the the data is in. Most of the people who are being contacted here have not committed a crime. No one has showed them due process that they've committed anything. And until that happens, we should not allow it in New York State nor should it be allowed in America. I certainly do vote in support of this bill and I hope that we can, in the future, separate policy issues from fiscal issues. It's critically important that we begin that process as soon as we can Because the only thing that is allowing us to do, one, is to delay the process for many good things that should be happening. And two, is to probably, you know, add in unnecessary resources where we should be focusing on resources. We should be focusing on our fiscal ability to remain a little bit constrained. We talk about affordability for our people, but we need to be an affordable government as well. So thank you, madam speaker, I certainly will be voting in affirmative on this

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss People Stokes in the affirmative, miss Simon to explain her vote.

[Jo Anne Simon — Assembly Member]: Thank you madam speaker. The bible tells us whether it's the new or the old testament that we should welcome the stranger And that means we should have compassion and we should have understanding and we should have equity. And we know that this public safety debate has been circling around this idea of criminality when over 90% of the people that have been taken by ICE have committed no crime whatsoever, and there have been American citizens who have been taken by ICE and detained. That is simply unjust. It is un American, and it must stop, and it certainly should not be happening in the state of New York. My vote is for public safety, and that includes making sure that in New York State, nobody has the ability to create or manufacture or use a gun that can become a machine gun with the insertion of a small item. Now that item might be very small, but you know, I see people trying to regulate a very small item like a pill. That shouldn't be happening either. I am voting in the affirmative because I believe in the safety of all New Yorkers. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, miss Simon. In the affirmative, mister Boris, to explain his vote.

[Alex Bores — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Sometimes the best law is the one we repeal. During the Red Scare, New York passed a provision that allowed the governor to require noncitizens to register with her office with twenty four hours notice and required anyone who owns a hotel or an apartment to tell the governor about any non citizen live there within twenty four hours, and failure to do so was punishable by up to a year in jail. Now when we have a federal administration that is using AI to go through old statutes to find new powers, we have to be proactive to take these bad laws off the books. I'm proud to have found this law, to propose the bill to rescind it, and now today to vote and make it law to rescind this vestige of the Red Scare. And I'm proud to join in so many of my colleagues in fighting for bills that are helping our immigrant neighbors. I wanna, in particular, congratulate my colleague from the West Side Of Manhattan on the Melt bill so that from now on ICE will no longer be masked vigilantes in our streets. And all those who fought for New York for all and so many important provisions as part of this budget bill. It is a first step. There is more work to do, but it is a massive first step and I'm very proud to vote yes.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Morrison, the affirmative, mister McDonald to explain his vote.

[John T. McDonald III — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. You know, the subject of immigration is always a very difficult situation for some people because they don't want to understand the topic. Back in 1900, my great Anuncionna and Joseph Mara, moved to the city of Cahoz. At that time, Italians weren't always welcome in a city like that. They had 11 children, and throughout that community, one became a dentist, one an undertaker, and one my grandfather opened a pharmacy in 1931, which is still standing there today. And my point is they came through an immigration system that was there, that worked. Sadly, forty, fifty years ago, for whatever reason, we decided to have a broken system. And since that time, we have struggled as a community because many people have come here for the same reasons that Naziata and Joe did back in 1900. To start a new life and to be an integral part of the community as our family pharmacy is today. And I see that day in and day out with many of the members in our community that are not here under legal status, but are contributing greatly. So yes, there are people who are probably not going to like this for a variety of reasons. I support this legislation. I think it's the right thing to do because of the fact that we have a federal government that two years ago, Senator Schumer and Senator Langford were on the precipice of fixing the problem. But said no, don't worry about it. We're going to take care of it. And here we are today where we have people here in the city of Albany going to a mosque and being taken away because they were going to worship their God. There are many other parts of this bill outside of the immigration component that I support as well. But let's remember something, this state has always worked to fix the problems so everyone is welcome here. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. McDonald, the affirmative. Ms. Callis to explain her vote.

[Anna Kelles — Assembly Member]: As this conversation has been going on, one of the things that was reminding me of was testimony by Ryan Schwank, who was an attorney and instructor of ICE. And one of the things he said of why he felt he had to resign from his duty to be an instructor was because of what was being cut from the instruction of ICE agents. He said without reform, ICE will graduate thousands of new officers who do not know their constitutional duty, do not know the limits of their authority, and who do not have the training to recognize an unlawful order or to carry out an unlawful order. And I think that that is what has brought us here today because we are seeing that play out in our streets. And it is reducing the public safety of everyone who lives in The United States. I stand here for all of the people in my communities who are afraid to leave their homes. To say that we are passing legislation and putting legislation into law that says that school resources cannot be used to support ICE activities. That children cannot be kept from school and from education because of their immigration status. That we will not use our resources to support ICE activity because we believe in creating a safe environment from unlawful activity. And too often we have been seeing over and over and over again exactly that. Unlawful activity by what appears to so many as vigilantes. And there's no one who lives in The United States who should be afraid to go to work, should be afraid to take their children to childcare, Who should be afraid to go shopping for food for their family. That is why we're here today and that is why I stand in support of this legislation. How do vote?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, Ms. Callison, the affirmative. Ms. Valdez to explain her vote.

[Assembly Member Valdez (identity unclear)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are living in a moment when people who are most at risk are being told to stay home, to stay silent, to keep your heads down, because ice is here. People, our neighbors, our friends, our family members are afraid to go to the hospital, to send their children to school. And it's not it's a moment when anyone couldn't could not be blamed for for doing exactly that, for staying quiet. But immigrant New Yorkers organized. And they have been for years. For years, they have stood together shoulder to shoulder against incredible odds and incredible violence. And we stand here today passing legislation that shows definitively which side we are on. We are on the side of our immigrant neighbors. This legislation goes a long way to make sure that people can continue to go to school, can seek medical care, can be protected. There's much more to be done. And when this federal administration has spun up a deportation machine, spending billions and billions of our taxpayer dollars to rip families from their communities, I'm proud that in New York, we will not stay silent and we will not contribute to that violence. More has to be done, and I joined my colleague in saying that our congressional representatives must abolish ICE. Collusion will continue until this agency exists. But in the meantime, I'm proud that New York will stand with their immigrant neighbors, and I'm proud to vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Valdez, in the affirmative, mister Gandolfo to explain his vote.

[Jarett Gandolfo — Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I know a lot of people in here are passionate about the issue. A lot of people have opinions on the federal immigration system and that's fine, but what we're doing today is not fixing the federal immigration issue. If you want to do that, run for Congress and a lot of our colleagues are doing just that and I think former members of this house do make great members of Congress. What we're doing here today though and we make the public safety argument not because it makes us feel better but because it's a real issue in our communities. Just recently in both Nassau and Suffolk Counties, there have been arrests made of individuals here illegally for arson, for criminal possession of weapons, for alleged child rape, and and kidnapping. That was in my district. And because of our bail laws, they are able to be set free and walk our streets, and it exemplifies the need for local cooperation with our partners in the federal government. Now, I know that is not reflective of the immigrant community at large. No one is alleging that. But there are bad apples in our communities, whether you're here legally or illegally. And sometimes, you need to use every tool at your disposal to get dangerous people off the streets. And what we're doing here today is taking away another tool. So I will be in the negative, madam speaker, and I thank you for your time.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Gandalf in the negative, mister De La Santos to explain his vote.

[Manny De Los Santos — Assembly Member]: Madam speaker, this legislation is not a perfect legislation, but it's a start. It's not New York fall, but it represent the dignity and the respect of our people. As an immigrant, I have to admit that I'm proud to speak on this legislation, but I know that as a state, we can do a lot more. I know that our brothers and sister that fear under attack and that are waiting, that are patiently waiting for us to do the right thing. This is what we do today here. To stop the abuse, to stop the injustice, and everything that have happened throughout the last few months. Madam speaker, I vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister De Los Santos in the affirmative, mister Bronson to explain his vote.

[Harry B. Bronson — Assembly Member]: Yes, madam speaker. Many of you have heard me say my strong belief on which I live and I make policy decisions, and that is no matter who you are, what you look like, where you come from, who you love, how you identify, we all have dignity. With that dignity, we deserve equity. We deserve justice. We deserve opportunities. I support this measure as it relates to our immigrant neighbors. And I'm gonna quote someone I looked up to, Harvey Milk. On the Statute of Liberty, it says, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. In the declaration of independence, it says, all men are created equal. We now see that as all people are created equal. In our national anthem, it says, oh say does the star spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free. And the pledge which we take every session day to the flag, it says, for liberty and justice for all. Not for some, for all. That is what America is. And to the bigots who want to deny those principles, I say, you cannot erase the declaration of independence. You cannot chip away at the Statue Of Liberty, and you cannot sing that star spangled banner without those words, and you cannot say the pledge without acknowledging for liberty and justice for all, and that includes our immigrant neighbors. Madam speaker, I proudly proudly vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Bronson in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Ayes, three. Nays, 47.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed on the main calendar. Resolutions page three. Clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen twenty eight rules at the request of mister Sayej legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 05/21/2026 as Telepractice Awareness Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen twenty nine rules at the request of mister Cashman. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 05/22/2026 as Poppy Day in the state of New York in conjunction with the observance of National Poppy Day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Cashman on the resolution.

[Assembly Member Cashman (identity unclear)]: Proud to sponsor this resolution. Today, I would like to speak about the importance of Poppy Day. And I realize it's been a long session day. But this Friday, before Memorial Day, annually is designated National Poppy Day to expand awareness and provide support everywhere for all of those who have served and sacrificed in the armed forces. The poppy is more than just a flower. It is a symbol of remembrance, respect, and gratitude for soldiers who have sacrificed their lives during the wars and conflicts so that we can live in peace and freedom. The symbol became famous after the first world war and inspired by the poem In Flanders Field. Written by Canadian physician and soldier John McCray, which described the sight of the bright red poppies growing between the cross marking of the graves of Canadians and the allied nations, fallen soldiers on the battlefield. On poppy day, people wear the poppies in honor of those that serve their nation with courage and bravery. It is also a reminder of the pain and loss caused by war and why peace is so important for future generations. By observing Poppy Day, we show that we remember the sacrifices made by millions of people, including soldiers, nurses, and families affected by war. Even a small act like wearing a poppy tomorrow and observing a minute of silence helps keep their memory alive. So let's take a moment of appreciation for our freedoms, and remember, as we enter Memorial Day weekend, that freedom isn't free. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen thirty rules at the request of mister Ecas legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 05/24/2026 as schizophrenia awareness day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen thirty one rules at the request of Ms. Rajkumar, legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 05/28/2026 as Nepali American Heritage Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen thirty two rules at the request of mister Brabanek. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 17 through the twenty third two thousand twenty six as emergency medical services week in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen thirty three rules at the request of miss Rosenthal legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 05/28/2026 as menstrual hygiene day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen thirty four rules at the request of miss Hunter. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as building safety month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen thirty five rules at the request of miss Solage legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 06/06/2026 as Belmont Stakes Day in the state of New York and commending the New York State Racing Association upon the occasion of the one hundred and fiftieth running of the Belmont Stakes.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen thirty six rules at the request of mister Jensen. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as Slur Derma Awareness Month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen thirty seven rules at the request of miss Buttonshun. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as First Responders Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen thirty eight rules at the request of mister DeStefano legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as Pet Rescue Awareness Month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Ms. People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Yes, ma'am. Piece of housekeeping on a motion by mister Otis, page 19, calendar number 95, bill number a two six one one. The amendments are received and adopted. A resolution by mister Morenollo. Clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly (Reading Clerk)]: Assembly number fourteen forty one, mister Morenollo. Legislative resolution commemorating the three hundredth anniversary of Old Fort Niagara.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Morenello, on the resolution.

[Angelo Morinello — Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The United States is celebrating two fifty years, but I'm here to speak about a piece of history that is celebrating its three hundredth anniversary. This year marks the three hundredth anniversary of Old Fort Niagara, one of the most historic landmarks in New York State and in our nation. For three centuries, Fort Niagara has stood as a symbol of courage, resilience, and the rich history of Western New York. The fort played a critical role in the French and Indian War, the American Revolution, the War of eighteen twelve, and the Second World War helping shape the course of North American history. Today, Old Fort Niagara continues to educate future generations and preserve the stories of those who came before us. The fort is not only a historic treasure but also an important part of a local identity, tourism, economy, and community pride. Reaching three hundred years is a remarkable milestone and a testament to the dedication of historians, volunteers, and preservationists who worked tirelessly to protect this landmark. This anniversary is the opportunity to reflect on our shared history while enduring this important site is preserved for generations to come. I'm proud to recognize the three hundredth anniversary of Old Fort Niagara, a historic landmark that has stood in the crossroads of American history for three centuries. From its role in major conflicts that helped shape our nation, to its continued importance as an educational and central designation. Old Fort Niagara remains a source of pride for Western New York and all of New York State. As we celebrate this remarkable milestone, we honor the generations who prefer preserve this history and cite and reaffirm our commitment to enduring its legacy, endures for future generations to learn from and appreciate. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Miss People Stokes on the resolution.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna applaud the sponsor of this resolution for acknowledging a piece of Western New York's history that I've known since I was probably in the third grade because these are the kind of trips that you always took when you were in school back in those days. For some reason, history is not as important to Americans as it was when I was growing up, but I am appreciating the fact that our colleague would bring this up. It's 300 years old that Old Fort Niagara has been in place providing people with an opportunity to reenact history in fact on the premises there. And so I wear this sankofa bird on a regular basis because I think it's it speaks volumes to who we are as a people and what we need to be practicing as a people. We need to know where we came from in order to know where we're going. And so we must always be in a space where we're gonna honor history whether we like the results of it or not. The fact is that it is history and we should know it and we should be honored by it. So again, I thank my colleague for introducing this, and I certainly do support this resolution.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. We have a number of additional resolutions before the house. Without objections, these resolutions will be taken up together on the resolutions. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolutions are adopted. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes — Majority Leader]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned until Friday, May 22. Tomorrow being a legislative day and that we reconvene on May 26, Tuesday, May 26 at the call of the speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. On miss Peoples Stokes' motion, the house stands adjourned.