New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, can you please call the house back to order?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The house will come to order, mister Gallahan, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Assemblymember Jeff Gallahan]: Thank you, madam speaker. That's certainly a special day for me today here in in the capital. I have some very special guests here, that came down from my district, actually from my home. I have my family here today. And, my wife of forty eight years, Lynn, our daughter Jackie, our son Corey, our son-in-law Jerry, and our three grandsons, Barrett, Cash, and Tate. They're very excited to be here and very impressed with the with the Capital Building. And our grandson, Barrett, is currently in the middle of his governmental instruction in his classroom, and they're talking about the New York State Capitol and our government here. So it's very fitting for him to be here today. He's learned a lot. They've all told me how excited they were. They've told me how impressed they were with the with the capital and the ornate carvings and etchings and the history, so called almost finished capital billing that that wasn't finished. But anyway, I didn't get them in to see the the the unfinished part of the senate, but I told them about it and they were thoroughly impressed. And probably the most impressing thing was was my office and and what we have up there to take care of the folks at the end of session most days. Please, madam speaker, would you please give all the cordialities to the floor and the people's house to my family.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Of course. On behalf of mister Gallahan, the speaker and all members, welcome to Lynn, Jackie, Corey, Jerry, Barrett, Cash and Tate to our assembly chamber. We extend to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. I saw you get the personal tour from mister Gallahan this morning, and so that's always exciting to be able to have family members to be here and present. And congratulations on your long standing nuptials. That's a long time. So congratulations to you for that. We will definitely miss Jeff here in the assembly chamber. He has been a wonderful member. So thank you so very much for joining us today, and we hope you have a wonderful time here. Thank you. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, members have on their desk an a calendar. I now move to advance the a calendar.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Fall's motion, the a calendar is advanced. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, can we now take up a rules report at 02:11 on page eight by mister Pretlow?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Yes. Page eight, rules report two eleven. Clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number eleven four eighty, rules report two eleven, committee on rules Mr. Pretlow, an act making reparations for the support of government.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: On a motion by Mr. Pretlow, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Governor's message is at the desk. Clerkle Reed.

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

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Pretlow.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Sub, madam speaker. This extender would ensure funding for state operations and other programs through May 28. The bill includes additional funding for institutional payroll, Medicaid payments, unemployment insurance, OPWDD services, veterans programs and general state charges.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Palmisano.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the chairman yield for a few questions?

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

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Absolutely. Chairman yield. Three questions.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Maybe one more than that. First question, obviously, I won't even ask it. I see it on the board. This goes till May 28, correct?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Now, this being our fifteenth extender, what is the total amount of all the appropriations of those 15 bills?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Through 15 extenders, it's $36,200,000,000

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: And what is the increase of this extender be?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: 2,500,000,000.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. I did want to ask you now. Don't know, do you think this will be our last extender or will we have to take up another one on Thursday, do you think, just to get through?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I'm hoping to complete the process of passing the budget by Thursday.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. And just going back to some of our analogies in the past, with the magnet in the metal, Has the metal dropped? Has it all come together or is there still some stragglers? Where are we at on the metal? No, we

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: are using that same analogy. It turns out that the magnet is an electronic magnet. And as we increase the power, the magnet gets stronger so more shards are coming toward it. But we are getting there. And our other analogy, I think we're in the third inning.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Third inning? Yes. You took my next question. So do you have any idea? I know we're going to do the TED bill next. Do you have any idea when the other bills will be introduced?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, like I said, I hope to have this budget process come to fruition by Thursday. So today is Tuesday. That gives us three days.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I look forward to talking to you in a few minutes. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

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

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Madam Speaker, my colleagues, well, this is our fifteenth extender and hopefully our last one. It's really kind of hard to believe we've had to go this far past the deadline. But that being said, I'm certainly glad this process is starting to move. Budget bills are being printed. Conversations are happening. Votes are moving forward. That's a positive thing. And that's welcome news from where we were last week. But progress is not the same as completion. And until that last budget bill is voted upon, the people we represent are still waiting and they've waited long enough. As we work through the remaining of the bills, I hope two things stay front and center. Number one, affordability. Because every New Yorker right now is feeling the squeeze, and this budget is should be making their lives easier and not harder. And second, safety. Because no matter no policy matters more than whether people feel safe in their neighborhoods and in their homes and in their communities. These are the priorities that should guide us, that have been left out of the process. I will once again obviously vote for this extender because we need to make sure our dedicated employees who do such a great job for us providing critically important services to New Yorkers get paid and we will continue to push for a budget that delivers on what matters most to New Yorkers. Thank you, madam speaker. I vote yes.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: This section will take it back to immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty one. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page three, rules report two ten. Clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number 1008 c, rules report two ten, budget bill.

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

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

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested, mister Prattlow.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes Madam Speaker, today as we continue the process of adopting the budget for state fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven, the bill before us contains major components of legislation that are necessary for the implementation of transportation, environment, economic development. This bill includes legislation to reduce utility costs for rate payers, modify the timeline and implementation of the state climate change goals, improve retirement benefits for members of tier six and other members, and streamline the state's process for certain environmental reviews.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Paul Massano.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Yes. Thank you, madam speaker. Will the chairman yield for some questions?

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

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes, I will.

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

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Thank you, mister. I'll I'll ask I'll start out with asking committee. This is another budget bill. When can we expect to see the financial plan before we will we see the financial plan before we vote on any other bills?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Mr. Paloszama, the reason you haven't seen the financial plan in print now is because all of the bills aren't in print. And in the off chance that one of the bills that we present in budget fails to pass, it would make the financial plan incorrect. So after all of the bills are printed, we will have a financial plan for review.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. And then that financial plan will include the all funding spending, the state operating funds spending, and the out year budget caps. Is that correct?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes, sir. Okay.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Regarding the sweeps and transfers, how much does this enacted budget increase bond caps within the sweeps and transfer section? And how much is this over the governor's proposal?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: The increase is at 3,500,000,000.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. And then the liquidity financing measure was put into law to address cash flow needs during COVID-nineteen. Why do we continue to extend this authorization when the state's receipts are coming in higher than forecasted and we continue to see increased spending each year.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: Can you repeat the question please? Sure.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: The liquidity financing measure that was put into law to address cash flow needs during COVID nineteen, why do we continue to extend this authorization when the state's receipts are coming in higher than forecasted and we continue to increase spending each year?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Because there are still outstanding contracts that haven't been paid and we're still catching up with them.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. I do have one or two brief questions on insurance reforms. The governor has claimed that fraud and staged crashes inflate premiums by as much as $300 per year on average. Has the State Department of Financial Services provided a statistical specific actuary data that confirms this 300 figure? No. And is there anything in this budget bill that would ensure that there will be savings for New Yorkers based on these provisions and how will that be quantified to ensure that they will get actual reductions of premiums?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, we're judging our experiences with other states and how the moves that we're making in New York are replicating what's done in other states where they have decreased insurance costs.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. And if there are well, are there gonna be any steps or mechanism in place for the Department of Financial Services to address this if there are no savings?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: One of the things that they are required to do is evaluate these reports and we are going to ensure that there are rate decreases. And if all else fails, we are also issuing checks to all the rate payers to help with that reduction.

[Assemblymember John T. McDonald III]: But it is

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: not in this bill.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: All right. I have maybe one or two quick questions on the pension changes. The first question is, with these enhancements and changes that are being made, is the do we have it what the overall cost of taxpayers for all the pension enhancements included in this bill, both for the state and for locals?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes. It's a total of it is 500 but just for the state, it's $146,300,000.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: And how about for locals? Do we know how much it's gonna cost?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: 289,900,000.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: 389.9 bill?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: 289 point And

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: you remember, I know we brought this up. When we passed tier six back then, we said any additional enhancements that would be paid for by the state. Is the state going to assume that cost or is that going be picked up by the local property tax payers for these

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, think the section of what you're referring to was not withstood with the legislation that we had done.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. Great. Thank you Mr. Paulo. Now I'd like to talk about the CLCPA and some of those changes if I may.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: Yes, you may. Okay.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Ms. Glick.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Sure. And we can all agree that I think that the utility rates are sky high for New Yorkers. I know there's rebates of I think $200 per family, up up to $200 per family. Is there anything and I know about the rates commissions and the evaluations of the utilities, but is there anything actually in this budget bill that will actually reduce rates immediately for New York rate payers?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: The implementation is gonna be done of after an evaluation that we're doing over time.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Alright. So, the $2,400,000,000 that NYSERDA is sitting in their surplus funds that was collected for the rate payer, there's nothing in this budget bill that would relieve that and provide that relief directly back to New Yorkers, correct? Not in this bill?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Okay, no. That money is going toward energy efficiency programs.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: All right. The taxes, fees, assessments, and surcharges, they add up to about 20, sometimes in some cases 20% of a utility bill. Is there anything done on this budget bill to provide suspension of those taxes and fees to provide that immediate relief to rate payers right now?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: We don't have that number anywhere the 20% you're referring to. But we are depending on what the commission and the report that they do once they look at all this Okay. At the entire situation.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Anything in here that will increase or improve the supply of natural gas?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: No.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Anything in this bill that will help relieve the constraints on pipelines to relieve natural gas to get into the system?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Not to my knowledge.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Now, this bill also I know is going make some changes, but our current law says by 2040, we're supposed to be in net zero generation, meaning we can't use natural gas for power generation. Does this bill and the changes it made to the CLCPA change that or does that still stay in statute that by 2040, we are supposed to be a net zero generation so you cannot use natural gas to generate energy? Do you mind if

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I refer to him? No, sure. Go ahead. That's Thank you.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Thank you, mister Prelo.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Ms. Glick?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Go Knicks.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Yes. Good to see you.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Could you repeat the question because some of that touches on energy.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Yes, absolutely. 100%. I know there's changes made to the CLC pay in this budget bill. I recognize that. I appreciate some of the changes that made. But one of the ones that have stood out to me for a long time is by 2040, we're supposed to be at net zero generation by 2040, meaning we won't be able to generate electricity with natural gas or fossil fuel. Does anything in this budget address that or will that still be on the books? We still have to meet that goal by 2040.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, I don't believe that there's any change regarding the generation.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. So we're gonna have to be net zero generation by 2040. In this budget bill, I know there's some provisions for credits for tax for EV purchases for municipalities, And it's increasing it from 7,500 to $30,000

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: Is that right?

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Yes. And why was that necessary that we do that increase?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, think in general we certainly understand that we want to incentivize wherever possible people moving away from fossil fuels. Sure.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: And who is responsible for paying for that credit? Is that goes through NYSERDA, right? Is that going

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: to go

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: through NYSERDA?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: The EPF. That's within the environmental protection fund.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: So, all these funds are going be paid with state dollars? There's no coming from it's not coming through NYSERDA or through assessments on rate payers bills? You're saying this is all going through the EPF and not coming from rate

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: This should come through the EPF.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: So it's all state taxpayer dollars. It's not going on increased rates like NYSERDA when they do their assessments too. Is that correct?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: That's correct.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: These amendments I know adjust accounting of methane emissions from twenty years to one hundred years, is that correct?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: And it seemed to be moving away from the original 70 by 30 target towards now 60 by 40 target for greenhouse gas emissions, is that correct?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Do you think this change really is kind of an admission that the original methodology overstated our emission impacts and created unnecessary pressures on energy costs and reliability for New Yorkers?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: No, I wouldn't say that at

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: all. Okay. So, we're losing reporting requirements in some cases and pushing back regulation development too, correct?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: We are making some changes in this bill.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. And this kind of goes along with what the changes we need to make to the electrification mandates, the all electric buildings act, correct?

[Assemblymember Dana Levenberg]: I

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: think it primarily reflects a change in the state energy plan and that's why the reporting requirement.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: All right. And I saw in this language of the bill that the DC has the ability to do some analysis and see look at the feasibility of the Cabinet Invest Program. So they'll be able to analyze it's up to the D. C. To analyze this and see if it's feasible to implement. Is that correct?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: It's one way in which we can move the state forward. But it is not in this bill required.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. And then also I see that there's language requiring the DEC to assess the affordability, feasibility and economic growth in the context of the CLCPA mandates. Is that correct?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: And does the DEC have to report back on these how does that work? They do these studies and then they have to share it with us or they just do it on their own or how is that going to work exactly? Well,

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: they will be putting forth regulations by the end of twenty twenty eight and presumably much of this discussion will be part of the regulatory process.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: So we should have that information if there's affordability problems, feasibility problems, reliability problems. Before we put those regulations in place, should have a full vetting of this, right?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, I think that in the coming couple of years we will see a great many innovations because that's what business does. So, I think that what we envision today may be very different in a year or two.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Wouldn't it be wise that I mentioned this with the electric school bus mandate. Now that we're trying to push back some of the timelines a little bit, making some modifications which I appreciate, wouldn't now be the right time to do a thorough full benefit analysis to measure what the true costs are going be the rate payers for families. And also to do a true feasibility study working with the NISO, working with utilities, working with the Public Service Commission, Department of Public Service to see if this can be done. Shouldn't we do these things first before we go out and fully implement the provisions of the CLCPA? Wouldn't it now be the time to do that? To show the rate payers of the state how much it's gonna truly cost them? How feasible this is from a reliability perspective and from a practical perspective. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do with this process?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: I'm sorry, every time you take a breath I thought it's the end of the question. But

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: I How about this? Shouldn't we do a cost I got the question. Study before we implement the CLCP requirements that are necessary to Well, show that

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: in my humble opinion, when we look at all of the costs that are facing New Yorkers, we should also include the cost to the state for dealing with extreme weather events that we've seen increasing over the last several years and which will no doubt continue to increase. And I think that we also need to look at what the issue is regarding insurance costs to individuals and taxpayers both as those who are paying to recover from storms and those who may or may not be able to get insurance based on extreme weather that we are seeing. So I believe we should always look at both sides of the ledger when we are discussing what the costs are and the impacts for Sure, state

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: and I have no problem with that. But as long as we're telling them what the true dollar cost is. I like to pivot to the blue ribbon commission on residents, the rates commission.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: That would be somebody else.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. So, I might be bouncing back and forth depending on some of this. But anyway, on that provision, in the one house budget, there was minority appointments. I don't see any minority appointments in this. Is there any reason why there are no minority appointments like this? Because this seems like a significant issue. Even with the CLCPA, we had minority appointments.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Mr. Paloszami, as I know you're aware, in our Assembly One House budget, we did include minority representation, but in the negotiating process, part was eliminated. Not that we wanted to eliminate it, but it was eliminated.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: I certainly believe you on that point Mr. Raul. One part in this commission thing kind of stood out to me. It says any person employed by utility corporation, or employed by a corporation that owns or operates an electric plant, or any current consultant, advisor, board member, or any other person similarly affiliated with such corporations shall not be eligible to be appointed to this blue ribbon commission. Why are we not allowing people on power plants, people who understand transmission, people who understand generation, people who understand utilities and pipelines and wires and poles and substation? Why are they not allowed to be part of this commission? Wouldn't

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: it make

[Assemblymember John T. McDonald III]: that work?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: As I know you're aware, one of the long standing criticisms of most of these boys is that they are stocked with insiders, utility company insiders that know the players and usually treat the industry more favorably than they treat the individuals, the ratepayers. This is an attempt to ensure that regular people or people that are not connected with the industry in their past to be in charge of setting rates

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: for Mr. Prabhu, I can appreciate your attempt to answer that question from that perspective. But the CLCPA was loaded with state agency heads really who didn't understand energy generation, how the utility system works. We had advocates who are pushing for Why these green wouldn't we want expertise if we're going to put this in? If we want to reduce rates for New Yorkers, why would we not include expertise from the industry? And they'd just be one voice. They wouldn't control it because obviously you look from the appointments, they'd be overwhelmed just like they were on the CLCPA. And my argument is, thank God we had those minority appointments and we had people with energy industry expertise on that panel. Otherwise, a CLCPA would have been much more of a disaster than it already is. Shouldn't we have energy expertise? Why did the majorities and the governors say they don't want and almost like this seems like they want a rubber stamp for whatever you wanna do.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, there is a requirement for them to have expertise for their membership on this commission. It's just that we're saying they cannot be former employees. Sorry, current employees.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Right, but you can't have power plant owners, people. So, where are you going to get the expertise? So I know when I read a little further, there's issues with utilities but they can't work for them to understand how the system works.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, don't know if former power plant owners are eliminated from that. I know requirements for eligibility are an academic expertise or professional expertise in utility regulations and oversight, utility management, administration and compliance, energy or public utility law, commodity market and energy market regulation, reliability and adequacy of bulk power transmission systems, federally designated bulk transmission operators and macroeconomics.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: What about the NISO? Could the NISO be on this commission? Obviously they're the ones that deal with the making sure the lights stand, the power states on. Can the NISO be a part of this commission?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: As far as I'm I know, yes. They're not precluded.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: But but they have to be appointed by one of those designees to be on the board. Right?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: So, if they're not then their voice will be quiet. Right?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, have to be appointed, yeah. Okay.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Relative to I got one question I want to ask about nuclear if I may. The governor has expressed support for expanding nuclear power generation in the state by five gigawatts of capacity. If really serious about meeting our CLC pay goals, it seems why does this budget seem to ignore any development of nuclear and zero emission nuclear power source, a reliable base load generation? Shouldn't there be some focus on that or do you think that's not part of this?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, that is really in the future. Costs involved with nuclear generation are enormous. Every project, I believe, in this country has always come in over budget by not millions but billions of dollars and it is something that is on the back burner. Yes, the Governor is saying that we should do this within the ten year period. But as it is right now, we are looking at more conventional methods of power generation.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Okay. I want to ask you a question if I may too. I'm sure you have some other questions on the nuclear side, maybe possibly. On the semiconductor backup power, it seems like the budget provides an exemption from the state's power plant city review process for major electric generating facilities that provide backup power to manufacturing facilities that produce semiconductor chips. Currently, what review must take place for these electric generating facilities under Article 10 of the Public Service Law?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I think they've already gotten approval.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Do we know how many manufacturing facilities produce semi semiconductor chips in New York State?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I do not.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Is this provision specifically designed to assist the Micron project in Central New York? Will they benefit from this project?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes. They will. Okay.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: When you talk about, I know one part of the provision deals with utility profits and return on equity. How do you expect, isn't a lot of that already governed by law already?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: No. I believe so. I'm not a lawyer.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Know because you talked about creating affordability index in which how they're to decide how these utilities make a process, so profit. And the federal government decided long ago to allow utilities to be profitable. If not profitable, why would they be in business then?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: As far as I know, we're not interfering with that. Okay.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Is your contention that this Rates Commission although not having expertise across the board is going to deliver real ratepay relief to citizens?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: No, they will have expertise across the board. Okay.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: They're just not people in no generation or work for utility No.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: People that aren't currently employed in the industry.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Will this commission be able to evaluate the taxes, fees, assessments and surcharges that are on our bills?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes. Okay.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Mr. Prelo, thanks for your time. I'm going use the remainder of my time to go on the bill if I may.

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

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Yes, Madam Speaker. A few quick things in the provision I didn't talk about I like. I like the fact that we put the death gamble in this legislation to protect our corrections officers. We've been advocating for that. I like the fact that we did a twenty year reinstatement for our New York City retirement reinstatement for our New York City corrections officers to match the police department New York City Police Department and the New York Fire City Fire Department. That will certainly help with recruitment and retention. And I like that we are making some changes to the CLCPA. It's something we've been talking about, something we've been telling you that needed to be made. The auto insurance thing I'd just like to talk on real quick is that these liabilities there's changes to liability issues and fraud. We need to make sure and I haven't seen any quantification on how this will result in actual savings for New Yorkers, we need to make sure that does happen. On the pension system, I understand we are lowering the age group, retirement age for one group, but not everyone else. Not the janitor, not the maintenance worker, not the laborer. And the other thing is we made a promise back in 2011 that the state would pick up any enhancement costs for our localities. That we made some improvements earlier in 2021, 2022, those weren't picked up and those utilities those ratepayers in those local municipalities have already seen that happen. I like the fact that we are changing to a one hundred year methodology which makes sense. I like the fact that we can deal with the cap and invest delays and delaying the CLCPA. And I like the fact that DC can consider affordability, reliability, and feasibility moving forward. And I think these are some of the things that we'll see light. But the fact of the matter is there's still no financial plan. We need a fiscal plan. And I think there are still some things missing. Yet there's no direct rate payer relief in this budget bill. Yes, there's a $200 rebate but in and of itself it's not enough. No refund of the $2,400,000,000 that our rate payers have already paid for this, give them some direct relief. Suspend some of these taxes, fees, surcharges that accompany about 20% of the bill. People want direct ratepayer relief now. They don't want to subsidize someone's EV purchase, someone's electric heat pump or electric lawnmower. And this budget bill kind of expands upon that from 7,500 to 33,000. Really? Are we listening? There's nothing in this bill that expands natural gas or encourages a supply of natural gas. Nothing to deal with the pipeline constraints for natural gas. Nothing to increase air permits to build new natural gas. Nothing to slow down the electrification mandates. And in fact, in 2021, we've had two denials of air permits for new natural gas power plants. It's these green I know the natural gas power plants are going up and you cite that, but it's because of the green mandates that are making it more difficult. The nice old set who's charged with taking the light turning the lights on, making sure the lights stay on and the power stays on have said this, we've said this, despite the fact and we've been telling you this, by 2040, we still now based on this law would have to have no generation to come from natural gas. Despite the fact that 60% of New Yorkers heat their homes with natural gas, 40% of our generation comes from natural gas. And natural gas has always been referred to as a bridge fuel. And the technology doesn't exist yet to get to where we talk about advanced nuclear, carbon capture, sequestration, renewable natural gas, those types of things. The technology is not there yet. So why are we just looking to dismantle natural gas? We don't build tear down a bridge before you build a new one. I see constantly the blaming of the utilities, but failure to take responsibility for the policies, these green policy mandates that you keep implementing. Like I said, these delays are good. But remember, just recently, there was a report coming out saying if we don't make more significant changes, utility prices will go up to over $4,000 for New Yorkers. Price of a pet pump of gas, gallon of gas at the pump is going be $2.23 a gallon more than what it is. Diesel $2.41 more than what it is. Small and medium sized commercial businesses 46% higher and 60% increase in delivery truck operations. This is not sustainable. This is not affordable. And the total cost of this whole program is more than a quarter of $1,000,000,000,000. Some say as much as a half $1,000,000,000,000. That's more than our total state budget. And the fact that we don't have appointments on this committee is mind blowing to me. The fact that we're going to take out people who have expertise in the industry from power generation, from transmission, to understanding how the utilities work, someone understands. I don't understand where we're going for that. These we want reliable base load generation. We need to make sure there's people on this commission that really has that. We had it on the CLCPA, but we don't seem to have it now. And we doubled down on that language not to allow those people with that expertise. It's almost like you just want a rubber stamp for your failed policies. You don't want someone to come out and voice opposition or an honest discussion of how bad these policies are for affordability. How bad these policies are for reliability. We need to do better. We need to be smarter. And having a broad diverse of opinion would help us in make this policy more effective to make sure it's an affordable, reliable, feasible energy plan. So, just passing it on. We need to look at the feasibility study, the cost benefit analysis. And, I'm glad that DC can look at this, but we should be doing an independent agency outside to do a true cost analysis. If this is such a good thing, let's say how much this is gonna cost New York seniors, veterans, disabled, and true dollars and cents for our business. Let's do a feasibility study, true feasibility, show them that the grid can handle it. Show work with the utilities here, work with the NISO, work with the power, the public service commission to show that it can work because it's not working. The NISO has already signed the red flag and we're looking at that more and more problematic because the work is not being done. It's not being thorough enough. I'm just afraid that we don't have the expertise on there. And I know this is all being done in the name of climate change and global emissions, but I remind my colleagues, New York only contributes point 4% of global emissions. Point 4%. China's 30% has a thousand coal plants and building more every day. And I remind you, this is not so much green policy. The only thing green about it was it's going to cost increased rate payer dollars and increased taxes. And it's not so clean. And I've talked about in the past regarding the EV batteries, the cobalt and the lithium using child labor from the Democratic Republic Of Congo, mining for the cobalt to power the electric vehicle, poisoning water rivers and streams in Lithium Triangle Of Argentina. It's almost like it's okay if it's not happening here for these disadvantaged communities. They're the ones that are going to pay the brunt of it. We need to move forward because I think the policies in this house continue to look to dismantle the affordable, reliable, natural gas infrastructure supply and delivery system. It's designed to take away consumer choice on how you heat your home, cook your food, power your building. It will jeopardize the reliability of the grid leading to dangerous and deadly blackouts. And it will continue our nation leading out migration of more families, farmers, small businesses, and manufacturers leaving the state. I assure you, myself, our conference, and more smart New Yorkers will continue to push for a common sense energy policy that prioritizes energy affordability, reliability, feasibility, safety, fuel diversity, and energy choice. Because madam speaker, my colleagues, New Yorkers deserve nothing less. I will be voting in the negative on this. I know some of my colleagues may vote yes because of Thank you. Some of them,

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: mister Palmer.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: But I will know and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Smollin.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Thank you, madam speaker. Question. Is this a mess is this bill on a message of necessity?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Yes. Yes. Great. Thank you so message. Yes.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Would the chair yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Would the chairman yield?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

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

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Well, thank you very much, chair. Since we're here on a message of necessity, what is the urgency for the policy of the CLCPA provisions that's in the budget?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: We are trying to get a budget passed by May 29 so we have a message of necessity to ensure that the bills go through this body in an expedited manner?

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Well, an expedited manner, but in the absence of hearings, our hearings for this were actually earlier in the year and the changes that were actually put forth in this body, today are actually policy provisions, not budget provisions. They don't have much to do with the budget other than people's family budgets, around the state who are who can't afford to live in New York State. So let's talk a little bit about some of the policy things. Is one of the drivers, of these CLCPA changes the fact that New York's electricity prices are some of the highest in the nation?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: One of the drivers of this c l c c p CLCPA is the environment and clean air.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: So it's clean air. It's not actually the fact that people are having to pay for unaffordable electricity rates. Did you know that New York has the fifth highest rates in the nation? 29¢ per kilowatt hour as of today.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Repeat that, please. I couldn't hear you. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question please? I did not hear you.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Yes. Do did you know that New York has the fifth highest electricity cost in the nation at 29¢ per kilowatt hour?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: It wouldn't surprise me.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: And is are those costs, are they worth the carbon savings that have been done by the CLCPA?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, what we are trying to do with this bill is energy affordability and make changes in the process in which utilities raise rates and make sure that the rates are not exorbitant.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: So, the utilities raise the rates?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Pardon?

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: So, the utilities raise the rates?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: They've always raised their rates.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Well, don't they do that under the direction of the Public Service Commission?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: And what we are doing is giving the Public Service Commission more authority to look into what's behind those rate increases.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: So, how can we bring those rates down?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Can I answer the question please sir? How much they are charging the customer for their advertising which we are now eliminating? How much they are charging for them and hiring lobbyists which we are eliminating? Things like that that have normally gone in to their rate making process we are taking away which gives them less of an ability to raise rates.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: So let's go back to the rules and regulations about the percentages for carbon emissions by 2040 versus 2030. I see that it's been reduced from 70 to 60. Is that going to help bring down electricity rates?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I believe so.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: And why is that?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Because less emissions bring down less pollution. Less pollution gives us cleaner air. Cleaner air gives us longer lives.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Wow. Are these new goals achievable?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: We do believe so, yes.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Okay, and where was the cost benefit analysis that was done

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: that led

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: to this policy change?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Smarter people than me came up with a lot of these things, I don't have that.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Well, thank you for for that admission. Okay. Because I don't know what the what the possibilities are because it's never been a transparent process. Had there and this bill today, this policy in the budget, any changes to the membership of the Climate Action Council? No. No. So the chairs are whom?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Chairs? They're the same chairs as they they were there?

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: And that would be the

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I don't I don't know them personally and I do not know their names.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: The the commissioner of DEC and the head of NYSERDA?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: So in this bill actually though, and just reading through it, you know, it says here that it's directing DEC to consider the feasibility of a market based cap and invest program.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Is that true?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: So they're going to review the feasibility of a program, the head of a of a state agency that's that's appointed by the governor, and then they're gonna be the ones to oversee the implementation. Isn't that a conflict of interest?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: We don't believe so.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: No? How how so not that someone who is making up the rules then has to implement the rules?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: This isn't a nuance. We've often had agencies look at other agencies.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Okay. So, you know, DEC has been giving this responsibility. Shouldn't DEC have had this responsibility all along? It's been since 2019. I was here on the floor when the CLCPA passed.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Okay. We're not giving we're not telling them they have to do it. They just have to consider it.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Okay. We'll we'll take that suggestion to the state agency to be something that would be directed, I would I would assume. So let's talk a little bit about, some more of the provisions that aren't here in the CLCPA. Was there any any consideration in the policy and the budget to actually repeal something like the climate super fund act that we passed last year, the $500,000,000 green slush fund? No. No. So we're not gonna we're not gonna give them what about the environmental bond act? $5,000,000,000 that we're borrowing on behalf of New York State's taxpayers to put towards green initiatives. Was that considered to be repealed in this in this effort?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, the Bond Act raised money for us to implement a lot of the changes that we're looking at.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Well, certainly raising money is one thing, but paying it back is certainly another. It it does have to be paid back with interest the last time I checked.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes. But this was voter approved. It's it's a voter approved expenditure.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Okay. Well, thank you so much, chair. I appreciate the the the questions. Madam speaker, on

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: the bill?

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

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: So here we are in 2026, tapping the brakes on a bad bill that was passed in 2019 because reality has caught up with this state and its green mandates. The green news scam that's been promulgated on New York State's taxpayers on its businesses is coming to an end because it's unsustainable. Electricity rates are through the roof. Rates for things like gasoline, for propane, for natural gas, for diesel fuel are driving small businesses right out of the state. They're driving large businesses out of the state because it's unsustainable. And it's a real shame that this body is now trying to cover its tracks with some revisions eight years later when in reality, this was a bad deal to start with. And it doesn't go far enough. We ought to repeal the CLCPA. We ought to give back to the citizens, not through gimmicks like this, but give them the real chance to run businesses, to raise their families in the state. Since this bill has been passed, over a million people have left Upstate New York. The rural communities that I represent have been decimated by higher costs and they're gonna continue to do so. New York has some of the highest electricity cost in the nation. When in fact, we're closing down nuclear plants. We're having to string an electric line from Hydro Quebec to New York City to replace shuttered nuclear plants. When we're making it more expensive because we're not allowing natural gas to be fracked. We're not allowing pipelines to cross New York State to bring energy to market at at reasonable cost. So we wonder why this is happening. Well, there's the reason. It's bad policy. And the bad policy has always been in the budget in this state. Here we are on a message of necessity saying, we need to change bad policy that we have put forth, but we're gonna try to do it under the cover of a rushed process where there's no public hearings, where there's no opportunity for the public to be heard, where there's no opportunity for state commissioners to be questioned by the representatives of the people. That is wrong. It's bad policy. And for that reason, I will be voting no on this bad bill. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Slater.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions, please?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: For mister Slater, absolutely.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Thank you very much, chairman. I appreciate the time. Just some clarifying questions on a couple of aspects of the bill before us today. I

[Assemblymember Rebecca A. Seawright]: just

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: wanna confirm, I heard a couple things about nuclear, nuclear power generation. So, the governor has signaled support for expansion of nuclear power. Is there anything in this particular budget bill that speaks to that expansion of nuclear power generation? No. Is there anything in this bill that speaks to supporting communities that are going through the decommissioning of nuclear power plants in their community?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Nothing.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Nothing. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I apologize. I am gonna bounce around a little bit on different topics. If we can, I'd like to go over to the secret amendments that are being proposed in regards to housing. Yep. This budget loosens the requirements and exempts certain housing constructions from these regulations. Can you define for me

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: what housing constructions? Housing on previously disturbed land with water and sewer connections are exempt from secret. Everything else remains the same.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: And is there a new

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: In New York City, it's two fifty units or 500 dwelling units in a densely zoned area and for the rest of the state is 20 dwelling units in municipalities with no zoning, 100 dwelling units in municipalities with zoning, and 300 dwelling units in census defined urban areas.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: And so when you say zoning, can

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: you maybe be a little

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: bit more specific? If there

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: is For zoning, you know, some communities like, where I live, there are commercial zones, three family zones, and some communities don't have those zoning.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Right. So any type of zoning that if a municipality has established, whether it's residential, commercial, then it would apply to the specifications of the number of units. Is that what you're saying?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Understood. And we have a new definition on previously disturbed site. Is that correct? Yes. Can you explain to us what that definition entails?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I thought I just did. It's a site that has water and sewer hookups or is determined by municipality or lead agency, has building or improvements two years prior to application, is next to another previously deserved parcel if not in a census urban area, is not in a one hundred year flood plan, flood hazard area or coastal erosion hazard area and it's not used for agricultural purposes in three of the previous five years.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Thank you very much. And, you also have a new definition for small community water system. Is that accurate? Yes. Can you explain to us what that definition is? I'm also curious on how we were able to identify the small community water system as part of these reforms.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, it's a standard definition. I don't have it at the tip of my toe. Maybe Ms. Glick could answer that or maybe not. I'm

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: happy to repeat the question. Ms. Glick? Ms. Glick would like

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: to Yeah, repeat the question.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Thank you very much. The the question goes to the definition of a small community water system. I'm just curious if you can explain to us what that entails, and I'm also curious how we identified this specific issue as part of the reforms.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Are you seeking to determine if there is a population level?

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: I'm just seeking to understand that what qualifies as a small community water system and why it was inserted into these reforms.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, think just to make it consistent, it is an existing DOH. DOH oversees drinking water. So I presume that this is about making it consistent with their regulations.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Understood. And similarly for public school facilities, that's a new definition, my understanding, as part of these reforms. But it is it

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: New York City only.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: And I wanted to understand why New York City only.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: I would imagine that it's about being able to find locations for school sites where you would have a large number of children coming in on a daily basis.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Understood. But childcare facilities have been removed as a construction project which can be exempt from these new requirements. Is that accurate? Yes. Do we know why we remove childcare facilities?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, they're generally significantly smaller than schools.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: I appreciate the answer. The amendments require the lead agency to make a determination regarding an initial secret determination within one year and an EIS statement within two years, but it also speaks to some limited extensions. Can you help us define what those limited extensions are? Is that a number you only get three extensions or how does something like that work? I

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: don't think that there is the whole interplay of why you would want to have some timeline would be to move a project forward. But sometimes, and this has been the case in many instances, where there's insufficient details from the developer. And so this is to balance those two things that yes, we want to make sure that we have an expeditious review, but by the same token, we want to be certain that there is in fact full information available and so there might need to be an extension in order to ensure that that gaming of the system

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: And I appreciate that. Having been a town supervisor and dealt with the process, running into similar situations, I do appreciate the effort there. So is the applicant the one who's going to be applying for the extension or is it the municipality or the lead agency that applies for the extension?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: I think that in that instance it probably could be either and would be a matter of working cooperatively.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: And who are they applying to?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, the designated lead agency.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: And so if the planning board is the lead agency and it's a collaborative effort between the applicant and the municipality to apply for the extension, then the municipality is essentially applying to itself.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: It is really about allowing the planning board could just deny it. Right? Right. So it really is about allowing the applicant more time.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Okay, I understand. But there's no even though we say there's limited extensions, there's no timeline on that limitation and no limited extension applications. It's not three strikes and you're out.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: You don't have three tickets and you you use them up.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Okay. Understood. And does that also apply for after an approval is given? Because oftentimes an approval can be given but an application then has to continually go back for the extension of those approvals.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Does the apply there? It's not any different than what currently happens.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Okay. I appreciate that. How much of the state is currently covered by the FEMA 100 flood plain or is part of a special flood hazard area?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: I I don't have that information. It's changed actually. I'm just thinking about my own district. Right. It's moved a few blocks in from the Hudson River than it would have been ten years ago. So I think that is one of the challenges that it's continuing to particularly in areas that have a lot of shoreline.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Understood. And on the environmental front, for areas that are dealing with water reservoirs, drinking water sources, Specifically, I'm I'm personally thinking about New York City's watershed, specifically East Of Hudson, West Of Hudson. Are there special considerations given to those areas that this could be applied to in regards to the overall process of an application because of the additional requirements that are put on applicants through the DEP?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, my sense is that where there are these sensitive reservoirs that there are buffer zones already in place. And I think that water sufficiency is one of the issues that has been retained.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: But going back to, and I agree with you, but going back to the issue of the extensions, a lot of times applicants, especially in the Hudson Valley that deal with DEP, those applications have to go through another level of scrutiny because of the fact that they're in the watershed. So, is there anything that speaks to tying again the extension process that we talked about earlier with the additional review that's required currently? Do any of the reforms in the bill try to streamline that process?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: I don't believe so and personally I would hope not. Okay. Because drinking water is increasingly a challenge and we should and I believe do continue to protect drinking water.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: And I completely understand that. And again, as someone who's gone through the process, I just know that that was a hurdle that I've heard from many and I wasn't sure if the proposals today addressed any of that. But I appreciate your answers to my questions. If I could pivot over to public protection issue.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Thank you very much.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Thank you, miss Glick.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Pratlow?

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Safe by Design Act, I just have a few questions This on bill includes a provision to increase the security requirements for minors on social media platforms. Yes. And I'm personally glad that we're taking this step because of how critically important it is to protect kids online. I've got two kids myself and and always something that I'm concerned about. But kids are kids and as those of us who have them know all too well, what safeguards are there to ensure social media platforms prevent kids from getting around the requirements without their parents knowing?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I guess there are similar protocols that are in place for determining if underage individuals are on gaming sites or if underage people are on sites that sell alcoholic beverages.

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: And

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: if that's found out then the parents are notified that there's a suspicion that their children are on websites that were not approved by

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Who's notifying the parents? So would I be getting notified by a social media company?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: The app is supposed to do it. The app. Yeah, that's beyond me. Don't get me into apps because I'm not there. But the companies that run the apps are the ones responsible for notifying the parents.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: And so, if I can just ask a clarifying question on, forgive me, Chairman, but on regards to the apps. So, these are all social media apps that are publicly available. So, YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook, Insta, Twitter, all the other ones that I don't really

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Don't forget Myspace. Yes.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: And, of course, Myspace, the most important one. Well done, mister chairman. We also know that I also have a concern about predators. How will social media platforms ensure that people aren't pretending to be minors to gain access to the ability to interact with minors on these platforms?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I know there are all sorts of algorithms in place that use that's that they detect that, but the attorney general has responsibility over that enforcement.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Understood. Thank you. If I could pivot to workforce questions in regards to the unfunded liability restructure that's being proposed here. This bill will allow New York City to amortize their unfunded accrued liabilities for various New York City pension funds. Is that

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Accurate? The smoothing, yes.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: That was part of the aid that was given to the city to help them with their deficit.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: In a time of fiscal crisis that we see the city with budget shortfalls and gaps, why are we approving a save now pay later gimmick that will make the city pay more later with its current financial headwinds?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: This is something that New York City had requested. This was what your side had called a bailout in previous debates that we said was just giving them the ability to save money similar to a mortgage or a bond. They were allowed to make the payments, the actuarial payments that are required, but instead of doing it all at one step, it's being spread over a number of years.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: So it's like refinancing your mortgage, right? Yeah. Essentially? Yes. Has the city done this before?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I believe so, but I'm not sure.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: We know. So, well, you can't answer.

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

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Thank very much for the questions and clarifications, mister chairman and miss Quick.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will chair Pretlow please yield?

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

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Yeager')]: Yes. I will. Chairman yields.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you so much. So my questions have to do with part e e, elephant elephant litigation reduction, that section. So I don't know if you need to bring anybody in or defer to anybody else, but that that's what I'm gonna be talking about. Okay. This part as you're assembling your team, this part intends to reduce litigation associated with auto insurance claims by tightening the definition of serious injury, limiting non economic damages in certain circumstances, and barring recovery of damages for personal injury in certain circumstances.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Taking that one at a time. By tightening the definition of serious injury, do you have any concerns that some New Yorkers with soft tissue injuries would lose their right to seek damages?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Not being a doctor nor a lawyer, I might feel qualified to answer that. I only know that it removes the nine thousand one eighty day standard.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: What's the other qualifications?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Well, I I think specifically there there are those of us who are concerned about people who, for example, suffer a TBI or traumatic brain injury in the course of an accident, that that would be a ninetyone 180 claim currently. Is there some other mechanism that has been incorporated into this section of the bill or any any other place that's gonna allow people like that to be able to recover for their injuries?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, I believe there are other sections in law that cover that.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Like for example what? I

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: can read you one of my notes.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Please, yeah, thank you.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: A medically determined injury or impairment of a non permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during a one hundred and eighty day period immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment. And the categories of serious injury that remain unchanged are death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fracture, loss of fetus, permanent loss or use of body organs, permanent or consequential limitation of body organ members or significant limitation of use of bodily functions or systems.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. So out of that whole list that you just read, was what ninetyone hundred eighty used to cover, would you think then that this would something like a traumatic brain injury would fall under an organ? Is that the brain would be considered an organ or something? Because I've never seen a case would about think

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: the brain is an organ.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: You would think of it? Yes. Okay. Alright. Well, I don't well, I'm not disputing that it's that it's that. I I just have never seen a case come through in that way under this. So maybe maybe this bill will create a whole new line of cases that we're not familiar with but I am personally very concerned that people with traumatic brain injury are going to be adversely impacted by this new definition of serious injury but we can move on absolutely. So given pardon me. Under the second part which is talking about limiting non economic damage to $100,000 in the case of a serious injury given in how do we come up with the a figure of $100,000 as a cap on non economic damages?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: That that was part of the negotiation, but those limited to the $100,000 who were driving uninsured vehicle or when the driver is impaired at the time of the accident or when operating the car in commission of a felony. Those are the individuals that will be limited to the $100,000

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: But isn't true that under this section, the cap is tied to individuals who operate or use an uninsured vehicle? I mean what can we agree that the amendment was intended to curtail the legal rights of the impaired or uninsured operators of motor vehicles and not the innocent victims who were caused injury by those users and operators?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I believe this is just the operator that this is limited to, not the passenger.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So under that proposal, would a passenger injured in a crash be subject to the $100,000 cap if they were riding in a vehicle that they did not know was uninsured?

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: No. Okay,

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: so similarly, if a child is being driven by a parent or family member in an uninsured vehicle and suffers catastrophic injuries, should that child's recovery be capped at $100,000 because of circumstances entirely out of their control?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: No, it shouldn't be.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: It should not be. That's very good news. Why did the proposed language use the phrase operates or uses instead of narrower existing statutory language of operates?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: It's just operate as far as I understand it.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Stand by for one second.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Was there formally but it was taken out in the negotiations. It just says operates an uninsured motor vehicle and responsible on Article six of the vehicle and traffic law ensuring I such motor

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: see that. Thank you so much for that clarification. That's so we're looking at page 70 of the bill around the top. I'm rereading it now. Thank you so much for that. Okay. So it talks about how there will be the cap, the $100,000 cap on non economic loss. If you're operating a motor vehicle while impaired at the time of the accident and convicted of such, impaired by what? Does it specifically speak to alcohol or is it more expansive as far

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: as It's

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: not defined but it's generally alcohol.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: But

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: it's not defined in the literature.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: As far as drugs, would that include marijuana?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: You'd have of to be crime. It is illegal to operate a vehicle while impaired under marijuana.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: That is true. Although we don't really have great testing except for the drug recognition experts and we don't want to spend more time talking about how bad that whole system is. We've already been down that road before. But in any event, so

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Remember doctor Fox?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah. Given inflation and the rising cost of long term care, is there any mechanism to adjust this $100,000 cap over time or will it remain stagnant regardless of any economic changes? That

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I can't answer. I'd imagine it'll change like everything else. But right now it's just $100,000

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Moving on to the third piece, it just really was amazing to me that in a bill that was, or a section of the bill that's only two pages long, a little less than two pages long, there are so many changes that are kind of packed into it. The third part bars recovery for claimants if the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant is greater than the culpable conduct of the person against whom the recovery is sought. So in other words, and it looks like it's only for auto automobile accidents, vehicular accidents, that we're gonna be eliminating the current system of comparative negligence if the claimant's fault is greater than 50%. So Correct. So just a couple of examples. You've got a would a child who runs out into the street chasing a ball potentially be barred entirely from recovery if a jury found the child 51% responsible?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I can't see a jury finding a child 51% responsible if that child ran out into the street. Would say that would be a 100% responsible for running out to the street. If you're talking about an individual that may strike that individual with a motor vehicle? That's up for you attorneys to figure out.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Well, I mean we never really know what a jury is going to do. Right. Right? That's why people settle or arbitrate, Mr. Denowitz. But that's a fact, Jack. But anyway, okay, we don't know. Does the state believe it would be fair for severely injured children, pedestrians or cognitively impaired individuals to lose all compensation because they are found slightly more at fault than a defendant driver.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: This was presented to us as part of the executive budget and we didn't change it.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: No, I understand. This is what the governor proposed here we are. Mean we've been through negotiation and this is what we've got to vote on now.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah. In practical terms, how would modified comparative negligence affect passengers, cyclists and pedestrians in New York who may already face challenges proving fault against corporate defendants or insurers.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I don't think there would be any change in what the jury decides in that situation or those situations.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: There is a big change because under our current law, if somebody is 30% comparatively responsible, they can still recover. Under this, they could still recover. But if they're 51% recoverable under this law, now they are going to be barred. That's the change. That's a big change.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Okay, but I think we are discussing who the jury decides is at fault, aren't we? And that will be up to a jury and as you said earlier, we can't determine at this point what any jury will say in any situation because the facts are always a little bit different.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Right, but what we do know is that under our current system, before this goes into effect, that if a jury came out and said that that pedestrian child that darted out was six fifty one percent responsible, that child could still recover a portion for their injuries where now under this law they will not be able to anymore.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Alright, I'm hearing this is like what was negotiated with the executive and we really couldn't change it.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. My time I see is starting to be limited so I'm going to move forward to the effective date. The effective date will include cases that arose prior to this budget vote. What would you say to those victims that are included in categories such as serious injury and will in some cases have severe financial distress since they will no longer be covered by the law.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: I

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: don't know what I would say to them. Hope I wouldn't have to say anything. But if they have a serious injury, I would suggest that they move their cases forward quickly.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you for your answers Mr. Pretlow. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

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

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So I chose to focus on this section because I've worked as an attorney on both sides of this. I have been I've worked in insurance defense. I have worked as a plaintiff's attorney. And I really see these changes contained in only two pages of a bill that has over 60 parts to it as being incredibly problematical. It is a big change that is being pushed forward in these three things that are being changed in the law. Look, any bill that's got 60, over 60 parts to it, there are going to be things in the bill that we're going to like, there are going to be things in the bill that we don't like. And that we all have to balance that out and vote accordingly. I am grateful that we have some changes to the CLCPA. I'm happy to see some movement on it and the realization that it was unrealistic such as the adjusted methodology for carbon emission evaluations and some feasibility studies. But I don't think it goes far enough to help everybody comply with it or to reduce energy prices in a meaningful way long term. I am appreciative that the death gamble piece has been put in there. But as of today, our colleagues, Tuesday, May 26, fifty six days late, we still don't have any financial plan. We haven't seen it. We're still working on it. It feels like we're flying the plane while we're out there. Flying the plane while we're trying to fix it. Much of the burden for things like tier six fixes are going be shifted to local government and school taxpayers. We don't know because we haven't seen the full financial plan. I just think that fundamentally that's a very irresponsible way to budget and to do this process. I'm gonna be voting no because there are I think for me, the benefits don't, outweigh the burdens and the the downside of this bill. So I'll be a no. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Eichenstein.

[Assemblymember Simcha Eichenstein]: Thank you Madam Speaker. On the bill.

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

[Assemblymember Simcha Eichenstein]: I rise today to explain my vote on this budget bill before the house. Like every omnibus piece of legislation on this floor, This bill is an expansive compromise. It contains initiatives that I deeply support, while it also includes provisions that I outright oppose. This is the nature of an omnibus bill. Ultimately, we need to look at the totality of the legislation and vote accordingly. On balance, I have concluded that the positive impacts in this budget bill far outweigh the shortcomings. Therefore, today, I choose to vote in the affirmative. But I would like to take a moment to speak directly to my constituents and explain why this budget bill has earned my support. Over the last three years, we have witnessed many protests and harassment of Jews taking place outside of synagogues, Jewish community centers, and schools. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right of every individual to express their views and opinions. Simply put, it is freedom of speech, one of the most cherished liberties in our nation, and it is our duty in this chamber to protect that freedom. But what's playing out on the streets of New York over the last three years is not simple expression of of free speech. Jewish New Yorkers are being targeted, harassed, threatened, and intimidated simply because they are entering a house of worship. I represent a district with a large number of visible Jewish residents, many of whom attend house of worship regularly, multiple times a day, send their children to Jewish day schools and yeshivas, participate in activities at Jewish community centers. When ordinary and peaceful activities are canceled or avoided because of fear of intimidation, something is deeply wrong. This is not the New York that ensures the safety of all New Yorkers regardless of their faith or backgrounds. Our children should not feel afraid to attend religious school. Our seniors, especially our cherished holocaust survivors, should not feel anxious about participating in programming at community centers. Worshippers should not avoid attending services, house of worship, because they fear of being shouted at, harassed, or physically attacked. This is not the American way. This state intervention is not only necessary because it has this because it has become critically urgent for the state to intervene following the New York City mayor's veto of the city council's school safety perimeter transparency and reporting bill. If New York City will not take the necessary steps to protect our children, the state of New York must act. And, that is precisely what we are doing here today. The 50 foot buffer zone bill in front of houses of worship, educational institutions, and community centers, is included in this budget bill, is good legislation. It establishes a reasonable buffer zone while also allowing local law enforcement the discretion necessary to assess each situation fairly and appropriately. I would like to thank my assembly colleagues, especially our speaker, speaker Kyle Hasty, for recognizing the importance of this legislation, for giving it the time and attention it deserves, and for helping to ensure that all New Yorkers can feel safe and protected. No New Yorker should ever be forced to choose between their personal safety and attending religious services. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the chairman of ways and means yield for some questions on

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: the We're the auto chair yield.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Auto insurance reforms.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Minister. Mr.

[Assemblymember Jeff Gallahan]: I yield.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: I Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Throughout this budget process, the governor has argued that these auto insurance proposals have been necessary to lower insurance costs. Do we have a specific timeline on when New Yorkers will actually see premiums reduced?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: As I said earlier, we don't have an actual number as to how much insurance will be reduced. We're basing the proposal on what's happened in other states, but the actual answer to your answer is no.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Okay. I'm guessing judging from the Governor's comments throughout this process that one of those states is Florida, correct?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I believe so.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: All right. In 2023, Florida passed insurance reforms similar to what we're seeing in this piece of budget legislation. And by last year, 2025, major carriers like State Farm operating in Florida had implemented rate decreases of up to 20%. And that overall costs in the state are 14.5% lower than they would have been without reforms. Can you guarantee or can the governor guarantee or can the legislature guarantee that these reforms will result in a similar double digit rate reduction for New Yorkers within the next few years?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, Mr. Jensen, I can't guarantee anything. But we are hopeful that based on the actions that we are taking in this budget bill that insurance rates will be decreased.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: So, if rates don't drop by at least 10% because we can't guarantee that these reforms will actually have the intended effect, will the Department of Financial Services be empowered to force a refund to policyholders from insurance providers?

[Assemblymember MaryJane Shimsky]: Well,

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: the DFS has to approve any kind of rate increases that are requested by the insurance companies and the rates will not be artificially increased based on various things. What we are doing is just allowing them the ability to put certain aspects of their expenses as part of the premium policies. So we are taking away, like say, their advertising really shouldn't be charged against the premiums that we all pay.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: So, just to sum up. Because we can't guarantee a similar outcome to what Florida has seen, there's no provision in this budget bill that would allow DFS the autonomy to claw back any unrealized profits or unrealized savings if these reforms don't have the intended result as what everybody on the floor below us has been saying for the past eight weeks? No. Okay. I know you mentioned to our ranking member on ways and means that the estimated potential savings are up to $300 a year for policyholders. Does DFS, I know you just mentioned that they will have to approve any rate increases. But I know you didn't, you mentioned there is no mechanism to claw back any savings if none are created. Is there any mechanism in place about what comes next if these reforms don't have the intended result?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, what we're doing now is we're requiring insurers to report excess profits with excess profits being returned to policyholders. So we've set a ceiling basically for the insurers and anything above that ceiling has to be refunded back to policy holders.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: So are we changing the profit cap that's already in place in statute? Yes. What are we what is it currently and what are we taking it down to?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: 21%. And that's regulations, yeah.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: What we're lowering it to or that's what it is?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: That's what it is now.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Okay. So what are we reducing that number to?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Excess profit is a gain for the three most recent calendar years combined of which is greater than the anticipated underwriting profit plus 5% of earned premiums for those calendar years?

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: I don't know what that means.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: It means you take what they made, you average it out for three years and they give them 5% above that and anything above that is excess profit which is returned to the

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: bottom So it's not going be standard for every insurance carrier in the state who operates in the state. It's gonna be different based on every it's gonna be a different percentage amount.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, the same as it is as it is now. Yes.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Well, every everything now is 21%. But if Pretlow Insurance is making a profit of 5%

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: The standard is the same.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: But the standard is exactly the same. Okay.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Throughout the budget hearing process and memos and different briefings to our friends in the LCA, there hasn't been any clear commitment from the insurance companies to actually lower their auto rates. If these new restrictions on how much compensation victims of auto accidents can receive don't occur, how will the profits go back to policyholders if we aren't seeing a cap on the funding or on the court settlements or awards?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: We're capping the excess premiums and I'm pretty sure that with the fraud protections in place that the expenditures by insurance companies will be decreased which would then increase their profitability, which would then translate to excess profits, which will be returned to policyholders.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: So profits are carrying a lot of the weight in the statute and throughout the debate today. How do we calculate profit? And has that calculation changed from what it was before the drafting of this budget bill?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Okay. I can read you what I read a couple of minutes ago. Excess profit is underwriting gain for the three most recent calendar years.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: No. No. No. I understand that, mister Petlow. But what is constituting the actual profit? The actual what makes up that number, not what the profit total is. But are we recalculating

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: It's what profit it's

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: but less expenses. Premiums, revenue expenses or what they pay out in claims.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: So, it's only looking at what they're paying out versus what they take in, premiums versus

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: We wanted to include investments but that's not there.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: You guys wanted to include?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Investment income. Investment income is not part of it.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Okay. Is advertising costs or executive compensation calculated as part of the loss in the profit calculations?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Yes? Okay. Moving into kind of the process about how this is going to happen. How do we ensure that these auto insurance proposals driven by the governor, pun intended, don't result in insurance carriers unduly delaying claims or not offering fair settlements during any sort of pretrial settlement conferences?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: We haven't changed anything in that regard in but this

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: So there's no mechanism to clear up any bad faith by either party in in a situation in an auto accident.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: The current the current plan Matt, the current timing still applies.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Okay. 21 states have bad faith laws on their books if insurance companies are denying valid claims. Did the issue of having a bad faith policy come up in three way negotiations?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: No.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: No, not at all? Okay. Talking about, I know our floor leader brought up this about definitions of operating or using. What's the difference between operating and using?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, like, one is in the building and one isn't.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Okay. Moving on to fraud. I know that one of the governor's reasonings for pushing so strongly for this was the overarching fraud that apparently exists in these types of situations. And I understand that New York collects over $125,000,000 annually through motor vehicle theft and insurance fraud prevention bonds that specifically fund rooting out fraud. How much of that funding that we allocate to go how much will we allocate in this year's budget to actually go after this apparently ubiquitous fraud that's driving up everybody's insurance rates?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: The task force is about being allocated $3,093,000.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: So there's so much fraud, we're only gonna give it $3,000,000?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: This is an increase.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Oh, an increase of $3,000,000. Okay. One of the biggest provisions in this two page statute is that if rates are reduced because of these reforms, the insurance carriers have to notify policyholders of that case. What auditing mechanisms will DFS use to verify that a declared rate reduction is actually linked to budget reforms rather than to general market fluctuation?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, that's up to DFS to determine how they do their rate.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: So, get to create their own auditing mechanism?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, I did use generally accepted accounting principles, would imagine.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: They're gonna use a generally accepted accounting Our principles. Okay. It seems counterintuitive than everything else we're doing, but okay. Fair enough. Why are we codifying statutory language that would require private enterprise, private business like insurance providers to print state public relations messaging on consumer billing documents?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: That was just what came up in negotiations. Don't know.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Who who wanted the private companies to do public relations messaging for elected officials?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: You know, this is something similar. It's already done with health insurance, and I can't identify who at the table said what.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: You can't or you won't?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I won't.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: Okay. Thank you. Has there been any analysis on how much these notification requirements could increase costs on carriers to implement? And will that be taken out of their profits that they then have to report back on?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I don't think anything. Nothing.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Jensen')]: They wouldn't have to add anything. Okay. Moving on to a final provision. No, I think that's it. Thank you very much, mister chairman. I appreciate your answers.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Mister Jenson.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Polonia.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the sponsor actually would the chairman please yield for a couple quick questions.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Will the chairman yield?

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: My questions are gonna be directed particularly with part n.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The chair yields.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: For for what?

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: And the budget constrained rate proposals. So this bill is essentially requiring and if I understand this correctly, is requiring utilities to submit two separate proposals, one based on the actual projected operational needs and another constrained to CPI growth. Do I understand that correctly? Yes. So the legislature is asking utilities to submit one proposal based on operational reality and kind of another based on, I guess, I'll call it, like, political targets. Is that is that essentially correct?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes. That's all based on inflation.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Okay. So logistically, under under what circumstances would a budget constraint proposal be the preferred outcome to the commission? Like, who ultimately decides which one of these contingency budgets gets used, and when does that happen?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Whichever comes the least expensive.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: So as a private utility company, how am I supposed to budget out or predict or make investments based on not necessarily knowing what my budget's going to be? Is that a we're we're essentially asking a utility company to have two essentially, separate proposals into the future, and they don't know which one they're ultimately gonna go with. Mean, can you walk me through the process to which to how which one is going to be used is essentially what I'm asking.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: They justify have what their increase is going to be. They submit an application. The commission will ask them why are they asking for this amount of an increase. Then they have to justify it. If they can't justify the increase, they won't be given the increase. If they can justify it and it meets the parameters of the law that we're putting in place, then they will get that increase.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Okay. So if they have to justify their cost and they're still making the investments, still maintaining reliability, still complying with mandates, and and they have to justify it, are we essentially saying that that's the CPI proposal is not operationally realistic in the first place? No. Mister

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Patlow, could you pick up your mic microphone? People can't hear you.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Sorry. Thank you. I'm having trouble hearing myself. That's why I'm

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: okay. Okay. So if utilities are required to justify every expenditure above CPI for optics reasons, does that not create pressure to delay or defer long term investment in infrastructure?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I don't think so.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: So then at what point do things become emergency infrastructure? I mean, because that's kind of where where we are now.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: You say what part of it becomes an emergency?

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Let me rephrase it differently. Right now, do are utility companies required by PSC or this body, whether it is to comply with c p CLCPA mandates, whether it is to upgrade the grid, whether it is to build out infrastructure, whether it is to maintain reliability. These are all things that we're requiring them to do anyway. Is that that an accurate state?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: The normal course of rate setting.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Yes. Okay. So I guess my question is is that if we if the state is interjecting itself into into where their revenues can come from, what their revenues can be, we're not giving them a predictability in terms of building out and and complying with what we're asking them to do in the first place.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Currently negotiated every few years. So this is changing that process. It's just saying they have to justify high

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Was there a question?

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: I didn't didn't hear Yes. There is. All of these requirements

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Right.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Expanding transmission, integrating renewable generation, supporting electrification, maintaining affordability. All of those requirements carry substantial infrastructure and operational costs. Correct? Okay. So this is getting a little bit into the CLCPA, but we are requiring them to do a lot of that. So I guess my question is is a lot of the stuff in whether it's part n, I think m, s s, a lot of it is scapegoating the utility companies in a lot of ways. But, essentially, we're requiring them to do a lot of Does none of this fall on what this body is requiring all utility companies to do?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, we're requiring them to do a lot because we're looking out for the best interest of the rate payers, which is arguably the 20,000,000 New Yorkers. There aren't that many electric companies that supply the power to the individuals in the state and we just want to ensure that the rate payers, you and I, are getting the best bang for our buck.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: So, are you suggesting that the utility companies are independently responsible for the rate increases that we have seen recently? Is that the implication?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, they're responsible for the rates. They supply electricity. They supply the infrastructure. And, we supply them with the funds.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: I guess, but we're requiring them now to go above and beyond. Basically, what I'm saying is, for what we're doing and what we have required out of the CLCPA and a lot of the electrification mandates that this body has required. Well, I think we're requiring them to basically guarantee the best possible or the lowest possible rate

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: for the rate payers.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: I would phrase it a little different. I would say that a lot of what's in here, I guess this is a question, would you is it a fair assessment that a lot of the the policies that are in here are attempting to politically distance ourselves from the real world costs that Albany is putting on utility companies?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I don't think so. I think that we are requiring utility companies, like I said earlier, to give the rate payers the best possible or the lowest possible rate because as was stated earlier that New York is one of the top five of cost for electricity and that's something that we would like to get out of that top five.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Acknowledging that, that our response essentially in this budget then is to create revenue ceilings for utility companies. Is that a fair and accurate statement?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I wouldn't say a ceiling, no.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: I mean we are capping what the revenue can be based on CPI though, according to this, because we are having different No,

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: we are not capping the revenue. What we are capping or trying to cap is the amount that they pass on to the consumer.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Okay. If I am selling t shirts and you are capping what I can pass on to the consumer, you are capping my revenue.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: No, we're not. We're not doing that.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Not really. You sell more t shirts.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: What other private company do we do this to in New I mean, I understand that these utility companies have a public role, but again, are still private companies. I guess, do we do this to any other private company in the state of New York?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: If the utility companies can justify a rate increase, they'll get the rate increase. We are not saying that they can't make any more. We are just saying that they can't generate excess profits and pass it on to the stockholders. We want them to pass those excess profits on to the rate payers.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Okay, so in terms of the rates, in terms of how these things are set, the Public Service Commission is there as is. So, what is the current role of the PSC?

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: To

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: oversee the activities of the utilities?

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: So, would you agree that the PSC reviews expenditures, scrutinizes rate increases, determines prudency, protects affordability. I mean, that's essentially what the PSC does, right? Yes. Okay. So, a lot of these provisions in here are, in a weird way, micromanaging PSC. So, are we saying that PSC has failed in doing its job in protecting ratepayers?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: No, we're actually giving them more authority and putting more teeth into their operation. Formally, a utility company would request a rate and the PSC said no, they would go into negotiations and over the course of time that rate would automatically go in. Now when the PSC says no, no stands. So, we are actually giving more authority to the Public Service Commission.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Hold on one second. Alright. So I have one couple final questions here. So if the PSC already has the authority to determine whether expenses are prudently recoverable from taxpayers, then why is the legislature now singling out lobbying, advocating, advertising and organizational participation for additional statutory restrictions?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: We don't think that the rate payers should be paying the utility companies lobbying costs. We don't think the rate payers should be paying the utility companies charitable contributions and we also don't think that the rate payers should be paying for the attorney fees for companies that are also used to lobby for us or to us.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: So is the purpose of this legislation then to regulate rates or is it to discourage utilities from participating in the policy making process?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: The purpose of this legislation is to have the lowest possible rates possible.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: I can go off with a number of ways that we can also go about doing that without all this, but I don't think we have the time to do that. So with that, I have one final question. Hold on a second. Mr. Pretlow, I appreciate your patience and bearing with me here. This is for part V. V. Not sure if it's the same group. Bravo, bravo. Victor, Victor. Okay.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: CLCPA. Yes. Yes, sir.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Feels on a question. Alright. Ms. Glick, do you want to handle this one or do you want me to try it?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Ms. Glick, will you yield for CLCPA questions? Sure. Ms. Glick yields.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Please repeat the question.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Oh, haven't said it yet. It's all good. Alright. So part VV, so that's Victor Victor, makes reference to changing emissions reporting to have carbon emissions consistent with the treatment of biogenetic carbon dioxide emissions under the methodologies of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change at the United Nations. I believe this is referring to the full life cycle accounting methodology which is used throughout The United States, the federal government, and internationally. This should work to increase access to low carbon, low cost biofuels in a state once the governor implements policies to meet the state's climate goal in 2028. Is that your sense of what is happening with this language?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, I would say that the governor's intention is to ensure that we aren't counting the emissions from biogenic emissions twice.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Alright, fair enough. Thank you very much. I have no further questions. Thank you Madam Speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Ms. Glick on the bill.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Let's shift gears. On the bill, I will share my concerns and support around the buffer zone section of the bill with what was provided by my colleague, Mr. Eichenstein, in his speech on the bill. I believe that it is important to ensure that the rise in anti Semitism is directly addressed by the state. Jewish New Yorkers deserve to be able to go to what we refer to as sensitive locations free of intimidation and harassment, which does not, in my humble opinion, in any way restrict people's constitutional right to protest. Protests directed at the actions of a government are appropriately directed to the counsel of that government and should not be at houses of worship. So I'm pleased that we have come to a resolution on buffer zones. Now we've had a lot of conversation today around where we are with the CLCPA which was put in place in 2019 based on a recognition that for too many years our dependence on fossil fuels has had an impact on the climate. Some of those recognitions go back a number of decades. But let me just say that the that the people working in the fossil fuel industry aren't, you know, for the most part, evil people trying to do something malicious. Fossil fuels have, expanded our economies over the last many decades. But now that we know more, we have to address it. And what we now know is that both carbon dioxide and methane have have warmed the climate and is changing changing weather patterns and making more extreme storms that are impacting our lives. And, you know, the closer you get to the end it's like the old toilet tissue, the closer you get to the end the faster it goes. So one should actually recognize that sometimes for future generations you have to do something so that their lives are not as negatively impacted as we are seeing in many instances in our own state. Hundred year floods, five hundred year floods are happening every few years. That's not just a trend that comes and goes, it is in fact happening around the world. The heat you know, more people die from heat problems, the extreme heat, than any other weather event. And now we know we are seeing more and more extreme heat. We're experiencing fires in places we didn't before, forest fires which then actually increases the carbon in our atmosphere. So now that we know something more, the CLCPA was looking down

[Assemblymember John T. McDonald III]: the

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: road scientifically. I know we don't want to hear about science. That becomes a storyline I guess. But science matters. And scientifically we can see that we have to change our behavior. And if individuals around the state get some support, some incentive that changes their behavior and they choose not to be as dependent on natural gas and they use more renewables. Renewables actually will help us be more energy independent. And that will help other people who may not be in a position to make that same change because once they use more renewable energy, it reduces the pressure on their grid. It reduces the demand and maybe over time could actually lower prices. So we know that the Northeast is very dependent on natural gas which is a volatile market and the geopolitical impacts that we are seeing now every day make it more urgent for us to make the changes that actually will improve air quality, improve water quality, and will make us safer and more energy independent. It hasn't helped that the federal government denies climate change. So yes, we see that there are some things that have happened in the last couple of years that make our progress challenging. But that doesn't mean that New Yorkers who have met many challenges over the decades won't meet this challenge. So while we have made some adjustments to the CLCPA to reflect the fact that we don't have the same level of federal support for common sense scientifically based changes in the way we operate doesn't mean that we shouldn't, as New Yorkers, invest in our future and the future of children and successive generations by making renewable energy the hallmark of our future energy policy. So I am not happy with everything that's in this bill, but as was pointed out, this is what we used to call a big ugly because it has things in it that you hate and things that you love. So I'm going to ultimately wind up supporting this bill but recognizing that just saying that we want to be measured like everybody else isn't always the best course of action. And we have to recognize that methane is a pernicious more pernicious than CO two, lasts less long but actually is far more damaging. And just because where our science our scientific evidence led us to the CLCPA in 2019 when other states were not yet recognizing the same level of problem with methane doesn't mean that we can't address it going forward, which is why there is more money coming in this budget to try to address both, helping a transition to renewable energy and also addressing the fact that methane is a real problem. And I will say that it would be really helpful if the fossil fuel industry that flares excess energy at all of the the rigs and it's dangerous work. It's very dangerous work. So I appreciate that. And they need to do that to release to reduce the pressure. But they have to find less dangerous to the climate ways of doing that. And we have to renew our commitment to ensuring that we become leaders once again. Leaders in environmental protection and environmental conservation. You know, I won't be here. You're all going to have to do a lot more work because your communities are going to face sea level rise. Your communities are going to continue to face pressure from being tied to fossil fuels. Your communities are going to demand because younger people are still taking science and still recognizing that science matters. And they are going to come back and ask you, and I might in three years, they are going to come back and ask you to step up and do more. So I appreciate the staff work that's been done to minimize the damage but this the staffs on both sides work very hard for all of us who sit in these seats. And I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge how hard the staff in this building works to serve all of us. And with that, I withdraw my comments and will ultimately vote for the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Fitzpatrick.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill?

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

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: want to express my concern about what we are going to do with tier six. There's been a lot of talk about the need to fix tier six. I argue tier six is not broken, never was. And by attempting to fix tier six, we are going to break the back of our taxpayers and municipalities. What we're going to do here is pass the mother of all pension sweeteners, and what that will do is leave a sour taste in the mouths of our taxpayers and those who manage our municipalities. If you ask the question, how many people or the argument is that we need to sweeten the pension to attract employees. That is not the real question because the defined benefit pension that public employees enjoy is far better than anything offered in the private sector. The question to ask is how many public employees are leaving public employment for a better deal in the private sector? And the answer is none. So we don't need to do this. And if you want to do this, the proper way to do it is to do it through collective bargaining. Our friends in the unions believe strongly in collective bargaining, but they're not doing it through collective bargaining because that would mean putting something on the table to offset the cost of this. I've said in the past, when I've been the lone no vote on a number of pension sweeteners over the years that it is not unfair nor is it unreasonable to ask the other side to put something on the table to help manage the cost for our taxpayers. That's not happening here. So what I what concerns me greatly is that we are now in a position where the advocates for this have the legislature have maximum maximum pressure, frankly, on us. We are now the highest paid legislature in the country. We now have a very severely limited amount of outside income, which means a lot of our friends here in this chamber and in the Senate are going to be leaving because this legislature is becoming professionalized, if you will. Well, we're now career politicians. In fact, when the defined benefit pension was granted to elected officials, you created the career politician. And the defined benefit pension system that we enjoy, what does it reward? It rewards longevity. And how do you get longevity? Well, I can tell you through personal experience, some of the advocates, they don't support people who say no to them. They only support people who say yes to them. And we are now in a position where if we lose an election, yeah, we're out of a $142,000 of income but we're also out of the defined benefit pension system. And that you're asking legislators to vote against their own financial best interest. And that is not going to happen. We will vote against the taxpayers' best financial best interest before we vote against our own. And that's why what we're doing here with tier six, I believe, is so dangerous. We are going to put in a credible burden not only on taxpayers but also on the performance of the investment funds that help fund our benefit. Think about it for a second. If you look at take an $80,000 pension, which is not uncommon in the public sector here in New York. Using a standard distribution factor of 4%, you would need a $2,000,000 balance in your IRA or four zero one k to produce 80,000. Think about it for a second. That's a lot of money. That makes you a millionaire. So if you go back to the early two thousands when the market was doing well and the fund was in solid shape like it is now, the controller at the time, Carl McCall, couldn't see around the corner to what was going to happen in 2008 when the mortgage market collapsed and we went from in our largest fund, the employees retirement fund, the largest of the eight funds in the state went from a 114% of assets overnight to the low eighties. Now we're under a 100%. We're underfunded. And contribution percentages had to go up, meaning our school districts, towns, counties, even the state of New York had to increase the contribution percentage of payroll to make up those losses. Even using a five year average, what they call smoothing in the business. So we need to be very careful when we sweeten these benefits that we can frankly afford them, and I don't think we can. Our governor has said she has said we are losing our tax base is diminishing. We're losing people and businesses to other states. Our tax base is shrinking and yet we are putting an additional burden. The the city of New York has asked to be of permission to kick the can further down the road because they can't afford to make their current pension payments. So what we are doing here is I believe fiscally imprudent, frankly dangerous, and I believe we are setting the table for tier seven because we will need a tier seven if we do what we are doing in this bill with tier six. Tier six is not broken. It was necessary it was necessary to keep this system fiscally stable so that all of us can enjoy the benefit of a retirement twenty, thirty, forty or more years down the road. We're gonna put that in danger by going so far out on the risk spectrum here and sweetening these benefits beyond what we can frankly afford. So for that reason, I am going to be voting no on this bill. Of course, there are good things in the bill and there are bad things in the bill. But I think this, frankly, is the worst. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Keith Brown.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the chair of the Ways and Means Committee yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Will mister yield?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes, I will.

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

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Thank you. Mister Pretlow, just for the purpose of debate, I'm gonna focus my remarks on part R and part V. I'm gonna start out with the housing components first and then move over to the SECRA and then talk about some of the state properties in my region. Just a general question. Would you consider part r and part v policy?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Is that part of CLCPA?

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: No. This deals mostly with the SECRA amendments and the the housing provisions that are contained within that.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, is your question on SECRA? What we're doing with SECRA?

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Yeah. Would you consider a policy or is it budgetary in terms I of would

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: quote policy.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: You would call it policy. I just thought that we didn't put policy in the budget, but I could be wrong.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: We put a lot of policy in the budget based on Pataki v. Silver which was instituted prior to your becoming a member of this esteemed body. We formally did not include policy, but I am not going get into the history of it, but I've been here I guess longer than most people in this room, so I've experienced the whole thing. But yeah, it's policy and policy is in the budget and I can almost assure you that every governor will include policy in his or her future budget so it's here to stay.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Thank you for that clarification. I've heard other members say that we don't put policy in the budget. Now I'm crystal clear. With regard to the housing components, do urban areas include Nassau and Suffolk Counties? And then I'll stop there. Yes. And then what is the number of units that will be exempt under the new secret amendments?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: It depends if 20 dwelling units in a municipality with no zoning, 100 dwelling units in a municipality with zoning, and 300 dwelling units in a census defined urban area. So the census finds an area as urban, then they have a limit of 300.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: So that sounds like there was an increase of what was originally presented in the executive budget. I believe it was 200 units.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes. And those

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: units will be exempt if they meet certain criteria under the new provisions, correct?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Could you tell me why there was no mention of the word affordability in the new amendments? You said affordability? Affordable housing. The word affordable.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: That wasn't part of the negotiation.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Right. The reason I asked you

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: is Because I'm pretty sure that in our one house we did have affordability as an inclusion, but that like the minority participation on the other board did not make it through the conferences.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: So I I know you're tall like me. I think you have to speak up a little louder because we're

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: a little more This thing don't go up anymore.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: I just wanna clarify because I thought the purpose of these amendments were to help assist with the affordable housing crisis that we're experiencing in this state. And just to refresh your memory, because I know you were sitting next to me during the budget hearings, the commissioner of HCR said the state is again laser focused on housing affordability and making sure government works on behalf of New Yorkers. So I asked you Mr. Pretlow, why is there no mention in these amendments with respect to the word affordable?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Can I defer to miss Glick for the answer to that question?

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Can you I'm sorry?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Defer it to miss Glick.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Ms. Glick, will you yield?

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: If she can afford an answer, sure.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Thank you. Ms. Glick. Ability for us to share the responses is so that may be a little awkward. But let me just say that the basic belief, which I believe would be embraced by your side of the aisle, is that as we increase supply and meet the demand, the prices will drop. And so by trying to make it easier for units to be created, we will be driving more affordability into the marketplace. Very good.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: So I'll continue. I don't know if you're the best person to answer the questions. You could bounce back to mister Pretlow if necessary, miss Click. But are there any changes with the pro housing certification portions No. State law? And you're aware that with the pro housing certification, it constrains some of our municipalities to be able to build more housing or affordable housing. Correct?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, don't know that that's that I don't know that I would agree with that.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Okay. So let me ask you. You're not afforded certain grant opportunities if you're not a pro housing certified community. Correct? Municipality?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Right. So does this bill make it easier for municipalities that want to do affordable housing more grant opportunities to do so. You

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: know, municipalities are free to impose whatever affordability requirements they might wish to add. This doesn't prevent that.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Okay. I'll take that as a no. With regard to the bill itself, I'm looking at the exemption sections under five a and five dash a and five b. Can you clarify for me exactly what is being exempted? And this is where we kind of blend between housing and SECRA. So what types of development projects are going be covered under the exemption and how does that impact SECRA?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, there are if housing is on a previously disturbed site, that would be something where there would have been perhaps a building existed and then was demolished, but there's water and sewer, access to water and sewer connections, it would be exempt from a SECRA review with certain numbers of units differing from New York to other parts of the state.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: So when we say exempt, technically speaking, does that mean it's going to be treated as a type two action verseekra under part six seventeen?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: It would mean that it wouldn't have to go through a SECRA process.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Right. So an applicant submits their EAF form and it's a determination on lead agency. I saw that we capped that at one year for determination lead agency. By the way, why one year to determine something as simple as who's going to be lead agency?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, not every project is single family dwelling. It could be more complicated. So there may be some reason why there may need to be more time taken because there may be a decision that it is under, at least in the city, might be an HPD project or it might be an economic development corporation project and there are differences.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Right. But we made a specific change for specific use. This is for multi family housing, affordable or non affordable. And we kind of know We included

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: also schools. Included schools. There are different projects.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Okay. Well that's a whole other question I want to ask in a second why we didn't include day care centers. But let me stay on point. The question is why since we have a specific use and we know what our zoning approval processes are municipalities, why one year? I mean that seems like something administratively even putting three months out, one hundred and twenty days would suffice for a simple lead agency determination, no?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, that's your opinion.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: We will it's an outlying it is the outlying number that doesn't preclude something being determined sooner.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Right. But my point is if we're trying to fast track these projects and expedite them, that seems like an awfully long period of time. Let me go on. The timing of the EIS to be completed is now two years. That also seems like an automatic time. You couple the two things together, we are three years. Have we really made any significant changes in the SECRA review for multifamily affordable housing?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, I think that the complaint has been that there are no time limits and that it has been represented that this could go on for many, many years. So you may you know, it's a glass half full, glass half empty. Since there are no time limits and there have been those who have complained, I will say that in a very generous way, complained that it has gone on for several years. This is a response to that.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: I get that. I I totally get that. But let me

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Sir, I'm sorry.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Let me move ahead. The project gets completed. Somebody wants to challenge that determination by the municipality. What is the statute of limitations to make an article 78 in that determination based on what I'm reading here in Ted?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Thirty days. Days.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: And when does that thirty days clock begin to run?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Once there is a decision as to whether it is an exempt or nonexempt project.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Okay. I'm reading here line 18 says becomes final and binding upon the petitioner but there's no clear date of when it becomes final and binding. In other areas of the town or village law, what we normally do is we trigger that to when the determination is filed in the town clerk's office or the village clerk's office and we have that done here. It's vague and it should be clarified. So I'm asking you on the record, what date are we going to pick?

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Thirty days. From when?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: When the decision is determined as to whether or not this is an exempt or nonexempt.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Okay. You can't bring a challenge of a determination that is interlocutory and in the middle of the process. The court will grant the motion to dismiss. So therefore, that's really not an acceptable answer because that's not when the statute of limitations run. There is no triggering event built into the statute and it's unclear if somebody wants to bring an article 78. So this is ripe for litigation. Would you agree? No.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: We agree to disagree. Has this have these amendments in any way shape or form changed the standing rules as they relate to the case law in the

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: state of New York?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: I don't believe so.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Excuse me one second. With regard to I'm gonna move on to the SUNY section in part u. I don't if that's you or mister Pretlow.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: That would not be me. That much I know.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Thank you, chair. Chair, any information about the SUNY Farm and L, SUNY Stony Brook or the DOT land by Republic Airport? In particular, I'm curious about the DOT land by Republic Airport. Do we know where that lies? Is that in this bill? That is in this bill. Part u authorized the repurposing of DOT and SUNY owned real property.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Of the finance section, just give me a second.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Sure. And I'm going to ask a different question for your staff. Will these properties be subject to local zoning?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: You want to know the location? It's in Farming Bail on Concourse Street? Yes. Or Conclave Street? What about it?

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Is it going to be subject to local zoning?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I'm not sure.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Thank you. On the bill, madam speaker.

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

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: So I just wanted to mention, part VV, the extension of deadlines under the CLCPA, make the rules that were promulgated in 2019 more practical and less aspirational, especially the mother of all mandates

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Brown.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: The school bus mandate. Thank

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss Pollan?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: Thank you so much. I wanna speak on the bill.

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

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: And limit my comments to part q q. This final bill and agreement represents a major victory for the Jewish community and other faiths that have faced an alarming rise in harassment and intimidation. As anti Semitism and hate crimes continue to rise across our state and nation, it is essential that our houses of worship, religious schools, and community centers have meaningful protections. I am so proud to have played a role in this legislation and I am especially proud of the role that the assembly has played. To ensure that the final language in this budget bill protects vulnerable communities while respecting constitutional rights. Throughout the negotiations, the Assembly was focused on guaranteeing that the legislation would provide real world protections for Jewish institutions that have increasingly become targets of intimidation. I want to thank the speaker. I want to thank Jen and Jen for their leadership, unwavering support and respect. A shout out to Michael Asher and a shout out to Simka Eichenstein who worked so hard to make sure that this bill is the best it could be. One of the most significant accomplishments secured was an expanded definition of religious place of worship. Today, protections explicitly extend not only to traditional houses of worship, but also to Jewish community centers, to yeshivas, and religious schools. Families,

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: students,

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: and worshippers deserve to feel safe when attending these places. This legislation is a tremendous win and sends a clear, clear message that New York State does not tolerate hatred. Thank you.

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

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Thank you. Madam speaker, would the chairman please yield for a few questions?

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

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The chair yields.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: I appreciate that. I don't have too many questions for you today. A lot of my colleagues have already received answers on some of the questions I was planning to ask. But I want to draw your attention back to the New York City amortization of their unfunded accrued liabilities. So, does free up some of that funding for New York City in the short term. However, starting in 2033, the liability will then increase. Is

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: that correct? Yes. Absolutely.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: So, in February, it starts to increase significantly. How confident are we that New York City will not have a structural deficit that would require us to kick that can further down the road?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, hopefully the administration of the city, the current and future administrations between now and then see this as it's like having a balloon mortgage basically. And make the appropriate actions or take the appropriate actions now so when that period does come, they will have the finances to be able to pay it.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Have the mayor or city hall provided any specifics on how they will avoid being in a deficit when the liability for this increases?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: That wasn't addressed during the budget process.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. So, we're just trusting that in a couple of years, they'll be able to pretty much pick up double the liability that they would have had?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes, sir. Okay.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: And now, moving on to the school bus camera bureau portion here. So, the enacted budget creates a formal administrative adjudication system for the stop arm camera violations in New York State. Yes. Do any local governments currently operate these school bus camera bureaus?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I don't believe so.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. Now, if a municipality has existing a traffic violations bureau, can they fold in the school bus camera enforcement of that into their system?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I believe so, yes.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. And what if it's just a parking violations bureau? Would they be able to do the same?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: I

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: think if they're given the authority to do it, then yes, they will.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. Now, does the state anticipate any counties or municipalities needing additional staffing or officers or administrative resources to operate these bureaus if they don't have something similar existing?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: That was not contemplated. But if but if they do wanna do it, of course, they can use the revenues generated from the program to pay the salaries of any additional staff that they may have to employ.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. The and where are the revenues? They would have to use those revenues or would the state provide any extra support if they did have to comply with this?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: There is no state funding for that, no. It's like parking tickets in cities now. The state doesn't fund that, but several cities have parking violation bureaus. Some some have parking bureaus. Some have Right. Of they handle parking in different different matters.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Are they required by the state to have those bureaus? No. Okay. But they would be required to operate a new bureau here even if they don't have a current traffic violation? I believe so. Okay. And would you anticipate if it's an issue for some municipalities to hire people and expand their administrative functions here that the state could come back and offer some funding to assist and help them comply?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, that's not something that we are not contemplating at this point. But I think going forward, any municipality that participates in the bus camera program would have to make the arrangements within their own community as to how it's going to be handled.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Alright. Thank you to the chairman and thank you madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mr. Dudinovitz.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: On the bill.

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

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I wanted to address a few issues. And like it was said earlier, this bill has some really good stuff in it and some really bad stuff. And that's how it always is with a budget bill. And ultimately, we gotta decide how to vote given that. I intend to vote yes on the bill but I wanted to talk about a few of the issues. One, the reforms to tier six. I think it was probably fourteen years ago on this floor when the legislature passed tier six and I know many of us were under a lot of pressure to vote yes on that. I voted no on that bill at that time and my reasoning was that I don't think it's right to treat people differently than each other kind of like a caste system. I don't believe in the tiers. I never did. I'm tier four, I don't benefit from this legislation at all in terms of tier six fix. But I think it's the right thing to do. I think it addresses some of the inequities that were created fourteen years ago. So I'm very proud that we're doing this today and I look forward to seeing the positive impact it's going to have on many, many state workers. On the other hand, the CLCPA is something that many people in this chamber work very hard to pass. That and other important environmental legislation, important legislation to fight climate change. And it is really very unfortunate that today we are backsliding on some of that legislation that many people fought so hard to pass. I think it's a mistake and I think that people down the road will pay for this dearly. I have two grandchildren who live in New York. They're 11 years old. They're the ones that are gonna pay for the mistakes that we're making here today on environmental legislation. We should be going in the other direction and I hope that in the future we can backtrack on our backtracking if that's possible. Likewise, I am concerned regarding the auto insurance legislation that's being passed here and was passed last week as well. I think we all agree that we want to fight insurance fraud. No question about it. My concern is that I do not wanna see accident victims' rights change for the worse. And I'm concerned that some people are going to lose out very inappropriately because of this legislation. Now it would be great if our insurance rates went down and I look forward to that happening although when I read the legislation I just couldn't find the part where it says where it mandated that our insurance rates are gonna go down. And you know why? Because it's not in there. Now I discovered the way insurance companies can lower insurance rates. They can lower insurance rates. They can do that all by themselves. No one has to do anything else to make that happen. That could happen. So I think it's unfortunate that we don't have those guarantees in this legislation. But the last thing I wanted to talk about was the the buffer zone in section q q of the bill. 10/07/2023 was the worst genocide against Jewish people since the Holocaust. The 1,200 plus people who were killed that day, and they weren't all Jewish, but they were in Israel, they lived, they were Israelis or they worked in Israel. It was a genocide. 250 people were kidnapped. Many people were raped and assaulted. It was shocking that the very next day there was a huge rally in New York City protesting Israel. Now this legislation isn't about Israel but it kind of is in a certain way. It's shocking that since that date, over two and a half years ago, hate crimes against Jewish people, but hate crimes against lots of other people as well have risen dramatically. And this hate is coming from both ends of the political spectrum including people on the far left and people on the far right. So it's not from one political party or the other but it's there and we have to recognize it. By recognizing this today, I think this is an enormous victory not only for the Jewish community but I think for all communities in New York. And I'm proud that the legislature, that the assembly has taken the lead on making sure this happens. Now the legislation creates a new crime of criminal interference with access to a place of religious worship and it says a person is guilty of this crime when such a person with respect to an individual who is or is seeking to enter into or exit from a place of religious worship knowingly or intentionally obstructs or otherwise interferes with the entryway into or exit from a place of religious worship for the purpose of rendering passage by that individual unreasonably difficult or hazardous or or within 50 feet of a place from a place of religious worship knowingly or intentionally engages in a course of conduct that places the individual in reasonable fear for their safety. And this includes not only houses of worship but it includes education institutions, it includes community centers. So for example in my own community and I think I've mentioned this before, I attend the Riverdale Y most days when I'm in the district because I go to the gym there. Years ago my grandchildren went to the nursery school there and right now there is not only a nursery school, there is a pre K program there and there is lots of other programming for young people, for old people and everybody in between. Institutions like that will also be protected under this legislation. So I think this is a very important step for all of us to take and I'm proud that we're doing this on the state level. Sadly, on a city level, two bills that were passed by the city council, one was one became law notwithstanding the how could I put it? There was no veto, there was no signature. But the second piece of legislation was actually veto, the one that would protect schools. But I think what we're doing here today at least addresses that in part. This is important in this day and age when anti Semitism, when hate crimes are higher than ever, higher than it's ever been when the majority of hate crimes in our city, in our state are committed against people who are Jewish, but other hate crimes have gone up significantly as well, particularly against the Muslim community. This is this not only is a practical bill that will have an impact, but it sends out a message that we don't tolerate that kind of nonsense, that kind of hate in our state. So I thank everybody who was involved in helping to make this happen and I look forward to voting yes on this legislation particularly because of this buffer zone provision.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Norbert.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the chair yield please for some questions regarding q q?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Petlow, will you yield?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Yes. I will.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The chair yields.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: First of all, this is a very good bill. I wanna commend anybody who was behind it. It's it's improvement. I know that before we were talking about 25 feet, but now we're talking about 50 feet, which is much better than we are, and we're definitely in the right direction. I'm gonna try to understand a little bit better what it means, places of worship or prayer.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Mister Norvo, I'm gonna defer your question to mister Dinowitz. Okay. This is better.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Dinowitz, will you yield?

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Yes. I 50 feet is a 100% better than 25 feet.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: Yes. It's a little bit yeah. It is better. It'd be better if it'd be all over the state, but but we're definitely going there in that way. So if let's say I want to contact a prayer service in my home, and you know how it is in the Jewish community. There's a Shiva. There's occasions in which I bring people for a minyan or communion just to get together and to pray. Would that be considered under this law?

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, let let me read the provision first. It's it's not that long. It says any building or structure that a reasonable person would know that religious adherence collectively recognized as a place to regularly regularly gather for or hold religious services, observance, prayer, assembly, education, instructional, devotional practice including community centers and shall include its entrance, its exit, the parking lot, and so on.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: So But who decides that?

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Question. Your question is whether if you're having a a prayer service or a shiver at your house.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Yeager')]: Right.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: It's a regular service. It happens every day for a certain amount of even for thirty days. It becomes a temporary place for, let's say, a few weeks or whatever, but it is a place where people from the community come together and they want to perform a prayer service. So I'd like to know if that would be considered acceptable under this law.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Yeah. I would first, I would say that it's working. I could shout though. So a shiva is not something which is regular. It happens for a specified brief This period of deals with something which happens on a regular basis but again it also has to do with the mindset of the person who is perpetuate perpetrating the bad act.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: Okay. So it's subjective. Because that's another question I wanted to get to the youth here because who's deciding these things? Who decides what is a reasonable fear for one's safety? Is it the perpetrator? Is it the victim?

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, ultimately, if if this is a situation where something is brought to trial, a judge or a jury would have to decide. But I think in the first instance a police officer would have to exercise a judgment as to whether somebody's rights are being violated or not. And it's something which I think is usually

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: easily So in that case I have to understand better how it would be played out. We'll make it simple. A woman with two children, babies, walks in the street. She wants to go to a prayer service in the synagogue. Alright? She has to pass by some demonstrators wearing masks, let's just say. Does would she be able to fall under that area of reasonable fear for one's safety? And can she go to a police officer or call or make a complaint in any form or fashion?

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, it it would certainly it would depend on what's what's being done. I mean, this is addressing, for example, demonstrations taking place outside synagogues as one example. It could be any other kind of house of worship.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: Right. Let's say synagogue.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: But we know what's happened recently outside synagogues.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: Right.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Because that's what's happened. But the potential is there for any other kind of house of worship. The police at a demonstration, they can set up a perimeter. Then we have the 50 foot buffer zone as I mentioned earlier. The mere fact that somebody is there and you don't like the looks of them because they're wearing a mask which for some reason only people who seem to be up to no good do, but that's beside the point. Their mere presence in and of itself is not is not the violation.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Of

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: course, that they're wearing a mask or a kafiyah, which is being worn by people who murder Americans and Israelis alike or Europeans in enough another country, that would be a form of harassment or pushing a per putting a person under a fear of their own safety, I would believe. I just wanna understand who would dictate and determine that that's actually happening. I I mean, if I'm I made it simple. Outside the synagogue, a woman and two children and a man wearing a mask in front of them saying something. He's saying I don't like, something. Does it that's specifically on this lady.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, first of it could be a man with two children and a woman who's wearing the mask, but that's

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: also No. I'm just talking about the simple scenario where a woman with two babies going to the synagogue outside of synagogue.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: It it depends on what's what's going on and

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: what they're

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: doing. Fine.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: Let's call a demonstration.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Somebody's saying they don't like whatever. I mean, people have the right to say things we don't like, and this legislation is in no way intended to interfere with one's first amendment right of free speech or to protest. However, when somebody's speech or protest interferes with somebody else's ability to exercise their first amendment rights, that's when this may come into play. Now in situation where there's a demonstration for example, the police would have to exercise their judgment as to whether or not there's a violation here. And if there is a violation, they could issue a violation.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: I'm just trying to find the point in where this becomes a class b misdemeanor. What is a class b misdemeanor in this scenario? Well, I I was believing when I read this, when I'm reading this, it's a very good bill and it says, and if a person is wearing a mask or a kefir, with all due respect, First Amendment is very important, I know. But if they're wearing it outside within 50 feet of a synagogue, I would presume I would feel unsafe in some form, not just a woman and children.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I I don't think the mere wearing of kefir is a violation of anything.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: So the mask, the Hamas mask.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: How you look at it, Kafia, you know, that that's how you look at it, but the in and of itself wearing it is certainly not a violation of anybody's rights.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: The Hamas mask is still not a I'm sorry.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Say it?

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: The wearing of a Hamas mask on myself, Hamas. Is that still not a violation?

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Are you talking about a little mask? Are you talking about a thing?

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: I'm talking about the whole spiel. Alright? I'm talking about black with a red bandana. You know what I mean? We saw this on October 7. Whatever was worn by the terrorists of October 7, if it's worn outside of a synagogue, is that not considered? That's my only question.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I don't think the mere wearing of a mask, even a full face mask, even though I think it's disgusting frankly, don't think in and of itself wearing it is a violation or a class b misdemeanor. It depends on the facts and circumstances. We did pass legislation last year but it was very limited legislation and it also provided for a class b misdemeanor. So again, you have to look at the circumstances.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: So what is the circumstance? What would be a circumstance? What would the person need to be doing?

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, if somebody is wearing a a full mask Yeah. And is yelling and screaming, you know, Hezbollah and stuff like that and they're trying to block somebody from going into a synagogue, I would think that is a violation. However, if somebody is merely wearing something that makes them look ridiculous in my opinion, that's not necessarily a violation.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: And if calling people baby killers, would that be considered? You're a baby killer. Let's say they go a person's going to synagogue, is that a bay calling them a baby.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Oh, I think that's not a new thing to calling people baby killers. Anti abortion people have been doing that for years.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: Yeah. But people going to synagogues. Okay. So and this this in no way has anything to do with Nothing. Alright. I'm just trying to find out what they need to do, and that's pretty much what I'm getting at. If they don't beat them up, if they don't assault them, it's useless?

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: No. It's not this does not say that somebody has to be physically assaulted.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: If they have effigy, like they If just did someone in is

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: engaging in a course of conduct, not simply wearing something we don't like or saying something we don't like or agree with, we're talking about something that goes beyond that. In my opinion, some of the things that happened recently at a couple of synagogues, one on the East Side Of Manhattan and one I believe in Queens in Colleen Berger's district, some of those things went beyond what is appropriate because it was more than just saying things. It was putting people, instilling fear in people and probably deliberately doing so. And so this is meant to address situations like that.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: So how does this combat anti semitism?

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well hopefully, well listen, we're not gonna change what's in people's heads. We're not gonna change the type of people who wear a Nazi tattoo on their chest or things like that. Some people think the way they think But what it's hopefully going to do is make it more difficult for somebody to engage in the type of conduct that took place outside those synagogues recently and at least give police the greater guidance in how they could address that situation.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: I'm not sure why it's so hard to just say. Anybody wearing a mask that represents terror, why can't we make that into a law and that's it?

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, some of us wanted to pass a

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: law We

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: got it last week.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: On on masks, but Yeah. It didn't happen that way.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: Was that me?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: No. It was a little loud in here. Thank you. Keep going, mister Norbert.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I mean personally I think unless you're wearing a mask for religious reasons or for health reasons you shouldn't be wearing a mask. That's my opinion but that's not the law.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: There are laws in place in the state in Nassau County, of course, that a person who was wearing a mask for medicinal or religious purposes, that's totally fine. That's very easy to to to to to observe that. I'm just not sure why I thought I really thought that this law would do something about the masks because the masks instill fear. And if it says it right here that intentionally engages in a course of a contact that places the individual in a reasonable fear for their safety, and it does. Well, it's just not banned us in the state level. That's the only thing. So but thank you very much.

[Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz]: You're welcome.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss Gonzalez Rojas.

[Assemblymember Jessica González-Rojas]: Thank you. Madam speaker, on the bill?

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

[Assemblymember Jessica González-Rojas]: I rise today with mixed emotions about this budget. Every day, New Yorkers are forced to make impossible decisions on what to prioritize, and today, I'm forced to do the same. There are provisions in this budget that I strongly support, and there are provisions that I strongly oppose. But I believe it's important to be honest with New Yorkers about both. First, I wanna acknowledge the long overdue tier six improvements included in this budget. Public workers across our city and state, including teachers, transit workers, nurses, social workers, sanitation workers, and countless others have carried New York through some of our hardest moments. They deserve dignity, fairness, and retirement security. Tier six has unfairly forced workers to contribute more, work longer, and retire with less. For years, labor unions and workers have fought for relief, and this budget finally moves us in the right direction. That matters deeply to me, and it matters to the working families across Queens and New York State. At the same time, I also must be speak plainly about my concerns regarding the climate metric rollbacks included in this budget. Let me be clear. I do not support weakening our commitment to confronting the climate crisis. Communities like Jackson Heights, Corona, East Elmhurst, Elmhurst, LaFrax City have already experienced the consequences of environmental injustice. Extreme heat, flooding, poor air quality, and aging infrastructure. Climate change is not theoretical for our communities. It is personal. We also cannot afford to delay meaningful climate accountability. The legislature should push the Department of Environmental Conservation to establish and enforce stronger interim emissions targets through regulation so that New York stays on track to meet the goals of the climate law. When the climate leadership and community protection act was debated in 2019, we understood that early action matters. Front loading emissions reductions, monitoring progress, and making course corrections when needed is how we ensure New York delivers on its climate commitments. I believe we can and we must support workers and retirees while also advancing bold climate action. New Yorkers should never be forced into false choices between economic justice and climate justice. Unfortunately, this budget process too often forces legislators into possible positions by combining unrelated policy issues into massive budget packages negotiated behind closed doors. Major policy changes that that deserve full public debate and review should not be inserted into budget bills at the last minute with little transparency and limited opportunities for amendments. That's not how a healthy democracy should function. Legislators should be able to evaluate significant policy proposals on their own merits, openly, transparently, and with meaningful public input. We need structural reform of the state budget process so that non fiscal policy changes cannot simply be shoved in the budget to avoid independent scrutiny and debate. My vote today reflects the reality of governing in an imperfect system. It's not a surrender of my values. I will continue to fight for stronger climate protections, environmental justice, and a more transparent and democratic legislative process. I am voting yes because I refuse to deny hard working union members and retirees the long overdue dignity and retirement security that they have fought years to achieve. At the same time, I wanna be absolutely clear. My vote is not an endorsement of every provision in this budget. And the climate policy changes included here should not be the final word. I will continue to fight alongside labor, climate activists, and front like frontline communities to reserve reverse these climate rollbacks, to strengthen accountability, and to push New York towards the bold environmental leadership that this moment demands. Our responsibility as legislators is not only to cast votes, but to continue organizing, advocating, and improving the systems that shape those votes. That work continues tomorrow. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Riley.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the chair,

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: yield, please?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Pretlow, will you yield?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Absolutely.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The chair yields.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Thank you, mister Pretlow. So the first thing I wanna talk about is the MTA bond rating aspect in this legislation. So

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: What what party you referring to?

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: So it's going to be let's see. Part h, extending MTA's tax increment financing authorization.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Okay. It's a one year extender.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: So what exactly does it do as the extender? And what does it actually extend?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Okay, it's a TIF which is a tax incentive program and it allows the MTA and municipalities to come to some sort of an agreement as to the development of their land.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Development of what? I'm sorry.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: The parcel of land.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: Okay.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Do we know which specific lane?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I don't know.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: It depends on municipality and the MTA. There aren't any currently in effect and this just gives them another year to extend if there should be a need for an agreement. Okay.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: So this within this budget, is there anything that extends or puts forward the MTA, borrowing aspect?

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Yeager')]: No.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: No. Okay. Alright. Mister Pretlow, I can move to part d, the stop New York City super speeders through intelligence speed assistance.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Okay. I believe that Mr. Magdarelli will answer those questions. And I don't see

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Well, it looks like he's not here.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Okay. I will answer them.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Just give me

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: two seconds. I have to get some notes. Do you

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: okay. Do you want me to delay?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: It was a sheet. Who is it? Who is the sheet? Put all in.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Madam Speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Can we pause my time while they shift?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: No. There's no time pausing. You can ask the question. So, really? Or ask a different question and we will go find the transportation chair.

[Unidentified Member (Energy/Utility Rates Q&A)]: What if he's not ready?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: How can I ask the question?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Okay. I am I am ready for mister Riley. This part authorizes the city of New York to require vehicle owners who receive 16 school speed zone camera tickets within twelve month period to install an intelligent speed limiting device.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: What studies were used to establish the number and the amount of time for those violations?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I'm not sure what the study was used to determine this, but this was part of the negotiation and this is what the final outcome was.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: So do we know how those numbers were picked?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: This part of the negotiation, sir. The negotiation between who? Between the senate, the assembly, and the governor.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: And do we know what data they use to actually come up with that?

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: I was not part of those negotiations. I doubt.

[Assemblymember Jake Blumencranz]: Okay.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: So as it relates to as it relates to this program, what safeguards exist to prevent inaccurate GPS readings, equipment malfunctions, or improper device calibration from unfairly penalizing drivers. Mister McNarelli's comments, just so you know.

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: Well, I I will refer to that to mister McNarelli who is the

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister McNarelli, will you yield?

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: I apologize for walking out for a few minutes. No worries. Okay.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Magnarelli yields.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Yes. I think what will happen is that you have a right they have a right to contest any type of installation of this thing. So when it's done, when the installation is done, or when you're excuse me, let me move back. Owners have the right to contest the installation order. At that point in time, you can bring whatever you think is contrary to the installation at that point.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: So what is the actual due process

[Clerk of the Assembly]: and have criteria

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: to contest Yeah.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: The installation? You can contest the installation, and the city has requirements for the vendors that they have to adhere to.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: What is the actual process for contesting that? Through which mechanism? Through which jurisdiction?

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: It goes through the city of New York. The city of New York. They will establish it.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: But which specifically so which specific entity would a motorist or registered owner appeal to?

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Designated by the of New York or the mayor or the council of the city of New York. They will establish the count the council or the court or the tribunal that you have to go in front of. So

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: do you know how it works now when you contest a speed camera violation in New York City?

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: I do not. Okay.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Madam speaker, on the bill, please.

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

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: So what we're hearing is that this piece of legislation in this budget bill was negotiated, and we don't even know exactly how due process is going to take place for motorists in New York State who travel in New York City. There's just no answers. But I will give you an answer of why we continue to go down this path. In 2014, there was a pilot program with 20 speed cameras for New York City. It was a pilot program. It passed in 2014, long before I was here. It was a five year pilot program. Within three years, they expanded it to a 100 cameras without even fulfilling the first five years of the pilot program. Fast forward, we extended not only from a quarter mile Monday through Friday camera operation. We extended it

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss Click, why do you rise?

[Assemblymember Jeff Gallahan]: 24.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Will the gentleman yield to a question?

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Mister Not right now. I'm gonna finish. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Okay. The gentleman does not yield.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: Twenty twenty four hours up to a quarter mile circumference from a school instead of on the same street as a school. In 2015, New York City lowered their speed limit from 30 miles an hour to 25 miles an hour. No coincidence. They dubbed it vision zero. It was vision. Alright? Vision for $250,000,000 a year on motorists. That's how much they make. Fast forward to just this year. We lowered the speed limit in New York City to 20 miles an hour. No coincidence. This year, the new mayor lowered in certain school zones to 15 miles an hour. Think about that. 15 miles an hour. You gotta go 11 miles over to get a speed camera ticket. 26 miles an hour. Does that sound like a super speeder? I don't think so. This is nothing more than another money grab. And the reason why I spoke about the MTA earlier is because their bond ratings are tied to EZ Pass. And what they do is they collect funds all through this technology. All it is is a hit on motorists in New York City. We continue to pile on attacks on motorists, but we don't call it attacks. We siphon your wallet. And the idea that someone going 26 miles an hour is a super speeder is ludicrous. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating speeding, but let's look at the pattern here. It used to be 30 miles an hour on a New York City street for decades. All of a sudden, this legislature back in 02/1314 decided to make speed cameras a thing. Suddenly, went to 25 miles an hour. I guess maybe people actually started slowing down, so they weren't getting enough revenue. So what New York City do? Let's go to 20 miles an hour. We're back up to $250,000,000. All of a sudden, twenty twenty five hits. We're not getting enough. 15 miles an hour in certain school districts. I got you now. 26 miles an hour, and I collect that $50 tax from you. That's what this is about. It's about money. And you heard we don't even know what the due process is to ensure that when they put these interlocking devices on to measure your speed, how you can fight it. Because I tell you right now, a speed camera ticket is almost impossible to fight in New York City. Why? Because they don't listen. I've actually before I was in this legislature, I actually had somebody reach out to me that the calibration on the camera had a truck that wasn't really wasn't even in wasn't theirs. They got the violation. They still had to pay the $50 fine. It's absurd. It's a money grab. That's the sad reality here. We could try and fight and save people's lives by actually having police officers issue summonses and really go after the driver. What's really ironic though too is that certain vehicles are exempt from this. Government vehicles, certain TLC vehicles, and some some franchise carriers. Can we name a few of those? Maybe UPS, maybe Amazon, maybe those drivers. Right? But if you lend your car out to somebody and unfortunately they get a few speed tickets, speed camera tickets going 26 miles an hour, your registration could be suspended, and you can have to get this speed monitoring device. Let's be fair to New Yorkers because this isn't fair. This is nothing but a money grab. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Callis?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So there are, as many other people have said, there are several things in this.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Are you on the bill, miss Kellis? On the bill.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill.

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

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: As I've noted and as others have noted, there are several aspects of this bill that are positive. I wanted to thank all of my union members, all the union members across the state for all of their incredible work on tier six. It is a pension system that has left so many people unable to retire without sufficient pension to stabilize their family. And the steps that have been taken are really important moves in a direction that will help many New Yorkers. So I wanna thank I thank the union members who have worked so hard for this. And the Jewish community in my district has stepped up to speak out on the increased significant increased violence that they have experienced personally and they've seen their communities experience personally. I wanna thank leadership for making sure that there are components of the language in QQ that both protect the Jewish community, increase the feeling of safety, and also protect protect those who want to stand up for their for their rights to to picket and and to to hold strikes, particularly union members. But I do support those, and I do think that both of those are very strong components of this bill. But I wanna talk about, for the rest of my time, one of the most disappointing, heartbreaking components of this bill as a as an environmental scientist. This is a rollback of decades of my life and of decades of many other people's lives who worked very hard to counter the actions of our state as one of the greatest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in the country and in the world. One of the components that is being rolled back in this piece of legislation are the methane accounting, to go from twenty years of accounting for methane to a hundred years for accounting of methane. Methane is in the atmosphere for a very short period of time. So by shifting our accounting to a hundred years, what we're basically saying is that we no longer wanna follow the science, that we wanna add a whole bunch of zeros in to the estimate of the impact of methane so it looks like it's a lot less impactful even though in reality it is very impactful. When we're saying that we're following the international UN standard by shifting, that is a lie. What we are following is the political arm of the UN, which is the UNFCCC. Because if you look at what the IPCC is noting, they have acknowledged that the twenty year standard actually follows science. One of another components in this is removing the accounting of biogas from the total accounting of our greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially saying that it doesn't have the impact that we really care about when we're looking at our total impact on on the climate. This is deeply frustrating and disingenuous on the truth of our impact. And what has been so unfortunate is the number of calls that I've gotten since people heard of this language from the oil and gas industry that owns a significant amount of the biogas sector that is gleefully calling the office looking to roll in their business into New York State. We are also seeing in this a removal of the upstream emissions for greenhouse gases, for fossil fuels, transportation, and and extraction and development of fossil fuels. We are removing those from the accounting of GHG emissions. So essentially, a lie. We are creating those greenhouse gas emissions by our consumption, but we're not gonna count them. So the numbers that we're gonna see will look so much better than the reality of the impact that we are having as a state. So we can make ourselves feel better, stick our fingers in our ears, stick our heads in the sand, and not acknowledge the true impact that we're having. When we talk about cap and invest, we're rolling that back as well. It should have been released in 2024. The governor put it her the it it in put it in her executive budget in 2023 saying that the drafts would be released in 2024. It would be fully implemented by 2025. We are years behind. We are now moving it to 2028. Seems to be in direct response to a lawsuit that the executive lost recently, which will now go away. But this was supposed to be the funding to implement the CLCPA. And I will note, we have been doing actions that people will acknowledge move us forward towards addressing climate change and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. There are some things that we were doing. We were already doing those before the CLCPA was put in place. The reason we did the CLCPA is because we acknowledged that we were not aligned with the Paris Accord, that we were way behind, and the rate at which we were addressing our greenhouse gas emissions were below what we needed in order to stay aligned with the Paris Accord. So by rolling back the CLCPA in the way that we are, we are essentially saying that we are stepping away from our commitment to the Paris Accord. I wanna note also the rolling back of the timeline. We no longer will have a twenty thirty timeline. We will have a twenty forty timeline but it will be flexible and where feasible and economical. We will essentially only have a hard twenty fifty timeline. That is almost twenty five years, twenty four years from now that we are saying that we will fully commit to our 85% greenhouse gas reductions. But the problem is that we haven't been taking all the steps that the scoping plan outlined that we needed to take in order to meet the initial goal of 2030. We have not been taking those steps. There have been there have been reports that have shown that department after department after department of our government has not taken steps to implement the CLCPA, including meeting the specific needs of reaching the 35% for our disadvantaged communities. The one good thing in this entire thing is that we will be moving that from 35% to 40%. But if we don't enforce it, then how are we actually going to meet that goal? I'm very glad we're moving that one that 1%, but we have to have guidelines, clear guidelines from our executive to every single department that they then follow in order to make sure that it is enforced. So we've already been kicking that can down the road. We need to see interim interim targets by our DEC which statute currently allows through regulations that create those interim targets that says we will meet these steps or otherwise we will find us in 2040 still haven't done anything or any major steps in order to meet that goal and then we will be able to say, well, meeting that goal is not feasible. Well, a goal isn't feasible if you're not taking any steps to move towards it. We are not acknowledging in this the fact that we are going to be falling back onto fossil fuel. We have seen movements in that direction from the executive to fast track fossil fuel pipelines, to fast track nuclear even though we know it is the most expensive energy without any comprehensive independent fiscal analysis when the only nuclear that's been done in the last thirty years in the entire United States was $30,000,000,000 for 1.2 gigawatts of energy. And we're talking about five gigs, four or five gigs, we are talking about a $100,000,000,000 potentially increase on our rate payers. I wanna see that fiscal analysis. So we know that the one fuel that has increased significantly in the last months, in the last year, and has been predicted to continue to increase is fossil fuel. There are state after state that are saying we need to lean in to renewable energy infrastructure, to clean energy infrastructure because that is what will reduce the cost of energy on our ratepayers, on New Yorkers. So if we want the most affordable pathway, then we lean in to clean energy. It's not too late to do it. Even if we are rolling back our CLCPA, we have a week left of policy season. We should be doing big steps to make sure that we are not building massive amounts, the 11 gigawatts of data centers, even though all residents in the entire state consume about six to seven gigawatts. Double, double that energy demand would be the data centers that are already on our nice interconnection queue. We need to address that to ensure that we have energy reliability in our state. We can't be leaning into that if we are going to ensure that while simultaneously rolling back our climate laws. And anyone who pushes into that is being incredibly disingenuous, incredibly disingenuous. So lastly, I will just acknowledge that the steps that we need to take, we need to when we do release that cap and invest, that cap and invest needs to be strong. It needs to have clear guardrails clear guardrails with a floor on on the cost of the allowances, ceiling on the cost of allowances. We need to reduce them significantly over time, encourage everyone to get off onto renewable energy infrastructure, and make sure that the funding that we raise is invested in renewable energy infrastructure, upgrading our transmission line infrastructure, making sure that we support our disadvantaged communities. We need to make sure our energy our agencies are implementing the CLCPA. We still will have a law, although tremendously weakened. I am getting emails, hundreds of emails a day from my constituents distraught because of this action. As a climate scientist, this is one of the central focuses of my career. And because of that, despite the fact that there are things in this budget that I support with all of my heart, like the fixes to tier six, I cannot support in whole this tremendous rollback that will set us back decades and lead to us being a part of the problem and not a part of

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: the

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: solution. The rollbacks in Seeker are an added blow to this. I applaud our leadership for fighting. The reason that we are late is because our leadership fought so hard to prevent these rollbacks. And with all of my heart, thank you. And to the staff who worked so hard to prevent the rollbacks on Seeker, thank you so much. It's not what we would have wanted, but because of you, it's less bad than it would have been. Because of these rollbacks, I am unable to support this and I will be voting no on this. And thank you so much, madam speaker, for the time.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you, miss Levenberg.

[Assemblymember Dana Levenberg]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill.

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

[Assemblymember Dana Levenberg]: So my constituents should know exactly where I stand and that's why I'm speaking on the bill. I have struggled with my conscience while reviewing this legislation. There is real good in this bill. The ASAP Act is a meaningful step forward that will help us get more solar energy into the grid. There are utility reforms included here that I and other colleagues in the Westchester delegation have really been pushing for as we continue to push back against Con Ed and other utilities and their incessant rate hikes. I'm proud to see our work on this begin to bear fruit. I'm also proud that we were able to offer some peace of mind to those of Jewish as well as Muslim faith who have been the target of hate crimes directed at them and their places, which are sacred to them and to me. This bill takes significant steps to keep people safe in sacred spaces. Also, I am happy to see we are continuing to take steps to level the playing field for public servants, our brothers and sisters in labor, and toward making it more viable to take those jobs by improving tier six benefits. But I cannot pretend that this bill does not take us backward in serious ways. As my colleague, the good doctor, just mentioned, the CLCPA rollbacks are incredibly damaging. And she articulated them way better than I can, but nevertheless. Especially the change to the way we account for the methane emissions. It's a retreat from science, as she described, and from the commitments that we made to our communities. And it is very difficult to stomach for so many reasons. And why are we now pushing back the timeline for announcing new regulations till the end of twenty twenty eight, when a full set of regulations was already nearly complete. And frankly, it's quite the opposite of supporting affordability. If we had put cap and invest in place and had rolled out the regulations as we should have, and if we had gotten rid of the obligation to serve gas, and if we put our money into the sustainable energy rollout and innovation that was promised by the CLCPA, we would all be seeing much lower utility rates while working to combat climate change and all the escalating costs that go along with addressing it. My environmental justice communities in particular cannot take the hit of a new gas pipeline expansion, which will leave them paying higher utility bills to build out another pipeline and deepen our reliance on expensive fracked gas. It is truly disgraceful. I am also concerned with the rollbacks to insurance protections, as my colleague mentioned, for those in auto accidents. And most likely this will only stand to benefit the insurance companies again, not ratepayers. We keep finding ourselves in the same position Late budgets that result in New York taking two steps back two steps forward and four steps back. We must do better than this and we can by reforming the budget process. If we do not wanna keep ending up back here, we need to work together as legislators, advocates, and voters and fix the way New York passes budgets. For anyone listening who is also upset or even angry about this bill, I hope you will join me in pushing for a real solution to this problem. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mr. McDonald?

[Assemblymember John T. McDonald III]: On the bill, madam speaker.

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

[Assemblymember John T. McDonald III]: Thank you. So this is my fourteenth year, fourteenth budget, and I learned a long time ago that budgets are compromises, and today's bill is yet another example. Individuals are rightly concerned about energy costs, housing costs, and auto insurance costs. And today I will be voting yes on this bill as there is more than intent here, there is action. At the same time, are very legitimate concerns. Now there's been comments made about we are rolling back CLCPA. I'm not going to get into that conversation but I will say this, I do believe we are taking on a reset which is necessary. For years, I've heard from constituents about their concern, our concern, about the dependence of fossil fuels and its impact on the environment. Yet they are also concerned that we are moving too quick and too fast. And whether it's true or not, they do feel some that this activity has led to increased energy costs, especially in regards to renewable energy. I respectfully disagree with those constituents, of course. As we know, there are many reasons why New York State and many other states throughout this country are seeing an increase in energy prices based on a very simple basic principle, supply and demand. Demand for energy, especially electricity, continues to grow dramatically as more households continue to add more devices as part of everyday living. At the federal level level, policy changes are causing an increase in sale of energy into an already expensive energy system in other countries. Therefore, reducing supply in The United States and adding pressure on prices here at home. We see it at the pump. We see it in our household energy rates we pay. And this budget tries to disarm the finger pointing and to dive deeper into energy rates with what called as the rates commission, which is important. And I am hopeful that the year long process brings all the stakeholders together to bring results that positively impact every single household. I do believe we need to double down on continued investment in clean energy investments. Adding more energy options that are cost effective, like wind, like solar, like geothermal energy, will help build supply of energy to meet that ever increasing demand that I previously referenced. This budget addresses the state environmental quality review act known as seeker. It is my hope as a former mayor who witnessed both the strengths and the weakness of the processes that this will lead to increased hop housing opportunities because, yes, housing and rent are too damn high. Once again, our housing supply is low. The demand is high. It is right that we seek to address this imbalance for future owners and tenants. Auto insurance, as you know, is on the agenda today in this bill, and I am a 100% behind this reform. I believe, after much discussion, we have struck the right balance to root out fraud, yet to hold auto insurance companies accountable. I am hopeful that with these reforms, our Department of Financial Services is properly resourced to provide the necessary review to provide long overdue rate relief to ratepayers, much like has been happening in other states. And today, we are also expanding on the work zone camera program, which I believe is critical to protecting our hardworking highway workers who work day in and day out to make our roads and our bridges safer, yet at the same time putting themselves at risk. Earlier today, myself and my colleague, mister Bendet, attended a memorial service for Robert Born of Rensselaer County, who died a year ago, almost to this day, doing the public work. He was, according to the Department of Transportation, the fifty ninth line of duty death. I am hopeful that expanding the work zone camera program will help prevent that 60. And Robert Bourt's honor and for the other reasons I mentioned before, I am voting yes, madam speaker. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Yeager?

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Yeager')]: Thank you. Madam speaker, may I speak on the bill?

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

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Yeager')]: Thank you very much. First, I agree with everything that the good gentleman from Richmond County yelled before. He's a 100% right but that's not why I rise. Friends, this is the fourth budget bill as you know and we've spoken a lot about this today and very few of what we have voted for and what we will vote for today actually has anything to do with the budget. The exec and you know a lot a lot is written about this and lots talked about it and and sure there's you know blame in the public frequently placed on the legislators the ones who aren't getting paid for doing this and that's okay and and I'm alright with with that but what what the the fault really lies and where the fault really lies is is on the executive which continuously inserts and shoe horns items into these budget bills that have zero relation with the budget and zero relation with each other. For example, camera violations have nothing to do with how the CPLR treats tort cases and neither of those two topics have anything to do with environmental quality review. Yet they're all in this budget and it's a take it or leave it. You don't get to vote a little bit yes on this and a little bit no on that. And so as so many of my friends here have said today, we have to make hard choices. Do we vote for something that on balance is slightly better than it is awful or do we vote against it because on balance it is more awful than it is possibly doing some good for New Yorkers? For example, perhaps you feel that the insurance reforms are going to result in money back in our constituents' pockets. If so, you might want to vote in favor of this. I don't believe for a second that a single thing we're doing today is going to result in a reduced premium for anybody in our state. Nobody. If and and a member of the legislature of the assembly mentioned earlier today was talking about fraud and asking if there's any investment in detecting fraud. And the fraud that that has been focused on of course is a lot of fraud in in fraudulent insurance cases. But if you drive through the streets of the city where I live, the fraud you see is in ghost cars, fake plates, no plates, out of state plates. There's not a block in New York City that you go by them that that you don't see plate after plate from Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, everywhere else very few New York plates at this point because they're the people of New York are registering their cars, not all the people many people are registering their cars outside of the city and state in violation of the law and depleting the insurance pool of their premiums which would result in lower premiums for everybody and there is zero enforcement. Zero enforcement. Those are the same cars by the way that go up and down and get the speed camera tickets that are never enforced because there's nobody to go after. We are on a balancing act. We are reforming or at least tinkering with tier six. It's wise to do that. It's just. It's justifiable. It's right. It's righteous. Something that should be done, it should have been done a while ago. We're not doing all of it but the the the trade off that public servants who join public service make is a little less pay for retirement that is sufficient for them to live afterwards. And for full transparency, I gained nothing from this vote today. I'm not a member I'm not a member of tier six. This does nothing for me. But it is the right thing to do and it's in a budget bill that has a lot of junk in it. A lot of trash that has nothing to do with a budget. We are voting today to amend the New York City Administrative Code to allow for the for a change in how pensions are amortized. The effect of that as a member spoke earlier today on this floor is that the mayor of New York will be able to, no pun intended, charge his grocery bill to a maxed out credit card. The credit card is maxed out. He says it's maxed out. He says the city is broke. They're broke. I don't know how the city became broke as soon as he took office because it had a balanced budget last year, but the city is broke says him. Every day he announces something that he's gonna spend money on, but the city is broke. And what he's doing with the broke city is saying, I'm going to take today's bills and put them off to henceforth some other time elected legislature, mayor, city council to pay those bills, tax payers to pay those bills, not his problem. The only time or at least the most recent time that we did this was in the aftermath of 09:11. That is an emergency measure. We're voting on that today in this budget bill. Maybe actually has something to do with the budget. Actually has numbers in that section part y y. So I guess I guess it's somewhat budget related. I would urge by the way because it's not a done deal when we vote in the the the trustees of the pension systems all have to adopt it and I would urge them if they're listening today and if not you know, hopefully they tune in. Vote no. Don't don't accept that. Don't accept the amortization. Tell the city no. The city needs to pay its bills. The city needs to protect the pensions. And if they can't figure it out, then I can help them cut some things. I could just look at the press releases for the last ninety days of announcements and this that and the other thing and help them find the savings. Not in this bill is is to be discussed in another bill, a taxation policy to help the mayor solve the budgetary problems of New York City that he says are happening right now but that takes taxation policy won't take effect for another three years. So I'm not sure how that will help right now but we'll talk about that in a day or two. The again, not in a budget bill but here we are part q q of this omnibus, this very very very very omnibus bill. And many members have spoken about that and, you know, you kinda get to the part of the program where everything's been said but not everybody said it so here I am. But I think it has to be said as much as some good gentlemen and ladies spoke about this. The communities of New York where I represent them, other members who represent neighborhoods that look like the member of the legislature that's standing here speaking today have been terrorized and tormented for the last several years by people who march on their houses of worship yelling death to the Jews, death to Zionists, death to Israel, death to whatever. In my neighborhood just a week or two ago while I was up here on a Monday in my neighborhood block away from where I live, it's not like I read about it in the paper, I recognized as I was watching the clips, I know these blocks. Mobs of masked thugs running up and down residential streets screaming the most vile things at and about Jews, terrorizing Jews. We have a mayor who's not interested in protecting a segment of New York City. It's okay. It's he was, you know, I believe in democracy. He won. And that's his policy position. His policy position is not everybody in New York City is entitled to the protection of law enforcement in New York City. There's no question in my mind that the police were told to stand down that day. So the state of New York has to, in representing all New Yorkers, enact a measure that will protect all New Yorkers. It's important to remember that every one of our bills starts with the words the people of New York in senate and assembly. This is what we enact. We represent the people of New York, not the mayor. He is unable or unwilling to protect his own citizens in our city. So we step in. What are we asking? We're not restricting anybody's constitutional right. How do I know? Because the constitution gives people the right to peaceably assemble. I've not one time in my life seen a protest, a march in front of a house of worship of any religion that is in any way peaceable. I don't know what first amendment right opponents of our desire to protect every single citizen in this state are trying to protect. I don't know what what first amendment privilege they think there is. It doesn't exist. You do not have the right to wrap your face in a cloth where your identity cannot be seen and terrorize people who want nothing other than to go to their refuge, their place of worship. The mayor of New York seems to make a distinction. What are you doing when you go to that place of worship? Are you going there to play basketball in the gym? Are you going there for a religious service? Are you just passing by and you want to use the restroom? Frankly, none of his business. New Yorkers have the right to go about their day without being terrorized and if we have a mayor who doesn't think that that's important that's where we step in. And I am incredibly grateful to Mr. Speaker for making this his a priority of his in in ways that that are truly admirable because they weren't the priority in the other chamber or in the executive the way I saw mister speaker making it his priority here. To make sure that this peace is not just in the omnibus mess of bills that we pass but it's done rightfully, righteously in a way that is enforceable legally. And I will also remind folks as I've been saying for the last several months, if we all campaign for office, a 150 members of this body, all of us have a law that we have to abide by that says that we can't campaign within a 100 feet of a poll site. 100 feet. That's a first amendment right to hand somebody a piece of paper and say please vote for me, but we have a law in New York and the election law says you can't stand a 100 feet from a poll site while doing so. And the debate had been whether or not 25 feet is too much. Is it okay? Is it something that's restricting anybody's right? Oh my gosh. You're taking it up to 50 feet. How awful are you? This is the right thing to do and I am grateful to every single member of this house who participated in making this a reality as we vote on this today.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Fitzpatrick]: So I don't have a clock.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Yeager')]: I don't know how close I am but I'm gonna end as follows. You know, we're gonna have this this show for the next several days. There's six 40% of the budget's done or at least the bills. And so there's six more bills and some of them will have a lively debate, some of them will not. But the one common denominator in all that we've done perhaps with the exception of the first bill we did several weeks ago is that stuffed into these budget bills are very little to do with the budget. It's a lot about a lot of different things. But as I said, every bill that we pass has that preamble. The people of the state of New York is represented in the Senate and the Assembly. We represent them. We were elected to debate to deliberately deliberate as a legislative body separate from the other house and come to a conclusion of what makes sense for the people of New York. And when the executive shoe horns and dumps junk into these budget bills, we don't get to do what the people asked us to do when they entrusted us these jobs. And it's a mistake. And and mister speaker has has said before that he's that this is not the way to do it and and and he's not gonna do this again. And I agree with him. He's right. We shouldn't be doing it. And I'm so grateful that we do have a speaker who stood up on this who said that this is the wrong way to do a budget. We should be talking about numbers. That's what the people asked us to do. And it's and and that's why there's a deadline of March 31. We get we come up here in January. It takes us two months to hock out a budget and then we could spend the rest of the time doing doing legislative work. But the executive branch has has has nailed us into a room and said we're never gonna do a budget until you're about to go home. If you wanna stay up, can. It's up to you. I'm happy to stay here. I know some of my colleagues may also be, but most are are probably not interested in staying here. That's okay. I don't blame you. The weather's lovely, I'm told in Albany. I just think that there's a better way to do it and I think that it was deliberately done to deny the people their voices in enacting legislation and in debating these concepts in a real way so that the people can see. So, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Thank you very much madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mr. Weaver?

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Weaver')]: Madam speaker, on the bill?

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

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Weaver')]: Today I rise in support of the budget bill before us just now. A budget that reflects our commitment not only to the fiscal priorities of New York but also to their safety, dignity, and fundamental freedoms. Let me explain. Included in this budget is an important provision establishing a protective buffer zone to ensure that New Yorkers can gather to hold religious services, pray, learn, and participate in community life safely and without intimidation. Who would have thought that in this day and age we have to pass legislation for that? But here we are. At a moment when hate crimes and anti Semitic incidents continue to rise across our beloved state and nation, this action sends a powerful message that New York would not stand by silently in the face of harassment and fear. This measure carefully balances constitutional protections safeguarding both free speech and the right of every New Yorker to practice their faith in peace. It is thoughtful, measured and absolutely necessary. I wanna thank the speaker of this house for his leadership and stewardship throughout this budget process. The speaker has led with thoughtfulness, patience,

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: and

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Weaver')]: a deep understanding of the issues facing communities across our state. His commitment, and I've seen it time and again, to bringing people together, listening to concerns, and ensuring that this body responds to real challenges New Yorkers are facing has been instrumental in getting this done. At a time when leadership matters more than ever, his steady hand helped move this important measure forward and deliver meaningful protection of our communities. I also want to thank my colleagues in this chamber for recognizing and there were many and I've seen it firsthand as well. For recognizing the urgency of this issue and working together collaboratively to get this done. Budgets are about values. And today, this assembly, the people's house, is making clear that protecting communities from intimidation and hate is one of our values. We are standing up for public safety, for religious freedom, and for basic basic human decency. I am proud to support this budget bill and I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Burdick.

[Assemblymember Chris Burdick]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill?

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

[Assemblymember Chris Burdick]: I would like to thank the speaker and his amazing staff for working so hard and tirelessly in making this bill the best it could be. As an intervener in both the Con Edison and the NYSA Gray cases, I am keenly interested in doing everything possible to provide for fairness and equity to our ratepayers who are struggling to pay their utility bills and stay in their homes. I applaud the governor for her article seven provisions which launched far reaching discussions with the legislature which led to substantive changes in the public service law embodied in this bill. This bill contains the most comprehensive reforms in the rate setting process in years and perhaps decades. It goes a long way toward leveling the playing field in the arcane and obscure process of setting utility rates and in making the process fairer and more transparent. I am grateful for inclusion of the essence of my bill directing the PSC to limit the extent to which utilities can recover from ratepayers the cost of the utility pursuing a rate hike filing. This is especially important given the tens of thousands spent on expert witnesses, consultants, the portion of employee salaries associated with attendance and participation, preparation or repeal of a rate proceeding, and other related costs identified by the commission. And so now to the extent that they exceed the amount that the PSC will set, the shareholders will need to pay that cost. The provision there is another provision very welcome which requires the utility seeking an increase to submit what's termed a quote budget constrained proposal. Which provides that the utility's aggregate revenues would not increase by more than the average of the annual CPI over the prior three years. In each application for a major change in rates, the utility must demonstrate how any increase in aggregate revenues by more than the increase set forth in the budget constraint proposal is actually necessary to ensure safety, reliability or the continuation of affordability programs. There also is a provision to get more of a handle on the utility's return on equity including a requirement that the utility would be required to return to ratepayers all revenues derived from their actual return on equity in excess of their authorized rate of return. I am deeply disappointed with the rollback provisions in the CLCPA, but I do wish to thank the speaker and staff for doing their best to moderate the revisions. And while there will be a 1,000,000,000 sustainable futures fund investment, we need significantly greater investments in renewably sourced generating facilities to ensure that we meet even the extended timelines of the CLCPA under this bill. Turning to the changes in CECRA. I have favored modifying the law to put a check on the law being weaponized to delay and frustrate perfectly worthy and valid projects. However, the original article seven went too far and throughout the budget process, I expressed as well as colleagues expressed serious concerns about the extent to which the changes would hamper municipalities from protecting against adverse impacts such as traffic, capacity for wastewater treatment and public water supplies, as well as water quality concerns. Here too, I wish to thank the speaker and the terrific staff who worked tirelessly to negotiate the proposals and place some guardrails on these changes. I'm a strong supporter of the fixes in tier six. It's a step in the right direction and I applaud our partners in labor, the governor, and the leadership of the legislature for bringing about these revisions. Lastly, I wish to thank the speaker for the work he did with his staff to ensure support for the $2,000,000,000 Galleria project in White Plains, which will be one of the most significant development projects in the state and will provide good union jobs and 800 affordable housing units while also remediating brownfield sites, it will have a significant impact throughout Westchester County and beyond. As we all recognize, every budget is the outcome of hard negotiations and compromise. And this one is no exception. As I have for each of the budgets since becoming a member of the Assembly in 2021, I will be voting in the affirmative. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Gallagher.

[Assemblymember Emily Gallagher]: Thank you. On the bill?

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

[Assemblymember Emily Gallagher]: This budget is fifty five days late and we will only have one full week to pass all of the remaining legislation we need to protect and deliver for New Yorkers. That alone is proof that this process is badly broken. But to roll back our landmark climate law, as scientists are sounding increasing alarms about the livability of our planet and the federal government is rolling back all climate protections and investments in green technology, is a serious miscalculation. We've been told that addressing climate change is incompatible with affordability, but those of us who are paying attention know that those are repackaged oil and gas talking points. It is absurd to pretend that the CLCPA is responsible for rising costs. We have done basically nothing to implement our landmark law, and energy from the sun and the wind are free. We know what's driving up the cost of energy, the war in Iran. The cost of repairing outdated, leak prone gas infrastructure, tariffs, data centers coming online to power our insatiable appetite for job killing AI. Places ranging from Pakistan to Texas are taking advantage of the tremendous opportunity presented by renewable energy to reduce utility costs, create green jobs, and deliver more reliable energy. Not because they are leftists, but because it is cheaper and they know that they can count on it. New York can and should do the same, but instead we are moving backwards. I'm also deeply concerned about the criminalization of free speech and protest in this budget. I've participated in many peaceful protests at churches and synagogues in support of the rights of immigrants, the trans community, and including during my childhood when I stood up for those living with HIV and AIDS. Despite massive attempts to silence those protests in the nineteen nineties, they saved lives. In a moment when fascist violence is on the rise, the fact that our state government would move to further restrict New Yorkers ability to non violently protest is also deeply concerning. All of that said, this budget included something very, very important to me. We will finally stop super speeders in New York City in this budget. This is a policy I have championed for years in the assembly. Super speeders aren't your average drivers. They are top 1% of the most reckless, dangerous drivers on our streets. They are drivers who get speed camera tickets repeatedly more than once a month. These drivers rack up 16 tickets or more in a year. According to New York City DOT data, drivers with 16 speed camera tickets in a year are twice as likely to cause a crash that results in serious injury or death. They are drivers like Miriam Yermiri, who my colleagues will remember mowed down Natasha Seda and her young children last year, killing their mother and two of the three children who were holding hands while they walked across the street. I am proud to have championed this bill alongside advocacy partners, many of whom have lost loved ones themselves. I have watched as these advocates come to Albany year after year, parading their pain and begging us to pass this bill. I fought for this bill for them and because of them, I will vote yes. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Lee?

[Assemblymember Emily Gallagher]: On the bill.

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

[Assemblymember Grace Lee]: Thank you, madam speaker. I want to be clear, this is not an easy vote for me. There are parts of this bill I fought hard for and am proud to support. And there are other parts I believe moves New York in the wrong direction. My vote today is not a blank check and it is not an endorsement of every decision made in this budget. And while this bill is not perfect, the tier six reforms includes our long overdue victory for working people of New York State. For too long, tier six has placed an unfair burden on our public employees, teachers, nurses and others who keep the state running. The reforms in this budget are a major win for affordability and fairness. We're lowering contribution rates and putting money back into workers' pockets. We're giving our teachers five years of their life back, allowing dedicated educators who have served thirty years to retire at 58 with the full benefits they are entitled to. And we are boosting overtime related retirement benefits for police, firefighters and other public employees. These changes will make a huge difference in over half a million New Yorkers. I am proud to stand with working families today. However, I must express my strong opposition to the weakening of the CLCPA included in this bill. Rolling back our climate laws will not help New Yorkers, it will hurt them. We've been told that our commitment to fighting climate change is too expensive, and we need to scale back our approach to keep energy costs down. But affordability and environmental protections are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's not renewable energy that's driving our energy affordability crisis. It's our overreliance on fossil fuels. We've seen how this reliance on fossil fuels hurts us. Since the war in Iran began, prices at the pump have skyrocketed, and New Yorkers have been forced to pay more than $1,500,000,000 in extra gas and diesel costs. Rising natural gas prices also drove up electricity and heating bills this winter. The threat of climate change is not a theoretical concept for the people of my district. I first got involved in local politics organizing families against environmental disasters. In Lower Manhattan, we experienced firsthand how superstorm Sandy flooded our streets, shut down businesses, and caused billions of dollars in damage to our community. Since that devastating storm, the city has undergone a years long multibillion dollar effort to make Lower Manhattan resilient to the extreme weather events that climate change is making more common. But it's not enough to make our state more resilient to climate change. We must actively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions so we can slow down the warming of our climate. New Yorkers need real, durable solutions to fight climate change and address our energy affordability crisis. That means making sustained investments in clean energy that will protect New Yorkers from global supply shocks, reduce harmful pollution in our communities, and lower electricity costs. We must also push DEC to adopt enforceable emissions targets so New York does not fall behind on the CLCPA again. Shorter term targets would force earlier action, regular progress checks, and course corrections with an emphasis on front loading emissions reductions now, not waiting until 2030 or later. We made a commitment when we passed the CLCPA. We said New York would lead on clean energy jobs, on building a grid that works for working families, on reducing the emissions that are driving up costs and threatening public health. We pushed hard, back hard against these changes and I thank everyone who fought to protect our state's commitment to fighting climate change. In this fight, the legislature fought for and won a billion dollars in investment for clean energy, a significant step to get us back on track with this commitment. I will continue to fight for clean and affordable energy for our communities. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Otis, to let you know you have about five minutes, sir. Thank

[Assemblymember Steve Otis]: you all. Thank you all. There are a few things worth highlighting in this budget.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: On the bill?

[Assemblymember Steve Otis]: On the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: There are a

[Assemblymember Steve Otis]: few things worth highlighting in this budget. Some have been mentioned, some have not. And so I'm gonna start off with a couple that maybe have not. The bill includes an important new right, the right to have your information deleted, held by data brokers through a centralized system. This is part of the data broker provisions of this budget bill. That's a good improvement to help individual privacy. The bill also includes improvements in our safe by design protocols that we have to protect children who are online. And these are important advances that will be recognized not just in New York but around the country for the step that we're taking there. It has been mentioned, but a little more detail on a utility rate process reform. We are changing the process by which the Public Service Commission evaluates utility rate increases. Our hope is that this is gonna help our our consumers, our constituents in terms of what kind of rate increases. One of the bills is, the return on equity bill that's been mentioned. This is a bill's lead sponsor was DD Barrett, and that is incorporated in in this budget bill. In terms of seeker, lots of concerns about how the seeker changes were gonna affect the ability of local governments to do their job. I'm pleased to say that the final language included provisions that make it very clear that local governments have the ability, even in an exempt project under these new rules related to Seeker, if they have other kinds of land use decisions that they want to evaluate through their other local laws, those rights are not infringed by these exemption provisions in Seeker. We're gonna have to monitor how this works because I have a concern that there are gonna be additional litigation costs to local governments over confusion about what these seeker changes mean. But there's good language in the budget that hopefully will dispel that kind of lack of clarity and protect local governments. As a former mayor, I feel very strongly that we need to look out for local governments in those areas. And finally, on climate, I would say this. When we passed the Climate Leadership Act number of years ago, and we set targets and targets are important, but it has always been that we have to worry about projects. Are we spending money to do projects? Are we changing laws to do projects? Is the private sector investing in energy transition? And that remains the same. And the challenge for all of us and the challenge for everybody doing business in this state is to get us cleaner air, cleaner environment. And so whether we change the targets or not, not thrilled about it. But it really was always about, are we doing projects? Later this week, we'll find out how much money we're spending this year in that category of spending to help do that work. But in future years, we're gonna have to make sure that private sector and private public sector commitment to do energy transition that clean the air, clean our lungs, that we're able to do that in this state regardless of what the targets were. We have a lot of work to do in this space. There are new challenges ahead. I'm voting yes on this bill, but we have, our work cut out for us in terms of all of these issues. Thank you. I vote aye.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will generally be in the negative on this budget bill. But if there is anyone that wishes to vote yes, now would be the appropriate time to do so at your seat. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will proudly support this budget bill. For those that would like to vote differently, they can do so at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mister Simone, to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Tony Simone]: To explain my vote, madam speaker, while there are many good things in this budget, there are plenty of things I don't agree with. I am proud to see us streamline environmental review for housing and infrastructure projects in this budget, which will reduce duplicative review processes and accelerate approvals that can otherwise take years. It's too expensive and it takes too long to build housing. We've even lost congressional seats over it and I know it's easy to say no to things but I think democrats need to start saying yes and start delivering on housing for every New Yorker in every part of the state. By reducing the timelines to build new housing infrastructure we can make far greater strides in bringing affordability to New Yorkers. We are also living through the climate crisis. You see it all around us. I live in a I represent a district that is that was flooded through superstorm Sandy. I've seen small businesses lose their livelihoods, and I see the terrible circumstances climate crisis has caused among the poorest New Yorkers. From extreme flooding to rising insurance costs and growing strain on infrastructure, the cost of an action are no longer theoretical. New Yorkers are paying them now. Spurring the growth of new housing within already developed areas will increase housing supply and density, which is proven to be more environmentally friendly than the endless sprawl we have relied on for decades to house New Yorkers. I do share the concerns that many of us have with the weakening portions of our climate law that may reduce short term regulatory pressure while increasing long term environmental infrastructure costs. More than 65 scientists from institutions including MIT, Columbia, Stanford, and Cornell warned that changing methane accounting standards could understate one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases during the decade scientists consider most critical for climate action. While I'll be supporting this overall budget, I share

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you, Simone.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: How do vote?

[Assemblymember Tony Simone]: We have built in our climate law through this legendary process.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: How do you vote?

[Assemblymember Tony Simone]: And I agree with my colleague.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Stack? Mister Stack?

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Stack')]: Thank you, madam speaker. To explain my vote, in 1936, my uncle Bob left Rock Island, Illinois to fight in the Spanish Civil War. Preserving democracy in Spain was an issue of principle. His picture is on my wall in my office for inspiration. I see climate crisis as an issue of principle that transcends transactional politics. The governor's proposals will increase costs not lower them. All over the world countries are reducing their costs by pursuing clean energy. They are doing it in Australia, in Northern Europe, in China, and many other places. Our state and our nation is falling behind due to outdated corporate ideology and continued subsidization of fossil fuels. It's not just about the environment. It is the only way New York State can reduce our energy costs. Battery technology is advancing daily toward alternatives to lithium ion batteries. Soon enough, my friend's concerns about children in The Congo will be obsolete. I am compelled to stand for the future, not to live in the prison of the past. Further, allowing state agencies to authorize departures ad hoc from SECRA is yet another dangerous transfer of power to the governor which seems to grow each budget year. Therefore, I vote in the negative.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Stack in the negative, mister Weperin to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin (Chair, Insurance)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This year's budget includes several provisions aimed at lowering insurance premiums and no fault reform. New Yorkers are facing rising insurance costs at a time when affordability remains a major concern for families, homeowners, drivers, and small businesses alike. Strengthening efforts to combat organized insurance fraud, reduce abusive litigation practices, and modernizing outdated outdated insurance laws are important steps towards improving the stability and affordability of the property and casualty insurance market in our state. Staged accidents, fraudulent claims schemes, and other forms of systematic abuse drive up costs for everyone and undermine confidence in the system. As the chairman of the Assembly Insurance Committee, I am committed to ensuring that New York maintains a robust and affordable insurance mark market while ensuring that innocent New Yorkers who are legitimately injured or harmed can still assess the coverage and compensation they deserve. I'm also very proud of the buffer zone legislation included in this section of the budget of limiting it to 50 feet to protect vulnerable New Yorkers and a rise of hate crimes, throughout our state. I proudly vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Weppard in the affirmative, mister Delon to explain his vote.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Delon')]: Thank you, madam speaker. As many have said before me, there are a lot of good things and bad things, in this bill, and I want to take a second to talk about the good things, that I do like. Tier six, as a stand alone measure, I believe, would have gotten a lot of support in this chamber, and it's something that I wholeheartedly support as well as the other labor actions that are being done in this budget, I think those are all good. I think my colleagues who have spoke out on barrier zones, you know, I I support them. I support, my constituents. Just

[Assemblymember Gary J. Pretlow (Chair, Ways and Means)]: a

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Delon')]: few weeks ago, some of my constituents who are, Muslim were practicing in in in their mosque, and, you know, they got eggs thrown at them while they were entering mosque for prayer. And I think regardless of faith, you know, these barrier zones should, help people practice their right to pray freely in this country. So those are the good things. I think some of the things that I'm uncertain about is the auto insurance debate. And the one thing that I can say with certainty is that it didn't belong in the budget and probably should've had joint hearings in the assembly in the senate so we can vet this bill, but we don't get to do that. So I'm even as today, I'm I'm not sure what the right vote would have been. But I have to say the things that are very concerning, the rollback of the c CLCPA, very concerning. The CECA changes, very concerning, especially without affordable housing. And then we get to the the issue of super speed as I think some of my other colleagues have spoke on what it does. And I will agree that 16 speeding tickets is something you cannot defend, and I won't defend that. I agree that the speaker's right. If you get 16 speeding tickets, a conversation should happen within the household. Where I have a problem is the enforcement. So this intelligence advice

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: vote, mister Delon?

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Delon')]: Is a problem. I vote in the negative.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Delon in the negative. Miss Glick to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Thank you. To explain my vote, I'm very concerned about some of the insurance reforms. I think that I'm not so sure we'll get smaller, lower bills out of this, lower premiums. And if this was about staged accidents, that's a criminal justice thing and there should be real enforcement through the state police working with DFS and local DAs. But I think that there will be people, unintended consequences, people who are going to get hurt and not have recourse. So that's very concerning. The speed camera violations, as somebody who supported that, we have gotten report after report from the Department of Transportation showing that people who get a speed camera violation once or twice never recidivate again. And with yes, there are lower but more crowded streets. So lower speed limits have been implied but you can do 30 which means you don't get a tick a ticket on West Street as everybody is crossing the six lanes to get to a park. You could be you don't get a ticket till you're doing 41 miles an hour. And people are getting killed and injured and that the handful of people who do six sixteen tickets in a year deserve whatever they get. I'm not sure that just a device is the real answer. Because who the hell is holding your foot to the pedal? On the CLCPA, I don't like the fact that we've seemingly eroded some of the goals or the way in which we measure methane. But the real issue is making sure that we continue to spend the money that moves us forward on renewable energy and gets people off of fossil fuels. I vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss Glick in the affirmative. Mister Norbert to explain his vote.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Norber/Norbert')]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna say thank you to my colleague, speaker, of course, for putting together this bill, part q q, specifically, of course, is what I'm talking about. Sadly, the only thing that the far left and the far right in this country can agree on is the hatred towards Jews and Israel, Zionists. And Zionism is just another form of, saying Israeli. This is something since October 7 we've been having to deal with, confront. There's it's been open season and on Jews in all over the country. And, right now in Montreal, there was an effigy of a a Jew with a on, and that's where the world is coming to. So, again, sometimes we have to vote with our conscience. Of course, most the minority will be voting in the negative. I'm voting firmly in the affirmative for this bill because it's the right thing to do. We have to choose our battles. And, of course, for me, the first battle, of course, is to always choose what's gonna be protecting our communities, any community, any minority, Judaism, Muslims, Christianity. Of course, it's all important. And that should be our first and foremost most important thing that we're doing here in the in this chamber is to protect our citizens. So thank you again, and I'll be voting in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Norber in the affirmative, mister Cashman to explain his vote.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Cashman')]: Madam speaker, I rise to explain my vote. I believe in a model of listen, learn, and lead. And since taking office, I've had repeated conversations with members of NYSCOBA, their loved ones, and many members of residents in my district. Today's budget includes the death gamble, an issue that has languished for twenty years. I have proudly partnered with leadership and my colleagues of this house to see the death gamble finally be enacted in this budget. The death gamble ensures that beneficiaries of line of duty death, correction officers death can receive their pension as if they were to retire on the date of that death. Currently, line of duty deaths do not allow for the benefits to be dispersed right now. This will this will guarantee those benefits are distributed like all state workers. And let me conclude by saying this. No matter whether you are a teacher, work for DOT, or a corrections officer, or a civilian staffer, you deserve a safe workplace. You deserve dignity and respect. This does that. We have more work to do, but today, I proudly see the inclusion of this in the budget and I also vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Cashman in the affirmative, mister Ikess to explain his vote.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Ikess')]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the vote on my vote. Earlier, one of my colleagues got up and talked about zero people leaving public service jobs because of tier six. I made a quick call to just one of nine of my school districts. 27 teachers left this past school year because of tier six, and over 50 vacancies have not been filled for over three years. I'd say fixing tier six is important and something we needed to do. I also wanted to comment about super speeders. 16 tickets in one year. If I I don't know how they afford the insurance or I guess they're driving without insurance, but we also needed to do something about that. 16 speeding tickets in one year. And the final thing I'd like to say is that I'm very pleased that we got the buffer zone ironed out as it may be. And there's a number of folks in my district that are very happy that we did something in that refrain. So I wanna thank, the speaker, his staff, and everybody else that had parts of this bill, fought for parts of this bill, and came up with what is a good bill. I vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Eakus in the affirmative, mister Chang to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Lester Chang]: Thank you, madam speaker. As all of us are contemplating what side are we going to vote and parts of this bill are great, some parts are not. The one I want to highlight is the speed buffer zone that the other colleague mentioned about that and support that. 16 speeding tickets definitely would need to be retarded, especially folks who live in New York City very congested. Insurance fraud, we need to do something about that because that's drive up the cost. Any legislation that to do to combat insurance fraud is a good thing. It may not be the best, but anything to lower that. And finally, the 50 foot rule on protesting on religious site, 50 foot is not enough, but this is a start. I hope we can find an amendment. I prefer is let local law enforcement on the ground make a decision what is the safe distance for for protesters for public safety. In this case, I will vote the verbiage for this bill. Thank you, madam. Speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Chang in the affirmative. Mister Keith Brown to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Thank you, madam speaker, for allowing me to explain my vote on this non policy bill. There's always going to be good things and bad things in each of these budget bills. In particular, the Public Protection Part Y safe by design act. I'm particularly happy that that we're protecting kids online. I just wanna know what took New York so long where other states have already done similar measures. As well as the religious worship protection act, I very much appreciate for all the synagogues that are in Assembly District 12. It bears to mind that when you look at the things that I sat here for the last four hours listening to what people were saying that they really liked about this bill, many of which could have been handled outside of the budget as stand alone bills and didn't need to be included in the budget today. But particularly with regard to part r and the secret amendments, you know, I I really want to be in favor of these amendments. But as you heard the debate, there are so many flaws in this particular legislation. You know, it just goes to show we we just keep throwing a band aid on these wounds that we have in the state. We have a housing crisis, yet we don't have any hearings. We don't have a comprehensive approach. We don't have a way to deliver infrastructure to our municipalities. The pro housing certification is flawed in of itself. Right? The grant process for trying to get grants for infrastructure is terribly difficult for our municipalities on Long Island. Then you add to it the many questions that were brought up. What if a municipality has more stringent environmental standards? Does it erode home rule? Does it exempt projects subject to IDA benefits? Is it for condos, co ops, just for leases? There's no opt out provisions in the event that it makes sense to go forward with this this housing provision despite the fact that there might be some environmental challenges. So the bottom line is it doesn't address the affordability problem.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: How do you vote?

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: We need a more comprehensive approach. And as such, I'm voting in the negative. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Brown in the negative, mister Jacobson to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Jonathan Jacobson]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill has many good and some not so good things. Most importantly, this bill has many significant utility reforms. This bill will end automatic rate increases for utility companies. This change incorporates one of my bills. Currently, if the Public Service Commission decides that a utility deserves a zero increase, the utility would receive its requested increase. Now the utility rate will stay the same until the PSC grants a new rate. For too long, utilities have held customers hostage to their demands. Now if the PSC determines that the rate should be zero that the rate increase should be zero, it will be zero. There will no longer be automatic increases for utilities. I vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Jacobson in the affirmative, mister Paul Massano to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: Yes. Thank you, madam speaker. I am voting in the negative but there are a couple things I wanted to point out that our conference has advocated for years. First, as was mentioned a death gamble for our state corrections officers. For year after year I watched this bill pass the assembly unanimously and vetoed three times. Now we will have pension protected for our dedicated CEOs and their families. The second issue is the twenty year retirement for our New York City corrections officers to match what we did for the New York police department and fire department last year in the city. Both will help with recruitment and certainly retention efforts because we know they've been bleeding members. I just want to give a big shout out to our corrections officers at the and local level, city level. Thank you for what you do for us each and every day. We appreciate you, so thank you very much. Also, I'm happy to see about some changes here with the CLCPA. There's not enough, but something needed to be done. We have told you so for years. Problem the fact that we're still at net zero for 2040, that means no natural gas generation in 2040. That's not gonna work. That's not work. That's not feasible. That's not at all the above approach. That's not gonna work, especially when 60% of New Yorkers heat their homes with natural gas and 40% of our generation comes from natural gas. That will not help with reliability, affordability, feasibility. Also, I just wanna say how outrageous it is on this rates commission. How you're taking away a minority appointment. God forbid, have a difference of opinion on policy to bring better policy. But the worst thing is you're taking away expertise and knowledge knowledge and energy issues and how it works with generation, transmission, utilities, wires, poles. We have enough advocates who don't know about these policies. We need people who understand it. It's really a joke, and all you really seem to do is want a rubber stamp for your failed policies. This is not an on you don't want honest debate and discussion to get the best policy that need to be for our New Yorkers. But I'm not surprised. So we will continue to push for energy policy, prioritize energy affordability, reliability, feasibility, fuel diversity, and energy choice because New Yorkers deserve nothing less. I will continue to vote no.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Palminzano in the negative, mister Blumenkrantz to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Jake Blumencranz]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today a little bit frustrated. As we sit here, I hear people talking about the omnibus bill. There's good and there's bad. And it made me realize, even though I support the buffer bill, I hate that it has to exist. And it has to exist in a way where the Jewish community and its protection in New York is a bargaining chip in a budget process. We're sitting here and we are witnessing remove the hyphen not Jewish New Yorkers. New Yorkers feel so unsafe that something like this is necessary. It speaks volumes to the way that we are looking at this situation. Harassment is harassment. Intimidation is intimidation. But because we have closed our eyes for so long, we need to create a buffer to make sure our community is safe. And that's something that couldn't stand alone in this body. It had to be snuck into legislation regarding all sorts of different components of our budget. Makes me reflect and ask, where are our priorities? I support this bill, but I question why it must be passed this way. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Blumengrantz in the affirmative, mister Raga to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Steven Raga]: Thank you, madam speaker, to explain my vote. This bill delivers long overdue public relief for public workers across New York State through meaningful tier six reform. For years, public employees have called on this body to address inequities within tier six. These are hardworking New York New Yorkers who kept our communities running through some of the most difficult moments in recent history, in all history in in our state. They deserve a retirement system that recognizes their service with fairness and dignity. At the same time, I wanna acknowledge my serious concerns regarding provisions in this legislation that weaken aspects of our climate laws. Rolling back climate laws in our state will not lower our bills. The CLCPA remains one of the strongest climate laws in the entire nation and it reflects our responsibility not only to meet our ambitious environmental goals but also to protect frontline communities already facing the impacts of climate change like my assembly district in Western Western Queens. We should be pushing the DC to set and enforce regulation periodic emission targets to ensure that they don't fall or meet behind or slowly get to their statutory goals within the CLCPA and having shorter interim targets will make sure that they'll be increasingly more likely to achieve those goals and meet them. As we move forward, I must ensure that affordability, reliability, and sustainability should be pursued together, not at the expense of our climate commitments or environmental justice communities. My vote today reflects the need to deliver urgently the relief for public workers while continuing to fight to strengthen, not retreat from New York's clean energy future. So I remain committed to working with my colleagues, labor advocates, environmental stakeholders, and impacted communities to ensure we uphold both economic fairness but also climate responsibility. Thank you, madam speaker. I vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Raga in the affirmative. Mister Boris to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Alex Bores]: Thank you, madam speaker. Each year, one of the 10 budget bills is declared the big ugly, and shoved into it is some ugly provision or two that all of us are forced to wrestle with. And this year might be the ugliest of all. The rollback of the CLCPA is a historic mistake. It makes us the first state to legislatively roll back our climate law. And it leaves to our children a disaster and one that we are not fulfilling our responsibility in actually caring for. I wanna thank the leadership of this chamber for fighting back so much against this proposal. But we as a legislature will have responsibility in the future to fix this historic mistake and to make sure that we are caring for future generations. With that said, the rest that is shoved into this bill, the extension of the 2nd Avenue subway, safe by design features that are long overdue, tier six reform to protect our public workers, utility reforms, super speeders, and the secret reforms make this overall a bill that I am voting yes on and one that I think helps in many necessary ways. But make no mistake about who pushed for the CLCPA rollback and what we need to do to correct that in the future. I vote yes.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Borussen, affirmative. Miss C Wright to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Rebecca A. Seawright]: Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. This budget provides for long overdue changes to tier six for our state employees. These changes will ensure that our workers who keep the roads paved, keep the buses and subways running, and keep our parks beautiful, and keep New York State running have an equitable contribution rate. These changes also recognize our amazing teachers throughout the state, ensuring that their pensions are stabilized and their hard work is recognized. I'd like to thank the unions who have worked so hard on fighting for these long overdue changes to tier six. Furthermore, I wanna highlight the importance of the buffer zone legislation contained within the budget. The Park East Synagogue sits right near my district on the Upper East Side where I have numerous constituents that attend. We've seen multiple protests turn into violent anti semitic attacks by individuals who have chanted phrases such as we are Hamas and waving the flag of a terrorist organization. Let me be very clear. This budget seeks to protect not just Jewish worshipers, but worshipers from all walks of faith. I wanna speak on the climate provisions included within the budget. I'm disappointed to see the rollbacks to the CLCPA included At a time when ratepayers are seeing record high energy bills combined with pricing uncertainty caused by the federal administration's various decisions, we should be leaning in on green energy like solar and wind power. So today, I cast my vote in the affirmative. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss C. Wright in the affirmative, miss Rosenthal to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: To explain my vote, in 2019, New York State passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, CLCPA. It has it was considered one of the most, if not the most ambitious pieces of climate legislation in the country. However, sadly, unfortunately, and unnecessarily, we are rolling back the progress that we all trumpeted was possible. I think that various agencies in this government need to do their jobs. The Department of Environmental Conservation can set and enforce by regulation periodic emissions targets. It is allowed in the CLCPA that they can set these targets by regulation. We will not attain emission free. We will not attain the targets that we set and it is disappointing and our future is not guaranteed in an environmentally sound way for our children. It's shortsighted. Unfortunately, it's stuck in this budget with some other good provisions as is usually the case. So I will be voting in the affirmative but I think it is a deeply regretful way to legislate a climate law especially as the federal government is rolling back all protections in our environment. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Ms. Rosenthal in the affirmative. Ms. Shimsky to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember MaryJane Shimsky]: Thank you, madam speaker. There are a lot of good things in this bill, but there are two things that I feel the need to speak out on. The CLCPA rollbacks will damage our environment and public health by giving a quiet nod to gas and nuclear power, forms of energy that are obsolete, dangerous, and very, very expensive to build and maintain. In order to right these wrongs, we must pass the SUNY Act and all other bills that will allow individuals, companies, and localities to invest in and or produce more renewable energy. On utility regulation, There is a commission in here purportedly established to determine the causes of high utility rates, a question which we already know most of the answer to already. I fervently hope that this investigation will be comprehensive and completely transparent and will result in a set of recommendations that will actually help the people. But the future on this is not assured, and the process needs public input and robust oversight to avoid corporate capture. The war against climate change and for a clean energy future is not over nor is the war for affordability. It continues every day in state houses, national legislatures, kitchen tables, and boardrooms all over the world. We can never assume that we have lost or won, and we must continue the fight as our children's future has no choice. That is why, madam chair, I have reluctantly cast my vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss Shimsky in the affirmative, miss Feffer Omada to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Stacey Pheffer Amato]: Thank you. Am I on? Hello. Good. Thank you madam speaker for the opportunity to explain my vote. I vote yes. I think this bill is perfect. I think the work that we have done for our public employees is enormous. As chair of the government employee, which has no I in government employee, we have taken the approach four years ago to change that dialogue how to represent and stand up for our public employees. I have to give the I'm hearing all my colleagues praise the changes that we've done for tier six correction officers, our state university workers, forestry, NYPD for their recruitment efforts is to say thank you to the men and women who work behind the scenes in the governmental employee committee. They've worked tirelessly, numerous meetings, hundreds of meetings to listen to all the opinions to formulate the work that we have done today. So I'm proud to vote yes and thank all the employees that have worked behind the scenes at the assembly to help us come forward. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you, miss Feffer Omada and the affirmative. Miss Simon to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Thank you, madam speaker. My constituents have made their views very known. For the record, we are doing some good things in this bill, like passing the ASAP bill, utility reform measures, improving tier six, enacting super speeders, critically important to my district. And I have great empathy for the concerns of my Jewish colleagues and certainly our constituents who are living in intimidation. But the rollback to the CLCPA is a bridge too far. Weakening our methane accounting, the math as the kids say, doesn't math. Weakening the regulations that will enable us to make progress on the environment and on affordability is not going to make energy more affordable. Now we know this bill is passing, and we have to take concrete steps in the future. We have to pass the Sunny Act, virtual power plants, the data center moratorium, and the nuclear moratorium so we can assess the cost and benefits of this energy. I'm looking forward to continuing to work with people even though I will be casting my vote in the negative today. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss Simon in the negative, miss Romero to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Gabriella Romero]: Thank you on the bill. This bill reflects something that I'm learning more about, which is compromise. I'm happy to see strong strides for our government workers, many of which are my constituents in the capital city. We'll see reduced contribution rates for government employees, those in higher education, law enforcement and fire. We are seeing some utility bill relief, but let's be clear, that did not go far enough. I'm hoping with the utility rate case reform, we'll see less greed from companies like National Grid. This will increase transparency and accountability in the process, which will help rate payers and I hope to see this play out in the long run with relief for my constituents who are suffering right now with massive increases in their utility bills. But really most importantly, I'm upset about the changes to the CLCPA. I care about our climate goals and when we first passed the CLCPA, we were the most aggressive in the nation. It didn't have to go this way though, and the changes with this type of magnitude should have been modified during the legislative session. Out in the open, with the ability to see the language and negotiate with colleagues and advocates the way that these types of changes deserve. To be clear, I'm very upset about the CLCPA and we did not go far enough on utility bills, But I'll be voting yes to support tier six changes and strong support with organized labor. I'm happy about the ASAP Act and I'm really proud of the reforms for those that work in the capital city, our government workers most importantly. Thank you. I'll be voting yes.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss Romero in the affirmative, are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Ayes, one zero nine. Nays, 34.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The bill is passed. On the main calendar, resolutions, page three, clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number fourteen forty two rules at the request of Ms. Hunter. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 05/08/2026 as Military Spouse Appreciation Day in the state of New York in conjunction with the observance of national military spouse appreciation day.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Smolin, on the resolution.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Well, thank you, madam speaker. On the resolution, I rise today on military spouse appreciation day in honor of my wife, Megan, who is a military spouse of eighteen years. During our time in the marine corps from 1997 until I left the service in 2015, there was a lot of water under the bridge. Four deployments, including three combat tours in Afghanistan. Four children, our beloved Molly, Haley, Lily, and AJ, born between deployments, taken care of by their military mother who was very good at it. And in fact, after September 11, my wife was the key volunteer for the first battalion first marines, taking care of hundreds of military spouses as we, the marines, went into harm's way into Afghanistan after nine eleven. We endured seven moves in too many schools for the children to count. And upon reflection, it's really the military spouses that bear the true burden of service to our country. It's they who take care of the most important things to military people, their families, not their units, but their families who are always there for them when they go and do the work of our nation overseas. So on behalf of all of the military spouses throughout history that have endured what it takes to make sure that America remains a free country, we say thank you for your service here in New York on military spouse appreciation day. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Chang on the resolution.

[Assemblymember Lester Chang]: Thank you, madam speaker. And I really thank the sponsor for this bill which is which is appreciated. I'm a twenty four year navy. My first late wife, nineteen years, been staying with me with many multiple moves, a one full year combat tour in Afghanistan, and without her support, I would not able to do my duties and and continue on with the mission because she hold the fort at home. While her own parents was lay frail and passed away during my tour of of illness. So there's so many things that she has to take care at home while I'm away taking care of the missions. And I can see many other of my fellow shipmates in in a war zone also appreciate their families supporting them. And thank you for the sponsor for this because we have to recognize their unsung heroes in our military family. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number fourteen forty three rules at the request of miss Seawright. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as older New Yorkers month in the state of New York.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number fourteen forty four rules at the request of Ms. Walsh, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as reunification month in the state of New York.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss Walsh on the resolution.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. I am very pleased to stand again this year to talk a little bit about Reunification Month. This is nationally celebrated in June and what it is is it recognizes that when a child needs to go into foster care, it's it's a very, very joyful moment when that child can be safely reunified with their family, with their with their birth family. Foster parents do an amazing job and the social workers that are there to provide supports and interventions to the family do a fantastic job. But you know, when your child goes into foster care, sometimes you have to do an awful lot of work to get to the point where you can have your kids return to you. So when it happens, which is what we always want to happen, it is really truly a thing to celebrate. So I know that in one of the counties that I represent, Saratoga County, we hold a celebration every year for the last few years where we bring in some families and we talk about the challenges that they faced and we celebrate with the children this great accomplishment. So while it can't always happen, when it does, it's really worthy of celebration. And that's why I'm just so happy to support this resolution, asking and memorializing Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as reunification month in this state. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted. Miss Ra for the purpose of an introduction.

[Assemblymember Edward P. Ra]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am very proud to have with us today a good friend and a constituent of mine, Ellen Andrasek, who is in the back, was recognized earlier today at a luncheon here in Albany as the Nassau County Senior Citizen of the Year. Ellen is one of those people in your community that is involved in pretty much everything, always there to volunteer on behalf of the community has been a very active member of the community league of Garden City South for many years as well as the American America Lodge of the sons and daughters of Italy she's helped run their annual insulation dinner as well as their journal making sure that they're able to continue to their work. She has over the years as her children are going through school, been involved in the PTA, been involved in youth sports through the PAL, and like I said, she's just one of those people that is always there when the community needs somebody to step up and help with a cause in the local community. She's also joined today by Debbie Puglisi, who is our Deputy Commissioner from the Nassau County Department of Human Services, Office of the Aging, and is always active in our community, helping make sure she gets out there to be there for our seniors and make sure they have everything that they need and are able to take care of the various programs that Nassau County has to offer. I ask that you extend to them the privileges of the floor and welcome them here at Albany. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: On behalf of Mr. Ra, the speaker, and all members, we welcome our distinguished guests to the assembly chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Congratulations to you, miss Ellen, for your wonderful award, Nassau County senior citizen of the year. That's pretty spectacular. Definitely giving you the accolades you deserve for all the contributions to the community. So thank you so very much for the service to our community and for you being here today. Thank you both so very much for joining us. Mister Fall, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. On behalf of our colleague in New York County, miss Rosenthal, we have two special guests here from her district. Stephanie Gary, who is the executive vice president of Plaza Jewish Community Chapel, as well as Karen Elder who is the Vice President of the Elder Group. They do tremendous work in her district. If you could kindly extend to them on behalf of Ms. Rosenthal, the cordialities of the house and welcome them. Have them speak there.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: On behalf of Mr. Fall, Ms. Rosenthal, the speaker and all members, we welcome our distinguished guests to the assembly chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Wonderful works that you're doing for the community and awesome for you to be here today. We thank you so very much for joining us. Again, please come visit with us again. Thank you so very much. Mister Fall. Madam speaker, do we

[Speaker 0]: have further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: We have a piece of housekeeping on a motion by mister Levine, page 32, calendar number two zero one, bill number a eight zero five two a. The amendments are received and adopted.

[Unidentified Member (Referred to as 'Mister Riley')]: We're doing lunch. We

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: have a number of resolutions before the house without objection. These resolutions will be taken together. On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed? No. The resolutions are adopted. Miss Walsh.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would you please recognize assembly member Smollin for the purposes of an announcement?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Smullen for the purpose of an announcement.

[Assemblymember Robert Smullen]: Well, thank you, madam speaker. There will be republican conference tomorrow, Wednesday morning. Time to be determined via Zoom. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Minority conference members, please make sure you check your email for Zoom time tomorrow morning, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, can you please recognize miss Clark for

[Assemblymember Phil Palmesano]: the purposes of an announcement?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss Clark for the purpose of an introduction.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Thank you. I am announcing majority conference immediately following session today in the Speaker's Conference Room. Majority conference immediately following session.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Majority conference, please make your way over here for immediate majority conference at the adjournment of session, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we will reconvene at 10AM, Wednesday, May 27, tomorrow being a session day.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: 10AM tomorrow on mister Faul's motion. The house stands adjourned.