New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: The senate will come to order. I ask everyone to please rise and recite the pledge of allegiance.

[Senator Steven Rhoads]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, In the absence of clergy, let us bow our heads in a moment of silent reflection or prayer. Reading of the journal. In

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk, identity unspecified)]: senate, Wednesday, 03/11/2026, the senate met pursuant to adjournment. Journal of Tuesday, 03/10/2026 was read and approved. A motion to Senate adjourn.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Without objection, the journal stands approved as read. Presentation of petitions, messages from the assembly, messages from the governor, reports of standing committees, reports of select committees, communications and reports from state officers, motions and resolutions, senator Gionnaires.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: Good morning, mister president. Let me begin by reminding my colleagues that today is an important day, in this chamber. Of course, I'm speaking of the fact that it's, senator Andy Lantz's birthday today. But celebrates you know what? His birthday with the passage of a one house budget. But not to, diminish senator Lance's birthday, but now he has to share it with, senator Zellner, senator Jeremy Zellner, who's new to this chamber, but also has a birthday today. Not Jeremy Cooney nor Zellner Myery, but Jeremy Zellner. Don't be confused. Okay. Motions. Mister president, on behalf of senator mayor, I wish to call up senate print five twenty four recall from the assembly, which is now at the desk.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: The secretary will read.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk, identity unspecified)]: Comment number two zero one, senate print five twenty four by senator mayor. An act from the penal law.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: Move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: The secretary will call the roll on reconsideration.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk, identity unspecified)]: Adabo, GNR Struger, Ortz, Zuka, and Zoner. Aye, 55.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: The bill is restored to its place on the third reading calendar.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: I offer the following amendments.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Amendments are received.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: On behalf of senator Scoopas, on page 15, I offer the following amendments to calendar three twenty three, senate print 15, as that said, retains its place on third reading calendar.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: The amendments are received, the bill retain its place on the third reading calendar.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: Mister president, there's a privilege resolution at the desk, senate resolution seventeen twenty two by majority leader Stuart Cousins. Please take that up and read its title. Secretary Will Reed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk, identity unspecified)]: Resolution seventeen twenty two by senator Stewart Cousins. Resolution in response to the 02/2627 executive budget submission.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: Mister president, this is the senate's one house budget resolution, by agreement with the minority. Debate will be limited to two hours. It will be strictly enforced. Our finance chair, senator Krueger, will lead the debate, for the majority, and we are ready to begin.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator O'Meara, why do you rise?

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Thank you, mister president. Wondering if, senator Kruger would yield for some questions, on this one house budget proposal.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Kruger, do you yield?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: I live to yield to senator O'Meara. Thank you.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Senator yields. That's a little concerning, but, we'll proceed. Anyways, thank you, senator. This the the one house, budget that we have before us here, it's it's very concerning to me, in the increase in spending, that we have here, considering that the, the governor, increased the budget, from last year, by little over $7,000,000,000 for this year. And now this one house adds and antes that up to $11,500,000,000 in overall spending, over last year, far outpacing the rate of inflation in the state or doubling the rate of inflation anyways. But the more concerning part is the state operating funds portion of this budget. State operating funds are increasing over 16,000,000,000 and that's state operating funds are the funds that we generate in the state with our own revenue sources, not flowing from the federal government. That's about an 11% increase in spending. That is over four and a half times the rate of inflation. How can we justify this this type of increase in spending and the state budget overall? And and how is this sustainable for New Yorkers and the affordability of living in New York State?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: Thank you, mister president. So I'll start out by pointing out, we've lost 9,000,000,000 in federal funds since the year before. Thank you, Donald Trump. And so, of course, we still have to make sure we are funding those programs. And so we have to deal with the reality that once what was once federal money coming into our state, often even bypassing our specific budget, but going into our communities is no longer going into our communities. And so they are crying out for us to help them through the state budget. So that's, I guess, more than half the question just there. Then while there is an inflation number, inflation often runs behind. And what it doesn't factor in, which we also have to confront, is that cost since a year ago seem to have gone up 20% much due to these tariffs. Again, thank you Donald Trump, that in fact the courts have now ruled are illegal and yet, the consumers have had to pay that cost in all kinds of ways. And even though the federal government's now been told they're supposed to give us that money back, Nobody has any idea if they ever will and how they will. We just know that the costs are skyrocketing for every consumer in New York, specifically because of federal decisions. And we don't assume that those costs are going down even though the tariffs have to stop because when do companies raise their prices and then reduce them later? They just don't. So everyone's costs are going up. Therefore, are more demands on the state of New York to come through for our citizens and our communities. And until this insane set of policies continue stop continuing at the federal level, I feel that this is gonna continue to grow. The most obvious new example is the war in Iran, the impacts already on the cost of oil. I will quote a staffer who was driving up to Albany on Monday. We happened to be talking on the phone on business. And they said, you know, I really have to fill my car up before I get to Albany because if I wait till Thursday or Friday, it'll probably have gone up another 40¢ a gallon and I can't afford that. I won't name the staffer, but I believe that that's exactly right. At the rate, the cost of oil is going up. Thanks again to, I believe, very bad federal policy, we're gonna just have to keep confronting new surprise cost increases. And we, the state of New York, are going to need to address those as best we can.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Thank you, senator. And I'm I'm glad you brought up, the actions taking place in Iran and and the impacts to gas prices at least temporarily, with that, which I believe, in the end will be, resulting in a net positive for us, in this country overall. But, you know, just two weeks ago, actually, morning later in the morning after this war in Iran broke out, we had a revenue consensus meeting in the state, which for those watching, that's governor releases the budget, and then the Assembly, the Senate, and the director of budget get together and determine an estimate of how much they think the revenues, extra revenues is gonna be by the end of the fiscal year that we can build into this budget. And that revenue consensus came in at $800,000,000. Correct?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: Yes. Above the governor's original proposal. Yes, sir.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Now this one house, increases, spending by $10,400,000,000 $3,800,000,000 more than, what that revenue consensus is. That's correct. So how are we making up that difference?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator, are you asking the senator to yield?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: I'm sorry.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Oh, yes. I

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: am. Okay.

[Senator Liz Krueger]: And I'm yielding.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank

[Senator Liz Krueger]: you. Yes. Those numbers are correct. Frankly, we are we are doing this again as a response to the first question. We need to help our people more. We need to help our municipalities more. And so we did increase revenue in our one house over what the governor projected. That was based on a number of things that I'm sure we will get into today of additional taxes or additional revenue streams beyond what the governor put in her executive budget. Not because we want to, but because we feel a necessity to help our municipalities and our residents with crises they are now facing because of the primarily of federal actions. And so it is not unusual for either houses, one house each year, to be higher than the governor's original proposal. And frankly, this is a one house because this is our hopes and dreams of where we can get to by April 1. People who've been here a while know, we usually don't get there, but we try because we wanna we want to ensure the people of New York understand what realities we're facing and what we're trying to get done even though some of the executive budget will change by April 1. It will include some of the things we are pushing hard for here. It won't include other things. But I think the question is why are we doing something and the answer is because that's why we do the one house.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Do you, mister president, if the senator will continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Will sponsor yield?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: Yes. I will.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yields.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: So we have a variety of tax increases, in this one house proposal to raise, an additional $5,600,000,000, in spending, which is, I guess, your wish list, as the senate majority here. Continuing not allowing, a business tax that was gonna sunset to actually sunset, not letting it go forward at the same rate without sunsetting it as the governor proposed in her budget. Yet we're increasing, the taxes on business, in this state at a time, when businesses, are struggling. How how much does that business tax extension and increase? How much does that add to the 5,600,000,000.0 in additional taxes we're talking about here?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: Sorry. I need my glasses. The price is very small. Slightly over $2,000,000,000.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: And can you tell us through you, mister president, can you tell us where then the additional $3,000,000,000 is being generated? Sponsor yield?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: Of course. Another large section, 1.7. 7,000,000,000 comes from decoupling New York State's tax policies from a series of changes. The Trump administration, created at the federal level to frankly reduce costs to, large businesses. So we are saying no. That's not good policy for New York State. We're not going to remain coupled as we have in the past. And that therefore adds to our revenue because we're not deducting it all of the Trump administration's model.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Thank you, senator. You know, I I guess, you know, I'm at least thankful that somebody in government is being responsible about, about spending. And while, you know, there may be some concerns over some actions that the Trump administration has taken, it's about responsibility and spending in government. It's about trying to improve the economy, of this country. It's about trying to return manufacturing to this country, which is critical, which we're seeing leave New York State weekly from the state to other states. Yeah. We continue to spend more and put more burdens on on businesses and households in just the cost of doing business, the cost of utilities, the cost of taxes, and every aspect of life. And I'm glad you recognized in your, kind of initial remarks that these these costs do get passed along by business because there's often a feeling in this body that the majority thinks that we can just raise these things on businesses and they're not passed on to consumers. When they are, every action we take that increases the cost of doing business doesn't mean that business is just gonna automatically accept less profit. It means they're gonna pass these expenses on to New Yorkers and to consumers. And that's what's been impacting the affordability, the lack of affordability of living and doing business, in this state. But, senator, in addition to generating this $5,600,000,000 in new taxes and revenues for the state, you have some actions in here to allow New York City to increase certain taxes. Primarily, a 10% increase on the unincorporated business taxes in New York City. And far more concerning than that, that's very concerning, far more concerning than that even is a 20% increase in tax on financial services firms in New York City. At a time that we're seeing job growth in the financial services industry in major areas across the country, Texas opening a Texas stock exchange very soon. These jobs moving to Texas, to Florida, to Tennessee. Yet we're gonna increase taxes on those firms by 20%. And while at the budget hearing, with, mayor, Mamdani, who is asking for these increases, you know, They showed a distinct lack of concern with financial service firms leaving New York State. And as they leave and those jobs go, the source of revenue for us and the city decreases. What what is your level of concern with the financial services industries departing from New York State? It makes up about 30% of our revenues at the state, not to mention what the city's generating for theirs off of it.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Did did the sponsor yield to that question?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: I will. Although he asked a whole series of questions, so I'm gonna go back to the first set of questions, which were not about the city tax changes, but overall tax proposals within this. I wanna point out that we tried to be very careful in the taxes we decoupled from at the federal level, and even some taxes that do have an increase for some companies at the state level. These are for large corporations. A few medium, but we recognize the unfairness of the New York state tax system because guess what? Every time we do lower taxes for the highest income companies who are doing frankly incredibly well, somebody else has to pay the taxes and it usually is the small companies And it usually is startups who are trying to move from small or even one employee to a larger company. So we were very conscious about trying to make sure that unlike the Trump policies and taxes, we were not going to transfer costs to our small businesses. We were going to try to make sure we were making our tax system both progressive and fair. And again, very importantly, stopping the leakage of all tax costs translating to small businesses who are trying to stay in New York and grow in New York. And in fact, I would argue, I wish we had gone much far farther and we did a little of it in challenging the kind of tax expenditures that we have in our system. So if you look at our state tax expenditure report, you will actually be able to find pretty easily billions of dollars that our largest corporations are not paying in taxes in New York because they have all kinds of special exemptions and credits and subsidies. I think we might be the state with the largest in the country at this point to the largest corporations. Amazon, for example. And trust me, they're gonna sell to us no matter what we actually make them pay fairly in their own taxes. They're not leaving New York. And many of the companies, even that the my colleague pointed out, they could leave New York. They still wanna do business in New York. They're still gonna sell to us in New York. And so a lot of these taxes, it actually doesn't matter physically where their locations are. They still owe us the taxes. So sometimes I get told, they'll leave. And you look at what the taxes are, and you go, well, guess what? You're still gonna have to pay those taxes. But okay, if you wanna double your cost by having to move everyone and build new warehouses somewhere, that's your business. But you're still gonna sell the products across the lines, New York, and we're gonna tax you then. So when you look at the big picture, our tax policies can be so much fairer and more progressive, and it will absolutely help our smaller businesses, our starting up entrepreneurs in New York. Because again, when somebody over here isn't paying their fair share of taxes, somebody else is. Usually the small guys and the individuals. So I want to do something about that. I want to do more about that. Now to shift to the New York City question. Thank you. So yes, the city of New York came to us and said help. We need help. And they put together a very long laundry list of possibilities. We said no to quite a few of the proposals because we thought those were not the best answers for New York City. New York City would have preferred, we just agreed to hand them the money. We do hand them some money in this budget. Right? Yeah. Because we owed them this money. We never gave them AIM since 2011. We stopped giving New York City its 900,000,000 in AIM in 2011 for financial problem period. We promised to give it back. We never gave it back. We cut our reimbursement on the administration of public benefits and social services. We promised to give it back. We never gave it back. We passed federal state laws at the state level to change the rules in child welfare programs and criminal justice programs for young people, and said this will be great. And then we told New York City, even though you're gonna end up taking the vast majority of these kids and the responsibility for making sure this model works well, we we invented, oh, governor Cuomo invented a way to claim New York City wasn't eligible to even file for it. So we've owed them a huge amount of money. And by the way, New York City's taxpayers send so much money here that they never get back. We tried to close that gap in a variety of ways, and I think that's absolutely fair and way overdue. So we said no to the city on many things. We tried to close gaps that never should have been there. But yes, we did give them permission to tax themselves and their businesses. And frankly, I think that they will think carefully about what they implement and don't implement. But if we don't give them the authority to do so, they can't. Because let's not forget. The only tax our municipalities basically can control themselves is their property taxes. And there are a few people who suggested raising New York City's property taxes by nine and a half percent. And I don't know about everybody else, but if you live in New York City, you really can't imagine a nine and a half percent increase in your property taxes. So will companies again, there are only large companies that are impacted. 5,000,000 and more, I believe. Do I really think they're gonna pick up and leave New York City? Some might, but the research shows that large corporations, and we're talking large corporations, don't make their business decisions or their location decisions based on local marginal tax rates. So maybe my colleague's right, this will be a problem. But so far, I'm not convinced. And I actually have not been hearing a lot from corporations that this is a problem for them. Just saying. Thank you.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Through you, mister president, the senator will yield. Sponsor continue to yield?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: Yes.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: The authority that we're giving in this one house budget to allow New York City to raise unincorporated business taxes and the taxes on financial services. What is the total expected revenue to be generated from those actions if the city pursues them to the 1020% increase that you wanna authorize them to

[Senator Brian Kavanagh]: do? The tax rate.

[Senator Liz Krueger]: So the tax increases that we're giving the city permission to do, at total, 3,100,000,000.0. I don't have a breakdown between those three taxes which is which. So we can get you the breakdown of what that 3.1 translates to, but I don't think we have that today. Is that right?

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Well, at least it do you, mister president, if we could get to that where you think actually, where we end up in the final budget bills by the time we get to debate those. That would be good to have that Absolutely. Type of overall impact

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Yep.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: To that. Now, another to you, mister president, senator will yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: The sponsor continue to yield?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: I'm sorry. I'm getting an answer to the previous question as we speak. So say this again. Corporations tax would draw in 1,500,000,000.0. $250,000,000 on the unincorporated tax change. Are the two. Answers.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Well, there's third one that I'm about to get to. So for you, mister president, and I'm not sure if that's the one you're thinking about or not. But there is a for you, mister president, if the senator will yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor continue to yield. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: There's another tax increase, in here on the transaction of the commodity of gold bullion, in this state, which New York State, has a large storage of of the gold, in this country, but certainly not all of it. And gold is transportable. You're authorizing, the implementation of a sales tax, on that commodity. I don't believe there's any sales taxes on the sales of any other commodities. How much is that sales tax supposed to increase on the trading of gold, in New York State?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: I believe I remember the number is 600,000,000 oh, you've changed. Hello. Sorry. I didn't notice I lost I traded staff. So it's 600,000,000 from the state tax that we would then collect. And I believe because we also allow the city to do this because I'm I I think I'm still answering the city question. I believe it allows the city to also apply the same sales tax, which I think is 300,000,000 for them. And yes, people are describing gold bars as commodity, but it's also metal. So if I go out and buy gold jewelry, and I love gold jewelry to be honest, I buy gold jewelry, I pay sales tax on it. And if I buy a gold bar, I don't pay that tax. And so it's just a perfect example for me of our decisions to prioritize some people having to pay taxes and some people not having to pay taxes. Because I remember when I came to Albany twenty five years ago, I think the gold tax the lack of gold tax was costing the state about a $100,000,000 in tax. And now we're up to 800,000,000. And the problem again, who's buying gold bars? Anyone here? Just curious. Anybody got gold bars? The New Jersey senator did. Your jewelry? No. I pay the tax when I buy my jewelry. Unless I'm buying a gold bar to melt it down to make my own jewelry, which trust me I'm not. So I don't even understand why we don't understand this kind of tax expenditure for certain companies and for certain individuals is justified because the rest of us are paying taxes even on the same product. And you know what? Gold bullion companies, they don't actually create jobs. I think they're three companies and somebody's pushing the golden bullion in and out of the bottom floor of several banks on Wall Street. But pretty much those are the only jobs. So it's not like even if they leave and go to a state that won't tax them, that we lose jobs. So please don't misunderstand. New Yorkers who wanna buy gold bullion are still gonna buy gold bullion. Don't kid yourself. But the companies say they'll leave. And I'm like, okay. We'll have some less crowded space in the basements of a few banks on Wall Street. And we really won't lose jobs. And we'll actually get more tax revenue that is needed for everybody who's probably not buying gold bullion anyway.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: So you, mister president, the senator would continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yields. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: I I'm really amazed at your lack of concern of jobs leaving this state, whether it's in the gold bullion, whether it's financial services jobs. My priority in this state that people live in New York and people have jobs to work at in New York, not that we just collect tax revenues from out of state businesses doing business in New York State. We wanna provide jobs for New Yorkers. And and on the gold sales, it's not the typical transaction where somebody goes in and buys a gold bar to take home and put on my mantle to show that I'm rich or whatever. It's not that kind of a retail transaction. They're generally on paper trades of the commodity very similar to stock transactions. So it's just it's gonna drive this business out. That's a really a minor factor in the whole thing here, but it's just one more example of the lack of concern with business leaving this state and taking those jobs with them. Moving on, senator, if you continue to yield, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: The sponsor sponsor continues to yield.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: In addition to the increase, in taxes that we're allowing to New York City, We have a significant amount of direct aid that you referenced a bit earlier in the AIM discussion that that you mentioned. The governor and her budget had proposed, I believe, a $1,500,000,000 assistance to New York City, for for the situation the financial situation that they're in now. And in addition to that now, this one house budget, by my read, the senate majority is adding another $693,000,000 for temporary assistance to the city, both through TANF, and for adult shelters on top of that 1,500,000,000.0. For the additional adult shelters and temporary assistance for needy families to New York City, how much is this one house budget increasing that for other areas of the state?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: Okay. So the adult shelter money is 500,000,000, and the temporary assistance to needy families, 193,000,000. And then there's also 263,000,000 for certain foster care costs. Several of these were cut from the city Of New York during the Cuomo administration, And so we see this as a replacement for money that was taken and never should have been taken. I don't know that this was cut from other localities. So this was not money taken away from other municipalities. It was just a, oddly, a democratic governor and a democratic mayor not liking each other, and the democratic governor deciding that he was gonna punish a democratic mayor in the biggest city in the state by cutting funds that he could get away with cutting.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: For you, mister president, the senator will continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yield.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Relative to this, additional 2,500,000,000.0 roughly now, I guess, with the other stuff that you added in there going to New York City, from our revenues in the state. My understanding that the governor's, when when she put forth the 1,500,000,000.0 for New York City for temporary assistance that she offered up a $100,000,000 in temporary assistance for the rest of the state. Have you increased that other assistance in addition to the $100,000,000 that the governor put in?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: One demand was that they numbered the pages this year for me. It's helpful. It's helpful. It is helpful. Have the Rochester's Mister president, my colleague is correct about what the governor did and actually happily as I review ours. We also increased financial assistance to Rochester and Yonkers by 40,000,000 each, but Syracuse by 30,000,000, and Albany by 15,000,000, all above and beyond what the governor proposed.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: Alright.

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: Well, thank you, senator. I've I've been informed that I I'm out of town, but I'm just gonna wrap up here out of time. Did I say out of town? Maybe both. But thank you for your your answers. This one house budget is fantasy, but it's a very scary and concerning fantasy for the future of the state of New York. I'm glad there's been some recognition, finally from, the senator on the other side of the aisle that, yes, these these increases may very well cause companies to move out of the state and take the jobs with them. That is a huge concern to us. The massive increases in aid to New York City, in addition to them allowing them to increase their taxes that they're gonna raise, is just patently unfair to the rest of the state. Well, maybe a couple of the, Upstate Thruway cities getting a little more money in the end, but the rest of the state is not. And they have needs just as well. You're worried about the mayor, threatening a a 10% property tax increase in New York City, and I certainly don't wanna see that. But I have municipalities in my district that are facing those same types of increases in property taxes to New Yorkers in my district and across the rest of the state, and they're not getting equal treatment. And my constituents and constituents everywhere in New York State are struggling under the unaffordability of living in this state. This budget that the governor's proposed and is then exacerbated by this one house proposal just makes New York State all that much more expensive and less affordable for New Yorkers to live. We need businesses here to provide jobs for people that live here because we're sick and tired of people leaving this state to find the opportunity elsewhere because we've taxed and spent our way into an unaffordability crisis in this state. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank you, senator O'Meara. Senator Gallivan, why do you rise?

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: I would like to, ask a few questions, mister president, on the Medicaid area of the budget.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank you, senator Galavan.

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: And I I also must say that, I'm very interested to hear of senator Krueger's hopes and dreams to have adopted a budget by April 1. I share that.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: I believe senator Rivera will

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: be senator Rivera yield for a few questions.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Rivera, do you yes. Yes, president. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: So when we look at Medicaid spending, we spend an awful lot. It's the biggest area of the budget. Fiscal for fiscal year twenty seven, spending is projected to be over a 100 approximately a $120,000,000,000. The state share has tripled in the last fifteen years. It's increased nearly 60% in the last five years, and this senate one house proposed budget increases the state share by 11.4% year over year. So the senate one house proposal increases Medicaid spending. It eliminates the Medicaid cap and removes several executive deficit reduction measures. My question is, how can you reconcile this approach with affordability and fiscal sustainability?

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Through you, mister president, first of all, I would I would remind us that what we're told when we're talking about Medicaid, we're talking about a program that is, is a safety net for so many working class and and and poor New Yorkers all across the state. We're talking about affordability. The cost of health care is one of the main drivers of unaffordability for basically it's something that could be said certainly for the entire country and certainly for the state of New York. But furthermore, mister president, I'd like to remind us that, the federal government is taking some immensely negative actions against the state of New York that seem punitive, in my view, mister president, that ultimately impact programs like this. This is not something that is just given away to just anybody. We're talking about, mister president, folks who need medical coverage. And so, yes, indeed, through you, mister president, there are increases that we are that we are proposing in this one house budget. But let us not let us not forget, that regardless of what we are what we're proposing as far as an increase, it in no way does it make up for the immense impacts that will be felt by the federal government's actions against the most vulnerable in our state, and certainly that includes those folks who are Medicaid recipients?

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: Oh, would the senator continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor continue to yield. I will. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: So the governor the executive proposal increased year over year state spending approximately 10%. And when she did this, she also alluded to the federal government and indicated that she backfilled the federal government cuts. The senate one house, however, not only not only, continues what the includes what the governor had put in, It includes an additional $630,000,000 in spending in Medicaid. Where's the $630,000,000 going?

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Mister president, the if the if if he could repeat the last part of your question, where is it going to or where is it coming from?

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: Executive budget, according to the executive when she presented it, back backfilled what she says were the federal cuts. The senate one house includes an additional $630,000,000. Question is, how where is that additional 630,000,000 being spent?

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Through you, mister president, the biggest chunk of that, would be for financially distressed hospitals, which I'll remind you, mister president, is not just something that impacts safety net institutions in the in the cities or in urban spaces, but certainly in urban distant in suburban districts and rural districts all across our state. There are many safety net institutions that are not just for this year, but over many years of disinvestment, falling on hard times. And so the extra money that we're proposing in this particular budget, number one, is is certainly in this the biggest chunk is for distressed hospitals. But, again, I'll remind everyone that, we are not making we're making a dent, certainly. But the amount the the way that I put it is the cuts that we already suffered, mister president, from the federal government are like a bat to the side of the head. But come January next year, there comes the axe for the other side of the head. And so we're trying to do our best with the resources that we have to, you say back the the the my colleague says backfill. I say try to avert the worst outcomes for the most vulnerable around the state.

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: Through you, mister president, will senator continue to yield? Sponsored yield? I do. Sponsored yields. Does the senate one house include any of its own cost saving measures In the area of Medicaid, of course.

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Through you, mister president, the goddamn. I keep doing that to the damn bottle. Let me just put it over here. There. Through you, mister president. There's there's language in the bill that refers generally to to working alongside with our assembly colleagues as well as the executive on finding efficiencies. There's no specific, outlined savings proposal per se.

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: Through you, mister president, would the senator continue to yield?

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Sponsor yield? Without flipping the bottle over, yes, I will, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yields. Quietly.

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: We've seen recently a number of investigations and audits that have identified significant amounts of fraud and improper payments across our system, the Medicaid system. Among them, $2,600,000,000 in Medicaid payments potentially made individuals who do not live in New York State. 196,000,000 improper payments under the non emergency medical transportation program. $68,000,000 involving a day care day care operators in Brooklyn, 3,500,000 fraudulent claims in Orange County among others. Does the senate one house budget do anything, given this documented fraud and improper payments? Does it do anything to specifically focus focus on strengthening program integrity and fraud prevention?

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Through you, mister president, there is there are a few ways in which the state of New York can and indeed does find people who are abusing the system, both, the office of medicaid inspector general, OMG, as well as in as a part of the attorney general's office that, that investigates these types of these types of crimes. And I'll remind my colleague that it is precisely the fact that we have investigated, and found people who are abusing the system that, any of the, the things that he said that he is referring to have been found. So certainly, none of us in this in this side of the aisle will ever defend those folks who are abusing a system, particularly one that, as I said before, not only serves the most vulnerable, but also is, on the brink of collapse because of the federal attacks to it. So I am I am all for identifying folks who are being fraudulent or abusing the system and certainly would, as they say, want the book thrown at them. And we have entities in the state of New York that do that sort of work. I thank them for it and certainly would do whatever we can to augment their ability to continue to do that.

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: Mister president, would the senator continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield? I will. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: So senators re referred to these people being caught. It's good that they're caught, through existing measures. My question has to do with our does the senate one house provide for any additional fraud prevention measures in it?

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Through you, mister president, the the budget itself doesn't have anything specific related to this, but I certainly believe that if there are entities either in the state level or in the federal level that are looking to identify, illegal and inappropriate actions and they're asking for information to be able to determine that, that we should provide it to them.

[Senator Patrick Gallivan]: Thank you, senator Rivera. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank you, senator Galatoufir. Senator Helming, why do you rise?

[Senator Pam Helming]: Thank you, mister president. If the sponsor would yield to a few questions regarding auto insurance.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: I believe senator Bailey will be responding. Senator Bailey, do you yield? Delightfully so. Senator Bailey yields.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Thank you. Through you, mister president, if senator Bailey will yield to a question regarding part f.

[Senator Jamaal T. Bailey]: Yields. Certainly, senator Homi.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Senator Bailey, in the executive proposal,

[Senator Liz Krueger]: was

[Senator Pam Helming]: The executive proposal included reforming the definition of criminal fraud fraudulent act and increasing penalties for crimes involving insurance fraud. Does the senate, one house, support those initiatives?

[Senator Jamaal T. Bailey]: Through you, mister president, the senate majority was very clear in our resolution language that we support making sure that we have a more affordable New York. And by all measures in the governor's budget, we applaud the governor for, taking the steps that she had, but we we have reasonable minds can differ and we differ in the way that the language was. The senate majority certainly looks forward to resolving this at the end of this budget process and making sure that concepts that have been placed in the in the in the original, executive budget that they are that they are resolved in favor of all New Yorkers.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Do you, mister president? The sponsor will continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield? Yes. Do. Sponsor yield.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Senator Bailey, what alternatives have you proposed to address auto insurance fraud and to hold back bad actors accountable in this one house budget?

[Senator Jamaal T. Bailey]: Through you, mister president, once again, that that the conversation is something that this majority has been very clear about. We've been contemplative through conversations, roundtables, through hearings, through discussions with individual stakeholders, with group stakeholders, associations, trade groups, anybody that is willing to listen, we've had the conversation. In the language as what that was presented by the executive, well intended language, the senate majority, again, in our resolution language has clearly indicated that we look forward to having an ongoing conversation about resolving the issues that you, senator Hellmink, had mentioned and many of our colleagues have mentioned because they come to us from our constituents. Our constituents, our family group chats, all of our conversations are related to the high cost of insurance and affordability and fraud. And our resolution language was was crystal clear that we intend to engage on ongoing and further discussion related to that.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Through you, mister president, if the senator will continue to yield

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yields? I do. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Senator, in part f or part g, can you point to the language that says that the senate majority intends to address this?

[Senator Jamaal T. Bailey]: And through through you, mister president, the the senate's resolution language that was not necessarily in that part was very clear. And and out of respect for the two hour debate limit, I'm not going to repeat everything that I said, but we are laser focused. I'll use another phrase to making sure that affordability is something that we, conquer in this budget. But it I think it was our resolution language was very clear.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Mister president, if the senator will continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Will the sponsor yield? I do. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Senator Bailey, why did the majority reject the executive proposal reconfiguring the New York Motor Vehicle Threat Theft and Insurance Fraud Prevention Board?

[Senator Jamaal T. Bailey]: Through you, mister president, for the same reasons in the prior iteration of the questions, when you have something that is as complicated and as complex as the issue of affordability as it relates to auto insurance, pointing at one particular thing or pulling on one string simply does that. This does not do that. There is no magic bullet to affordability. There is no one concept or one theory or one thought that will lead to affordability. We're excited and willing to have conversations about fraud, incidents of fraud, data around fraud. We do not accept fraud. We do not want fraud to happen. That is one thing I can certainly state. We are anti fraud. We do not want to have anybody doing fraud in our state. But the manner in which we should go about investigating it, looking at it, examining it is something that we should have further discussion about as we conclude this year's budget.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Thank you. Through you, mister president, if the sponsor will continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Will the sponsor yield? Certainly. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Senator Bailey, are you happy with the way that the New York Motor Vehicles Theft and Insurance Fraud Prevention Board is operating currently?

[Senator Jamaal T. Bailey]: Mister president, happy is a relative term. Happy ish is what leader Andre Stewart Cousins often says when we speak about these conversations. My my in all in all seriousness, my personal happiness is not what is of worth, is of measure in this, executive budget. What matters in this executive budget is figuring out how can we deal with affordability. And should we figure out a better way to deal with fraud and deal with crime as related to auto insurance? I'm certainly happy to have that conversation. Again, it is an ongoing conversation and and respectfully my personal happiness has nothing to do with the manner in which we, meet out solutions and measures in this, executive budget.

[Senator Pam Helming]: To you, mister president, quickly on the bill.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Helming, on the bill.

[Senator Pam Helming]: So maybe happy wasn't the right term. However, all you have to do is look at the New York State Comptroller audit of that board, the prevention board. They looked at a four year period and saw that the board is basically dysfunctional. They don't have a quorum present. They can't take action. The money that our ratepayers are putting into the fund to help control, deter, reduce fraud, and reduce insurance rates, a large portion of that every single year gets swept from the fraud prevention fund and goes into the general budget. So I think it's something that definitely needs to be addressed. But through you, mister president, the sponsor will continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield. Certainly. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Senator Bailey, in part f f, it appears that the senate intentionally omits the executive proposal to extend the time frame insurers have to report suspected fraud from 30 to sixty days. Why wouldn't the majority want to make sure that any suspected fraud that there's time to investigate it and to resolve?

[Senator Jamaal T. Bailey]: Through you, mister president, for the same reasons I've articulated it before. It it on paper, it may seem reasonable to you. And I don't even know what the what your position is and or your conferences position is, but let's say that for a second you did accept the governor's language. What is responsible legislating? What responsible legislators do is we take language, we review them, and we have conversation.

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: This is not to say that you're

[Senator Jamaal T. Bailey]: not a senate responsible legislator, senator Helming. I certainly know that you are, we've had responsible conversations. But it is up to us to be responsible and thoughtful and diligent and when we see a well intended, well thought out, reasonable argument, it's our job to continue the conversation about how exactly the end result comes.

[Senator Pam Helming]: You, mister president, on the resolution.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Helming, on the resolution.

[Senator Pam Helming]: So I just want to point out that I appreciate senator Bailey saying that the majority is going to work on the issue of reducing, preventing insurance fraud so that we can reduce rates to taxpayers or to ratepayers. But I'd like to point out that the language that the majority has included in the budget proposal is extremely weak. It doesn't make a firm commitment. It basically says hopes to continue working on this issue with its partners in the executive and assembly, and that's on everything. That's to hold back to act bad actors accountable, to reduce fraud. But I I'd like to go on the record as the ranking member of the senate insurance committee. I'm deeply concerned. The senate one house budget proposal intentionally abets every single just about every single proposal that would help reduce auto insurance fraud. This is a real missed opportunity to deliver reform and savings for New York drivers. We talk about, affordability all the time. This was an opportunity to take proactive measures to actually put savings back in people's pockets. Motor vehicle fraud and staged accident schemes are not victimless crimes. Every fraudulent claim drives up premiums and forces honest New Yorkers to pay the price. Stage crashes alone at about $300 a year to individuals' car insurance costs. In 2023, our state ranked second in the nation for staged auto crashes, with more than 38,000 suspected fraud cases being reported to the New York State Department of Financial Services. As a result of all of this, New York drivers pay some of the highest auto insurance premiums in the country. I did some research and found that for many New Yorkers, auto insurance now costs more than $4,000 a year. And for people who live in the New York City area, it is much, much higher than that. I heard a comment earlier that when companies raise their prices, the costs don't come down. Well, guess what? It's different with the auto insurance industry, and we have opportunities to bring those costs down. During the budget hearings, the Department of Financial Services confirmed that enacting reforms will significantly reduce auto insurance premiums. In total, the reforms that were omitted from this budget proposal by the majority were projected to reduce rates by about 12%. That's real savings that families, seniors, businesses, the municipalities we heard that we should be watching over, the school districts, those are real savings that we're walking away from. The senate majority rejected every proposal to reduce auto insurance fraud and lower premiums In place of real reforms, they offered only their hope to continue working on the issue. You know what? Hope doesn't pay anyone's bills. We need action to reduce insurance costs. And for these reasons and so many more, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help make our state more affordable and reject this budget resolution before us. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank you, senator Helming. Senator Matara, why do you rise?

[Senator Mario Mattera]: Thank you, mister president. With the this is on energy. With the sponsor, please yield for a couple questions.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: I believe senator Parker will be answering those questions. Senator Parker, do you yield?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: Yes, mister president.

[Senator Mario Mattera]: How are you, senator Parker? Quick question. You know, why is there nothing in the one house that reflects the governor's stated desire to roll back the elements of the CLCPA? This is like one of the most important subjects to all New Yorkers right now. What is happening with the utility bills? So why isn't there anything put in this one house?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: Do you, mister president? Actually, I think there's a lot in the one house as it relates to the CLCPA. I think we have stated opposition very clearly in this one house that we support the goals of the CLCPA. We're talking about law that was created in 2019 that we're in the process of implementing. And I think that we are going forward with a number of proposals that we think advance the goals of the CLCPA.

[Senator Mario Mattera]: Mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield, please?

[Senator Sean Ryan]: Sponsor yields? Yes, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mario Mattera]: Mhmm. Senator, with over 1,300,000.0 New York residents behind on their utility bills, in light of the recent and troubling NYSERDA memo outlining moving forward to CLCPA will have a very real financial impact in all New Yorkers. This is the time to see change,

[Senator Tom O’Mara]: and

[Senator Mario Mattera]: we see nothing has really happened with real impact on the real illogical mandates of the CLPA. Nothing to protect our residents from the all electric mandates. Nothing that increases increases all utility bills. This in the face of NYSERDA's memo, we know there was a memo that was out that said this this chamber said that that memo was false, but we know that it was totally true. Obviously, with gas prices going up spiking households throughout the state, we'll pay thousands more in businesses cost is totally increasing. What oh, again, what are we doing to help these 1,300,000 residents that are behind on the utility bills? Mister president,

[Senator Kevin Parker]: the reality is right now, we have a global increase in the prices of energy. Right? Because of a republican war that was unsanctioned by congress, and it has literally raised the prices of oil, gas, and natural gas, not just in the state of New York but throughout our country. Over the last week, we've seen gas raise to over 50% over 50¢ per gallon in the last week because of that war. And when we look at what raises prices of things like heating in our state, what NYSERDA will tell you, what the PSC will tell you, what the ISO will tell you is that that happens because of the globe the global price of natural gas, not because of sustainable energy. And so in this moment, the things that are actually happening globally actually emphasize the the the perspective that the senate democrats are coming from, which is that we need more sustainable energy in our state immediately in order to lower prices and to make us make our state energy independent.

[Senator Mario Mattera]: Through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield, please?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield?

[Senator Mario Mattera]: Yes. Know, not for anything, senator. That's this one week right now. This has been going on for, you know, what's happening right now since the CLCPA. We could talk about how the utility rates have gone up over a 100% in all areas in New York State. So stop the blame game all the time with the federal government. But you know what? Let's talk about the 2,000,000,000 plus, $2,400,000,000 that NYSERDA Clean Energy Fund unspent, and nearly 700,000,000 being held by utility companies waiting to be transferred to the Clean Energy Fund. Why is this happening? And why aren't we doing anything about that? Our conference is the one that brought this forward. And I'm still seeing nothing happening with that $2,400,000,000 going back to the ratepayers that are having a hard enough time like we talked about. There it is. 1,800,000,000.0 in arrears. But this is what we're doing gouging by having a big fund at $2,400,000,000. Why isn't there anything right now in this one house?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: Mister president, we actually have a number of measures in our one house bill that actually really address the real need of utility affordability in our great state. In fact, it's the democratic conference of the state senate that five years ago came forward with the first ever utility package, and we've passed it year after year after year in this very house with many of my colleagues, mister president, voting against it. Things that would provide deep affordability to their constituents as well as mine. And so you have seen not just some of the things that the governor has put forward, but in our one house, we've actually expanded the number of things that we believe would provide more affordability around utilities, and we're bringing them forward as things that we're gonna be negotiating in the final budget. And so, know, I I think that we're doing all that we should be doing, and frankly, more. But let's also be clear that the CLCPA and the plan hasn't even been implemented yet. So you can't even talk about like any raising of of utility prices being because of the CLCPA because we haven't we haven't implemented vast majority of of the things. And the big thing that we were gonna do, right, which was the offshore wind, once again got thwarted by Trump's administration. So time after time after time, we see the state of New York having to run to defense of New Yorkers because of a federal government that continues to turn its back on us, that continues to to go into into unsanctioned wars and create energy crises globally. Right? As we look at prices going up for all of our homes, even as we speak. And so in this moment, we look at this one house bill brought by this majority that says the way forward is to do the thing that we've already said we're gonna do. Right? Which is protect New Yorkers by providing clean, sustainable energy. And it's the law already. So what we're talking about doing is following the law. I know that this is a tough time for everybody, but this is New York. And when things get tough, New Yorkers get going. And what we're doing in this one house is our best efforts to make sure that we stay on course with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act because that's what we believe that we must do, provide leadership in our community and protect our climate while while simultaneously making sure that we have affordability, reliability, and meeting the energy needs of our great state.

[Senator Mario Mattera]: Mister president, would the sponsor still continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield?

[Senator Mario Mattera]: You know, you still didn't answer the question. You did not answer the question. Do you really feel I'm gonna ask you again. The $2,400,000,000 that's sitting with NYSERDA, should that go back to the rate payers that we talk about affordability? This chamber, that's what this budget was supposed to be about. That's governor Hochul about affordability. This is an affordability. I know it. Our constituents are suffering. Again, 1,800,000,000 people can't even pay their bills. What are we doing to give this money back to the ratepayer, senator?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: President, through you, what we actually know about the CLCPA and what we know about cap and invest, which is also the law of the land that still needs to be implemented, is that two things. One, high energy prices are due to the global increase in gas, natural gas, which has not been not been helped, in fact, exasperated by Trump's war. The second thing, that we understand that a full implementation of the CLCPA and a full implementation of cap and invest actually would lower prices for New Yorkers making $200,000 or less throughout the state. They would actually all benefit from it. And so what we're doing is advancing that long term goal. I get it. People want gimmicks. Right? And getting sending people a $30 check is a cute gimmick, but it actually doesn't create the structural kind of change that we need in our system. And that's what we're committed to, is really addressing the issues in a real substantial way. And so we stand here today proud of our one house because we understood the amount of time and effort and energy that both legislators and staff have put into putting these these ideas together, making sure that they are cost effective, and making sure that we are addressing the affordability crisis that we have here in the state, especially around utilities. And again, this is not something that we started this year on. We've you can look at the record. We've passed this, you know, for five consecutive years and and really tried to bring these issue, to the forefront. And so in this moment, what we're trying to do is say, use the resources that the state has to advance the agenda that the law has set up. Both the CLCPA and Cap and Invest because long term, our energy cost will be will be lower and our state will have the resources that it needs in in in order to meet the the growing demand for electricity in the state. Let me be very clear. If the CLCPA was not in effect, we would still have the need to produce additional generation. And how could you, this moment, argue that you should build more natural gas plants or coal plants or oil plants when the global price of natural gas and oil is what has everybody's energy prices so high in this moment. And so really the answer is sustainable energy. Right? And then I have always argued for all of the above approach as it relates to sustainable energy. Right? Sun during the day, wind at night, battery storage, hydro, co gen, all become part of a mix that will not just fuel our state, but also provide the kind of affordability, reliability, and safety that we all need and desire.

[Senator Mario Mattera]: To you, mister president, does the does the, sponsors still please, would yield for a couple more question because I I would appreciate that. I yield sponsor.

[Senator Steven Rhoads]: Sponsor, you know? And and

[Senator Mario Mattera]: senator Parker, that was that was great. That was a great whole story that you still didn't answer the question. New Yorkers want a refund. And you know what? You went on with that whole story, which was very, very nice about your wind, solar, which I have no problem with, that I feel that all wind and solar, you know, especially solar on buildings. But battery storage, like you said, you don't mind a battery storage facility on your building in Brooklyn, which we know it's nothing but an experiment. We all know that. So my question again to you is how do you feel about that we suspended the governor suspended the all electric buildings act in New York State? It should've happened in New York City, by the way, but in New York State because we all know that in other words, we can't survive. 75 of New Yorkers want natural gas and need natural gas because guess what? We all know why our utility bills are going up. But please answer that question for me about the suspension of The

[Senator Kevin Parker]: all electric. I am I continue to be entertained in this chamber by by people just creating numbers and saying what New Yorkers want. We all represent New Yorkers, And I don't have a bunch of people beaten down my door in my district talking about, we want natural gas. That's just literally not a thing. Right? Look. People want energy, and they want and they want they want reliable energy. They want affordable energy. They they are asking for us to to meet their needs, which is what we have done in this chamber on at least under our leadership. And so I'm hearing two separate questions. The first of which is about money's being held out of of or held by the utility possibly going to NYSERDA and what we should do with that. If you read our mister president, any, you know, close examination of our one house proposal tells you that our parts that address the the you know, what utilities should be doing through the PSC is that we should be examining these rate cases, really just having a real good look and not just giving rate cases a go just because they're brought forward. And in the case in which we find that the rate cases don't have merit and a refund is in order, we actually are suggesting in our one house that those refunds happen. The second question seem to to be about other things about energy. Let's be clear about this. We've been using sustainable energy in this state for a hundred years. Right? Frankly, the base of our sustainable energy program is actually hydro. We have some of the best hydroelectric facilities in the entire world, starting with Niagara Falls. Right? And so this is not like some new untested thing or, you know, as my colleague indicates, some kind of experiment. This is science. This is a known thing. This is known, as they say. Like we like to say in Brooklyn, is understood need not be explained. We have been doing sustainable energy globally for decades. And like I said, over one hundred years just here in this country. And so in this moment, we continue to be committed to the CLCPA and the goals of the CLCPA. We believe that what we should do be doing with the governor is working with her to look at the other options that that are available. We have not addressed the issues around demand response, is over 10%. There's lots of resources for us to do weatherization and, you know, remodeling of of buildings, in order to save energy. We understand in our Green College Jobs Act that we have not just, you know, not just that I wrote ten years ago that we have re upped, you know, for a number of years. It it it lowers people's energy prices. Right? It, you know, reduces our our footprint and also creates full time jobs at a living wage with benefits. And so the work that we have done around sustainable energy and the work that should be done with a full implementation of the CLCPA and cap and invest are gonna be really, really important not just for the future of the state from an energy perspective, but also for creating affordability not just with utilities but in the lifestyles of New Yorkers across our state.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Mattera, on the bill.

[Senator Mario Mattera]: Thank you, mister president. You know what? This budget is supposed to be about affordability. And you know what? This budget is just out of control. $16,000,000,000 more than last year and to do nothing to help our residents in New York State. Energy is one of the most important things topic today about people's utility bills. They can't afford them, and they look at their bills every day and say, what am I supposed to do? There's a reason why we have 2,500,000 people, residents of this great state that exited to go to Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, even South Dakota because of what's happening here. Gouging all New Yorkers in their pockets, in their pocketbooks. This chamber is doing this. I'm a very conservative person my whole life with Plumbers Local two hundred with with our pensions, making sure to make sure that people can survive. And you know what they're doing? Our workers are leaving. Our pension people are leaving. They can't afford to live here with that pension, especially what's going on here. Imagine that, a $270,000,000,000 budget, more than Florida, Texas, South Dakota, and North Dakota combined. We could talk about our energy needs all day long. Our NESE pipeline is finally coming in because it's a necessity. We had a meeting. We had a meeting before session started making sure that that NESE pipeline we proved that we need to make sure that NESE pipeline's here for the future of our natural gas so we could survive here with our energy needs. To go sit there and say all electric, it doesn't work. We put the cart before the horse. We need to make sure that we invest in our infrastructure first, then transition into. No. It's always the cart before the horse with New York State. But there's the governor again. There where she is. She sits there and she says, affordability. Last year, it was about discovery, and that didn't happen. I think we're gonna have a late budget, everybody, because of this situation, and I hope so. In other words, that we repeal the CLCPA. We repeal cap and invest. And you know what? Start over. Start over. New drawing board. That's how it's important, especially for our energy needs, for our future, for our ratepayers. They care about certain they want their own fuel choice. They want their energy choice. And you know what, mister president? I will be voting a big no on this, first of all, because it helps no New Yorker in their pockets, and that's what New Yorkers care about. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank you, senator Matara. Senator Walchik, why do you rise?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, I'd like to go briefly on the resolution and then ask, some questions on energy. Thank you. Senator Walchik, on the resolution. Mister president, in part r r of this budget resolution, the senate majority is using the clean energy fund, which is paid for by the ratepayers to pay for $2,000 rebates on used Teslas. In part s s, the senate majority is using that same fund asking people to pay for elect who pay an electric and gas bill, to pay for an $1,100 rebate for electric scooters and bikes. In part GGG, the senate majority is asking ratepayers to give out $2,000 rebates for heat pumps through NYSERDA paid for once again by ratepayers. In part I I I, you're asking ratepayers to spend $3,000,000,000 more on New York's sun to build a capacity of 20 gigawatts of solar by 2035. New Yorkers cannot afford their energy bills now. And with that, mister president, I would ask, someone on energy to yield for a couple of questions.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Parker, do you yield? I will. Thank you. Senator Parker yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you. Through you, matter through you, mister president, does this resolution use $2,000,000,000 in unspent clean energy fund and send them back to the ratepayers as been proposed by an esteemed member of our body?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: Mister president, not exactly. There are as I indicated in my, answer to, senator Mattera, there are instances in which we are directing the PSC in their examination of utilities and their rate cases when they find places where it's appropriate to send back rebut rebates sorry, refunds, they are sending refunds in. And through Sorry. They're directed

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: to send refunds. Mister president, would the sponsor yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Through you? I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president. Does your budget proposal here, have a one year tax and surcharge holiday as has been proposed by a colleague here?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: Do you, mister president? No. We do not.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, with the sponsor continued yield? Sponsor yield. Does Sponsor yield?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: Yes. I'm sorry. Yes.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Parker yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Does this one house budget resolution repeal the system's benefit charge as I've

[Senator Kevin Parker]: proposed? No. It does not, mister president.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Sponsor yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Does this budget resolution repeal any piece of the CLCPA?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: No, mister president. We we proudly stand by the CLCPA, we help negotiate and understand it as the most ambitious climate change law in the entire country, one that should be not just a model for The United States, but hopefully will create the dynamic in which we need to do a multinational understanding to save our planet and to lower our greenhouse emissions globally.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, with the sponsor continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: New Yorkers have been screaming about energy prices for the better part of a year and especially over the last few months. How much of a reduction, if your budget resolution, became law or became the budget in New York state? How much of a reduction in utility costs could they anticipate?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: Mister president, through you, we don't have an exact answer to that because we're still trying to figure out how much money utilities are overcharging our constituents, both yours and mine. And so what we are suggesting in our one house is to have some real answers around, those numbers. That way, we can understand how much savings, our proposals will, in fact, bring.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: You, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Yes. Sponsor yields. Does this one house budget resolution include, senator O'Meara's bill on rate payer transparency so they actually actually can see where every dollar on their bill is is going to all of these things?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: Mister president, we actually have a number of proposals that create transparency, including language from various members, including senator mayor, senator Hinchy, myself, and others that create the a level a significant level of transparency and accountability that does not currently exist either in the PSC or in the rate case process.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? Who is sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields. The concern is specifically on green energy mandates. Will people be able to see what green energy projects are being paid for out of their utility bill if any of those proposals, I didn't even see necessarily that they were included in this resolution if they are. Will we see any of that out of this resolution?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: Mister president, through you, the proposals that we have put forward in our one house actually requires an examination of projects that's currently not required either by the CLCPA or in current law. And so what we're suggesting is to create the kind of transparency that allows us to understand what projects are being are being paid for, how they're being paid, and and where that energy is is going. So we hope to to in fact do that.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: On on cap and invest, I don't wanna rehash, a lot of the things, but cap and invest, NYSERDA estimates will cost New Yorkers about $5,700,000,000 in additional each year. They say that the program will add $2.23 per gallon of gas. They say that each household energy cost can anticipate $4,100 a year in additional cost to the rate payer. They say that cap and invest will cost businesses 46% more in utility costs. They say that delivery trucks will cost 60% more to run. Is that affordable?

[Senator Kevin Parker]: President, I love Doreen Harris, but she they're absolutely wrong in this particular analysis. One, you can make numbers say almost whatever you you want them to say. Part of what's not happening here is a real build out of understanding where the program starts and where it ends. It also does not take into account, the money that's actually going back into communities because of, the care economy that's built into the the CLCPA I'm sorry, into Cap and Invest. And so there and also was not was not built into there is is funds that are used out of NYSERDA, which are off book and don't come out of the general fund that actually pays for most of the stuff that you talked about earlier with the clean energy fund and rebates that, in fact, get us to a place of less energy. We actually know that using electric vehicles actually saves people money. So creating a rebate that in fact does that actually helps them both with capital purchase, but more importantly with the overtime use of the vehicle will in fact reduce their energy costs. Heat pumps, the use of solar, whether community aggregated or utility scale is a is a much cheaper commodity for rate payers to use than oil or natural gas that they're dependent on now.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you. Mister president, on the resolution.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Wolchik, on the resolution.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: You know, Doreen Harris and NYSERDA has often been referred to as the experts that we're supposed to trust on these things, but it's amazing that we don't trust the experts when they show New Yorkers how much this is going to cost them. That is their concern. You're happy to you're happy to say, oh, the experts are all right on all of these climate models. But when we ask them how much it's going to cost, well, ignore the cost. You're ignoring New Yorkers right now and the experts. You don't wanna trust the experts there? The Department of Public Service reported in December 2025, this is before all of your offices started getting calls about angry rate payers over the cold months, that 1,400,000 customers in the state of New York were sixty days or more behind in their energy bills already. One in eight residential customers for our utilities were already in arrears in December. Imagine what that looks like today. People can't afford. They're not even paying their energy bills right now. I don't know how I could say it any louder or how I could emphasize it on their behalf anymore. They can't pay what you've already done and you're asking them to do more. And you've ignored compromise. There's 63 senators in here. 29 of you have signed on to a letter saying we don't wanna move on the CLCPA. Got it. Guess what? That's no longer the majority. The majority in this body says we do want changes to the CLCPA. The majority of New Yorkers that can't afford it say that they want changes to the CLCPA because they can't afford their utility bills now. You have an obligation not to respond to me, to respond to the people of the state of New York who are saying what you're doing is unaffordable. And in your one house budget resolution today, you've completely missed that opportunity. Stop raising our energy prices. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Walcic on the resolution. Senator Borrelo, why do you rise?

[Senator George Borrello]: Thank you, mister president. I would like to ask a question about HMH article seven, New Part KK, the gender affirming care access program. If somebody would answer that question.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: I believe senator Rivera will be responding. Senator Rivera, do you yield to questions? I yield. Senator Rivera yields.

[Senator George Borrello]: Through you, mister president, this is a new program, that was created, the, gender affirming care access program. Does this gender affirming care access program you're creating, and funding allow minors, to receive gender affirming care?

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Through you, mister president. Gender affirming care, I should say, age appropriate gender affirming care, is a necessary thing for people all around our country and for, in this case, young people in this state and around our country. I understand that my colleague perhaps or certainly, you know what, I will not speak of my colleague, but certainly folks on the other side of the aisle like to paint this terrible picture, this horrible scene in which in which kids are manipulated into trying to become something that they are not, where they're operated on without their consent or their parents' consent or some other terrible thing. As opposed to that gender affirming care, mister president, age appropriate gender affirming care is making sure that when there are young kids who are going through a situation in their lives where they're trying to find out who they are, they can be supported, not through operations or other things that some folks in the right have been trying to to make seem like it was happened. No, no, no. What we're talking about is age appropriate, gender affirming care, make sure that kids and their parents who are going through a situation in which they're trying to figure out who they are can be supported. And when they reach the appropriate age, mister president, and under medical supervision, they could potentially have medical procedures, have drugs that they might take, etcetera. So just I just wanna make sure that as far as a definition of what we're talking about, that is what we're talking about. And so when we're when we speak about gender affirming care. And as far as this as this is concerned, as this particular program or part in the in the budget, it is it is a very it is similar to a bill that is carried by one of our colleagues here in this in this chamber, senator Gonzales. And it would be it would create a fund that would be available for to support parents and children that are going through, through this type of situation. So it would indeed, mister president, impact minors. It would indeed impact folks who are not 18, but it would indeed include their parents and would indeed be done with professionals who care deeply about these young people and the situations that they're going through.

[Senator George Borrello]: Mister president, sponsor continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Will the sponsor yield? I do. Sponsor yields.

[Senator George Borrello]: Alright. So you confirm that children under the age of 18 will have access to this. But you brought up parents. So can you explain to me where in here it requires parental consent and parental notification to get that care? I don't see that here.

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Mister president, this current proposal does not change anything in current state law, and current state law requires this parental consent. But, again, there's a a reference, a, an inference that people are supposed to make from this conversation, from the types of questions that are being asked. And I repeat again, we are not talking about some horror version of some, some transformation that happens to people without them wanting it. We're talking about young children who, yes, are 18 and therefore still under the parents' care. We're talking about the type of age appropriate gender affirming care that might be given to them. Does not necessarily include surgery, does not necessarily include pharmaceuticals, but it does include care for those individuals and a respect for who they are. So there's gonna be all sorts of inferences, but the direct question the direct answer, mister president, is that there's nothing in reference in this particular part that refers to parental consent, but it does not change anything in current state law which refers to parental consent.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield. Sponsor Sponsor yields.

[Senator George Borrello]: I think it's very clear that there is no parental consent required. It's happened time and time again. In fact, schools are prohibited from telling parents should a child come to them and talk about, you know, their their gender issues. So I guess I'm gonna ask the question then, what part of the law in New York State outside of this bill would require parental consent before a child could get, life changing surgery or medication?

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Mister president, through you, I will say it once again, and now my colleague says it directly. There is no situation in which there will be some sort of transformation without a process that an individual goes through. This is I have a I have a trans niece, mister president. A trans niece who lives in the worst place to live in this country in this moment for her situate, Florida, mister president. After the election, reelection of the person currently sits in the White House, She works at a at a an album pawn or something like that. One of these one of these places makes French sandwiches or whatever. Person or a red hat, somebody wearing a nice red hat, orders a sandwich, sees my niece making the sandwich, and then proceeds to berate her loudly and publicly in the restaurant saying, don't want that, and then said a slur making my freaking sandwich. Had to be escorted outside. My niece had to go back home. This person felt empowered to say these things. I believe that what we're talking about here, while it may be couched in a conversation about this particular piece of the one house budget proposal, has this broader stigma attached to it. As if though when we say gender affirming care, we're talking about kids being taken away from their parents and being transformed without their consent. That is not what gender affirming care is, regardless of what my colleagues believe or what certainly people in the right believe. And so I once again will say, there's no one who was snatched from their parents' arms and transformed into something that they're not and taken away from their families. That's not what gender affirming care is. It never was. It never has been. And this certainly does not provide for anything like that to happen in the state of New York. As opposed to that, it proposes the creation of a fund which would support individuals, parents and children that are going through this process so that they can do so with care and with love and with support.

[Senator George Borrello]: Mister president, on the bill.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Barrella on the resolution.

[Senator George Borrello]: So I really didn't get any real answers to the questions, but I appreciate your stories. There's another part of this bill that's also concerning for me. I was gonna ask the question, I'm not gonna get it answered. And that's the fact that this money could be used to help pay for doctors' liability and malpractice insurance. And we all are aware of the fact that there was just a recent New York case where a jury awarded $2,000,000 to a gender transition patient who was transitioned as a minor. But later, courts determined that she had been unlawfully pressured and the doctors ultimately were found liable of medical malpractice for pushing her to have the gender affirming surgeries. So now we're gonna allow more of that, and we're gonna cover the cost for these doctors to do this. What's interesting about this is this. In New York State, you have to be 21 to buy alcohol or marijuana. You have to be 18 to get a tattoo. If a minor wants to get their ears pierced ears pierced, they have to have parental permission. And when they go there, they actually have to have a copy of the child's birth certificate, the parent needs to present their photo ID to prove who they are. Shocking. But if a six year old decides that today, I don't think I'm a boy anymore or I'm a girl, that can happen with no safeguards in place. And this fund this fund will allow that to happen. Now I don't have an issue with someone who's an adult, who makes an adult decision about something that is irreversible, irreversible. But I do have an issue with a child doing so. And that's the problem with this. It's reprehensible, and I'll be voting no. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Ashby, why do you rise?

[Senator Jake Ashby]: Good afternoon, mister president. Would the appropriate senator yield for questions regarding HMH part h?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Rivera, we'd be yielding to the questions. Senator Rivera, we yields.

[Senator Jake Ashby]: Through you, mister president, this has to deal with material transactions. There had been in place a $25,000,000 threshold. Now additional regulations will be in place, when they exceed $100,000,000 or when deemed necessary. Has there been any consideration to what this will do in terms of increasing Medicaid expenses?

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: President. So this this particular part of the of the, of the one house budget proposal has to do with what are known as material transactions. In the state of New York, we would, we not only have it in law, but we certainly want to make sure that as many of our dollars go to actual care as possible. The reality is that in some situations so I should back up to so for that to be the case, we wanna make sure that, facilities that provide care, should be owned by folks who provide care. But unfortunately, some of the ways that it works sometimes because private equity gets involved, as you know, mister president figures out a way to make money somewhere. There's sometimes where there's all these sorts of transactions that happen when the cousin or the niece or the nephew or the brother or the father then owns the building and then rents it out and then the cleaning company that's owned by this and this, all sorts of things that might happen there that ultimately mean the dollars that should go from the state of New York to to care instead are going to fatten the pockets of somebody who's just figured out how to how to move the, you know, the stacks around so that so that they can make some money in in by by owning a building, then renting the building to themselves and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. So, the the 100 millions that we're talking about are for the sake of the Department of Health, and they have the discretion, to use as much as that, to do further investigations, further searches, if you will, to determine whether these types of things are happening. So that's ultimately what this is about. This is not about more money being charged to to for to taxpayers, etcetera. It's about allowing the Department of Health to have a pot of money that they would have the discretion to use to further these investigations to determine, whether the law is being followed.

[Senator Jake Ashby]: Through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Jake Ashby]: So I'll take that as a no. In terms of the length of time to delay these transactions, it's a hundred and eighty days. It's six months. And certainly, I can see this being applied when there are bad actors. Right? But in many instances, there are not bad actors. And in rural areas, for example, and in non rural areas, there are non bad actors where when they face this hurdle, they're simply going to close rather than merge, then leaving their patients in deserts, health care deserts. Has this been examined?

[Senator Gustavo Rivera]: Mister president, certainly, I'm I'm we should we should consider the conversation we had a little earlier about extra money that we're putting into the budget that into this one house budget proposal that some of my colleagues criticized that has to do with providing support to distressed providers. I'm certainly aware of of provider of parts of the state that are that are health care deserts or that have or have a dearth of services. But but in this case, what we're saying is that it is in it is this is not intended to this is not intended to stop the folks who are good actors. Instead, it is meant to to dissuade those who are bad actors. And the and we found that that that is ultimately the goal of this, and it is not to dissuade individuals from acquiring health care facilities if they're going to do so. But we just want to make sure that we have a little bit of extra time to make sure that if these types of exchanges are happening, that they're being done as a say as as a way to make sure that more care can be provided and not just so more money can be made by certain people that are might be in the that might be involved. And I certainly think that that's a good thing that the state should do.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Ashby, on the resolution.

[Senator Jake Ashby]: Mr. President, what will eventually happen with this is that the patients who are unable to be seen because these mergers being denied over a six month period, huge fines being in place, is they will go to the hospital to be seen, which will drive up medical costs because everybody in this body knows that hospital costs for health care and Medicaid are higher than a physician's office. And that doesn't just have to be with primary care, that's specialty care as well. So that's cancer care, That's OB care. That's across the board. Driving them into a setting that is more expensive will drive up Medicaid costs continuously. I will be voting no. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank you, Senator Ashby. Senator Barrella, why do you rise?

[Senator George Borrello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Coming up for a second time here somewhere in this sport coat, had to. So, would somebody answer a question on Part VV for me? VV? Oh, what? Good question. I didn't get that part. It's a question about you're striking the word citizen in that section. I'm not sure. We'll come back around later. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Gianaris.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: Thank you. And as we search for the section of the resolution that Senator Brill is referring to, let me remind everyone we are now fifteen minutes away from the two hour mark. And so with the remaining members who have questions, just understand the time frame. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Martins, why do you rise?

[Senator Jack Martins]: Thank you, mister president. I had a question or a few questions on secret, and I was hoping someone would answer just a few questions.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: I believe senator Harkom will be responding. Senator Harkom, do you yield?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: I do, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Harkom, yields the questions.

[Senator Jack Martins]: Thank you, senator. This proposal differs, from the governor's proposal. Isn't that correct?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Mister president, it does. It, narrows the focus of what the governor was trying to do. We we base, through you, mister president, our notion of what this should be on a bill this chamber passed before senator Mayville, much narrower focus, multifamily housing focused on urban and semi urban infill as opposed to sprawl and other projects that the governor, had included. Through you,

[Senator Jack Martins]: mister president, if, the senator would continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Jack Martins]: This bill would or this provision, would effectively determine that, there is no impact, under certain circumstances for the construction of multifamily homes and communities. Isn't that right?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Through you, mister president, it would it would do a few things. One, it narrows and puts a finite timeline on the environmental impact statement. So that would be limited to a year and then, yes, essentially, if if, a property had been, developed, redeveloped, and and was an infill site, yes, it would effectively do that as opposed to, you know, a a new virgin site that would be, that would be a different thing.

[Senator Jack Martins]: Mister mister president, through you, if the senator will continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Jack Martins]: So if we tear down houses to build multifamily housing, that property has already been disturbed, and therefore, there would be a presumption given certain parameters that are in the language of this provision that that could be built without consideration of the impacts because it would be determined because of the language of this bill that there are no impacts.

[Senator Pete Harckham]: You, mister president, it it could require, necessitate an exemption from secret, but it does not, exempt whatever the project is from the regular local zoning and planning and other environmental regulations that there may be, either statewide or through the municipality. Thank you, senator.

[Senator Jack Martins]: Mister president, on the bill on this resolution.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Martin's on the resolution?

[Senator Jack Martins]: So that's that's the issue with this particular piece is that it presupposes that the local government, through their permitting process, has the same effect of secret, which it doesn't. K? Anyone who understands the process and the burden that this places on our local communities, on our villages, and towns, and cities has to understand that merely saying that you can build 200 units in a community of less than 90,000 people without doing an impact statement and allowing for people and the developer to mitigate those costs is a mistake. Whether it's water resources, sewer resources, whether it is, the impact on the local community, and whether it's a right fit, height, density. It doesn't speak to how big the property has to be, how many units per acre. It just says in a community, and there are various stages here, you can build up to a certain amount with no impact. Now the consequence of that, mister president, not only is that we're taking away the opportunity for a local community to properly gauge what the impact is, and and they have every right to do so. But if you understand land use and you go beyond what the secret requirements are, if they go and ask for a variance and an area variance, mister president, part of the determination of an area variance in a community is whether or not the impact to the community are offset by the benefit from the project. And if you were to presuppose that there is no impact from the project, you are already putting your finger on the scale and forcing that community to build, and you are undermining zoning in every community of this state. So for those of us who are concerned about the environment, if you are, and I know, senator, you are, how do we do that and not allow for those items to be properly measured and properly determined in a way that is respectful to that local community? This is a mistake. CEQUA can and should be streamlined, but this goes too far. Mister president, one more series of questions with regard to PPGG part l and PPGG part m having to do with immigration if the sponsor would yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Yes. I believe senator Myrie will be responding. Senator Myrie, do you yield? Yes. Senator yields.

[Senator Jack Martins]: Thank you, senator. I noticed that these parts were eliminated from the governor's budget altogether. Is that because the majority disagrees with the governor and feels that the governor has gone too far with regard to these provisions and therefore wants no part of it? Or is it because you believe that the governor's provision doesn't go far enough and you wanna address it outside of the budget? Which is it?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Mister president, and and I appreciate the question. I think we make clear in our resolution language that we are concerned about some of the actions that we have seen, some of the constitutionality questions, some of the immigration enforcement that has had, disproportionate impacts on particular communities throughout the state. And this is a complex area of law. We have, as a state, taken action in this space six years ago when we passed the protect our courts act that was challenged in our courts and upheld as constitutional. And so the state has an ability to exercise its constitutional power. We respect and appreciate the constitutional power that the federal government has in the immigration space. And because of that, we think that this is a conversation that should be happening outside of the budget.

[Senator Jack Martins]: Through you, mister president, if the senator would continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: With sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Jack Martins]: So is the majority taking a position with regard to the language? Is it is it not does it not go far enough? Or is it just too much and therefore you believe it the governor has gone too far? I'm just looking for clarity with regard to the majority's position in repealing or removing these sections from the resolution. Through you, mister president, our majority leader, I think, has

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: been clear publicly about the sentiment of our conference, in wanting to move forward on policies surrounding immigration. I will note that the governor herself put this conversation outside of the budget by introducing three program bills, which to us indicates that she wants to have this conversation outside of the budget as well. So we look forward to working with the assembly and the governor to, make that happen.

[Senator Jack Martins]: And of course oh, through you, mister president. And of course, I'm sure the senator remains with every senator in this chamber as well. Thank you very much, and thank you, senator. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Barello, why do you rise?

[Senator George Borrello]: I'm back. I do have the section now, part b v of Ted.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: I believe senator Harkom will be responding.

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Mister president, sorry. Scribbling my notes. I apologize, mister president. Apologize, senator.

[Senator George Borrello]: Will the sponsor yield for a question?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Will the sponsor yield? Absolutely. Sponsor yields.

[Senator George Borrello]: So interesting that, 19 times in this section, you struck the word citizen and replaced it with community. Can you explain why?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Thank you, mister president. Through you, just it's a broader term. It's more inclusive.

[Senator George Borrello]: Alright. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Oberacker, why do you rise?

[Senator Peter Oberacker]: Thank you, mister president. I was wondering if I could get a answer to agriculture.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Krueger, will you be responding?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: I'm gonna fill in for

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: agriculture. Okay. Do do you yield, senator Krueger?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: Yes. I do. Okay.

[Senator Peter Oberacker]: Thank you. Through you, mister president, and, I would like it duly noted the fact that my question, senator Krueger, will pertain to meat processing and meat processing plants. And the fact that I am dressed as a cattlemen today is strictly a coincidence, that I would like duly noted. So with that, senator Krueger, the one house fails to include funding for meat processing grants, and farmers have continued to express their concerns around the meat processing availability in the state. So my question is, through you, mister president, why did the senate fail to include another round of funding for meat processing grants?

[Senator Liz Krueger]: Through you, mister president, I will openly confess we predicted this question and senator Hinchy and I were able to have conversation so I would be prepared for you. So thank you for asking the right question. So to answer, we created a funding stream previously to provide a grant program a few years ago to meet these needs, and it was a senate ad. It's been very successful. And in fact, the funding was oversubscribed. So we did another year. That hasn't gone out yet, but it's going out very, very soon. So I'm just reading the notes. The program was for the first time oversubscribed. We did a second round. It should be going out the door soon. Ag and Markets did an RFP at the Hudson Valley Agribusiness Development Corporation is who distributes the money, and we have also funded them in the budget as well with a line item to help them with ensuring that this program continues to move forward and that the money does get spent. And I suspect if we were to ask senator Hinche on another day, she would say, sounds like we'll probably wanna fight for this yet again next year.

[Senator Peter Oberacker]: Thank you, senator Krueger. On the res o, mister president.

[Senator Liz Krueger]: Thank

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: you. Senator Obraker on the resolution.

[Senator Peter Oberacker]: Thank you for for that answer. Mister president, you know, our farmers, spend a lot of time, effort, and of course, money into, getting their cattle ready to be sent to market. Any day after that is a maintenance program, which is extremely expensive and would also be an issue when it comes to quality. We have a saying, we say no farms, no food. Well, in this case, if we don't have the availability to process that food, we won't have the farms. So with that, I was thank you, senator Krueger, for that, and, I would encourage all of us to, get behind this type of, movement. So, mister president, thank you very much.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank you, senator Oberacar. Senator Rhodes, why do you rise? I speak on the resolution. Senator Rhodes, on the resolution.

[Senator Steven Rhoads]: Thank you, mister president. I wanna thank all my colleagues for the, for the debate today. I did have some questions, but I'm just gonna speak on the bill. I have heard the word Washington come out of the mouths of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle more than I've heard about Albany, more than I've heard about our constituents. We're ignoring the problems that we're creating right here in this chamber. We talk about policies that are coming out of Washington. Let's took take a look at what New York has done since 2019 when you've been in charge, where New York stands in comparison to every other state. We have the second highest total tax burden between income, property, and sales tax in the country. Highest individual tax burden in the country. Fourth highest property tax burden in the country. We are residential electricity rates are 50.7% higher than the national average. Commercial electricity rates, 61.6% higher than the national average. Home prices, 27% higher than the national average. Auto insurance, 41% higher than the national average. Child care, 17.6% higher than the national average. We have the second worst business climate in the country. The tax foundation ranks us dead last dead last in tax competitiveness. We are number one in outward migration. We've lost a million of our residents since 2020. One New Yorker leaves this state for somewhere else every two minutes and twenty three seconds. And what do we do with this bill today in our chamber? We make it worse. We raised taxes by $5,600,000,000. We raised taxes on small businesses. We raised taxes on large businesses. Rather than telling New York City to tighten its belts, we bend the knee to the whims of our socialist mayor providing direct aid and tax authorizations for another $5,100,000,000 on top of the taxes that we're already raising. We do nothing about Medicare fraud. Empire Center says that we spent two point said we spent $2,100,000,000 on non New Yorkers. 3,000,000 people more are on the roles than are financially eligible for Medicaid in New York state. We do nothing about NYSERDA. Democrats' radical environmental policies will cost the average New Yorker $4,100 a year. We'll raise the price of a gallon of gas within five years by an extra $2.23 a gallon. We do nothing about it.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank you, senator Rhodes. Appreciate your time, but we have reached that two hour mark where debate is now closed. We'll call the roll at this time.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk, identity unspecified)]: As

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: we go into vote explanations, I remind the house that we are limited to two minutes per member to explain your vote, and we will be looking to maintain that two minute time frame. Senator Ryan to explain his vote.

[Senator Sean Ryan]: You know, I wanna talk a little bit about why I'm gonna vote for this is about talk about energy. I think it was said that with respect to energy that not one thing was done for New Yorkers. I disagree with that. I take exception to that. I believe that we are passing a bill that adds additional inappropriate utility expenses for its review for the Public Service Commission. We are requiring utilities to return revenues in excess of their authorized return and equity back to taxpayers. And we're going to modify the executive proposal to limit utility recovery of retroactive rate increase charges back to ratepayers. I think that's a good thing. It's transparency, and I'm dismayed as to why anybody would be voting against that. Second, I wanna tell you a little bit about we talk a lot about energy prices and affordability, And I think there's a lot of conversations. And I think, quite frankly, a lot of misinformation. Quite frankly, I think a lot of it's disingenuous. I had a little I'll tell you a quick story, and this is why I'm talking. I had a little epiphany over the weekend. I happened to be visiting my brother and sister-in-law in the great state of Pennsylvania. My brother-in-law happens to be in the banking business and the commercial lending business. We talked about energy. We're talking a little bit of politics. And he said, you know, hard. A lot of people aren't borrowing so much money because businesses aren't because of the cost of their natural gas and business and the utility bills. Point to that story is I would remind everybody that Pennsylvania is having the same problem that we are, and guess what they don't have? The CLCPA that everybody keeps blaming that on. So I also want to talk about the NYSERDA report that everybody keeps talking about. There's also another report to the New York State independent operators, which talks about the the price of utilities, the volatility of the gas market. And as I say back home, yes, You don't have to be an economist to understand that when the price of gas goes up and it's a colder winter and you use more of it Thank you, senator then Roy. It's gonna

[Senator Kevin Parker]: go up.

[Senator Sean Ryan]: Let's talk about the inconvenient truth. Start telling.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Tedisco, to explain his vote for two minutes.

[Senator Jim Tedisco]: Mister president, my colleagues on that side of the aisle in 2019, I believe, and for the last seven, eight years have had the trifecta with the assembly. You control all levers of power. 2122, 2324, Joe Biden was the president. It was budgets like this over the last eight years where you had full control, and the taxpayers should know that, of government, all levers of power, that we were number one in out migration, one of seven states that lost another representative in 2022 when Joe Biden and you were in total control. We're projected to lose two more representatives in 2032. And this is mister Rhodes talks about, senator Rhodes. This is interstate migration in minutes. How fast are taxpayers leaving states in four we're 48. Every two minutes in fifty three seconds, twenty three seconds, somebody leaves the state of New York, not to go to Disneyland or take a vacation, to live in another state. Only California is one minute and forty four seconds. 48 other states retain people. That exodus is gonna continue. You've all seen Casablanca where the sheriff walks in, clogged grains. I'm shocked that there's gambling in this casino. Humphrey Bogart, you're shocked with the governor that there's an affordability problem? You created the affordability problem. And I don't know. I sent this to all the media. I haven't heard a word about it. If I was in a state where every two minutes or so people walked out, I would be talking about that. And I think this is another thing that's gonna create an exodus. We're not gonna be the empire state, and it's a beautiful state. People should be staying and coming here. We're gonna be the empty state if budgets like this continue with more taxing and spending. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Todisco to be recorded in the negative. Senator Murray to explain his vote for two minutes.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you, mister president. I I actually was gonna get up and ask some questions, but I understood we ran out of time. So I just wanna point out one particular portion of the resolution, the SAFE by Design Act. And listen, when we talk about business and small business and the things the that we impose on them, I don't think it's done for nefarious reasons or bad reasons. In fact, I think it's for the most part, it's it's the it's good intentions, but it's the understanding of what the implications those good intentions have. So here's what this says it is. By the way, all of these pages are describing this act. But it says privacy by default. No operator shall offer a covered platform in the state without con conducting age assurance to reasonably determine whether a user is a covered minor. So we go to what's a covered platform? Well, that shall mean an online platform. Well, what do you mean by online platform? Well, that shall mean a public or semi public website, online service, online application, or mobile application, that, and then we go on to all these subsections. At the end of the day, I'm a small business owner going, wait a minute. Am I gonna have to do this? Am I am am I gonna have to implement this? How much is it con gonna cost? How quickly do I have to do it? If I don't, what's the penalty? This is what we do to small businesses in New York over and over and over again. For that reason and the increases in taxes and everything else, I'll be voting no on this resolution. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Murray should be recorded in the negative. Senator May to explain her vote for two minutes.

[Senator Rachel May]: Thank you, mister president. It has been quaint hearing our colleagues across the aisle preach fiscal responsibility and affordability while they and their party cede absolute unchecked power to a man who is literally burning through billions of dollars a day with an illegal war, with masked thugs in our streets, with building concentration camps for immigrant children, lining his own pockets and the pockets of his billionaire buddies while he's picking the pockets of my constituents, the farmers and small business owners who have to navigate between his tariffs and trade wars and now spiking costs of gas. And the institutions that are linchpins of many of our Upstate economies, higher education, hospitals. He is targeting them with precision trying to ruin their business models. With this budget document, we are asserting that New York is still a civilized state where we feed the hungry, house the homeless, care for children, and invest in infrastructure, agriculture, environmental protection, science, and public health, and where we defend our immigrant neighbors, trans young people like my son, and the rule of law. I vote aye.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator May, to be recorded in the affirmative, senator Harkom to explain his vote on the resolution.

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Thank you very much, mister president. First, I wanna align my comments, with senator Ryan. Thank you very much, sir. Couldn't have said it better. Just a couple of quick points. This $2,400,000,000 that we keep hearing about that needs to be returned to rate payers, it's fictitious. We should not be selling red herrings to our constituents. That money is accounted for. It's going to programs. Just because it's sitting in an account does not mean it's targeted not targeted for for programs. We can look at state accounts and find tens of billions of dollars sitting there. They just haven't gotten out the door yet. The second point I would say is that we are taking energy affordability very seriously in here. We have a number of measures, by senator May, and by senator Hinchy, and others. Or or senator Mayor actually, targeting how the PSC structures rates. We're taking a long term structural approach. And then as senator Parker mentioned, through clean energy, by restoring the New York Sun program, we will be saving rate payers $1,000,000,000 annually because we will pro be providing them more affordable clean energy. As has been said many times on this floor, it is the price of natural gas that is driving the high prices of energy. There is no proof that it is the policies of the c o CPA because as senator Parker has mentioned, the governor hasn't even started implementation yet. I will be voting aye on this resolution.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Harkom to be recorded in the affirmative, senator Bailey to explain his vote.

[Senator Jamaal T. Bailey]: Thank you, mister president. I'm grateful for this opportunity to able to speak on the resolution. I just wanted to correct one thing on the from the prior debate, I do thank senator Helming and my colleagues for debate. We spoke about the sweep of funds for the death out of the death insurance fraud prevention. That was rejected explicitly in the one house. And the reason why we rejected that sweep because we do value making sure that we do combat fraud. It's the beginning of a conversation. The one house is a statement of our congress' value led by the great Andrew Stewart Cousins. And our values are that we do want to save New Yorkers money. We do want to get to the heart of affordability. We do want to make sure that New Yorkers are saving more. If you note what we didn't have a conversation about, I guess for good reason, is that anything that was in the executive budget that related to automatic discounts, we accepted because we think that New Yorkers should be getting more discounts. More reporting, more data, we accepted those provisions. When it came to the Article seven language that came to what defines or what may what may happen with auto insurance, we wanted to have a deeper conversation. Because, mister president, New Yorkers are facing mental health reasons, financial reasons, and and, you know, we need to make sure that we're taking care of New Yorkers. So, and the last thing I'll say is that it was alleged about hope. In our one house, we don't talk about hope. We spoke about a commitment. There was a commitment to have a conversation with all stakeholders from the 2nd Floor, insurance, lawyers, anybody that has a role. So there's no hope. There's a commitment. And we commit to making sure that we do our part on the side of the aisle to make sure that we get through this budget process with real results for affordability. I vote I, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Bailey, to be recorded in the affirmative, senator Rhodes to explain his vote.

[Senator Steven Rhoads]: It's, it's ironic to I'm back. It's ironic to hear my colleagues talking about affordability when when in reality, your policies are making this death the state less affordable. It's great to talk about the hungry and the homeless when your policies are creating more hungry and homeless. You're spending in this budget. When you took charge, we spent a $164,000,000,000 as a state. This budget will be just a tick under $270,000,000,000, a 61% increase in spending by the state. Inflation is at 2.4%. This year, you're gonna raise operating spending by 10.8%. Quadruple quadruple the rate of inflation. And at the same time, you ignore policies introduced by this side of the aisle that would actually help the issue. HCRA taxes account for 5 to $6,000,000,000 annually. We have a bill by senator Galavan that would repeal those taxes and actually save the average family $1,400 on health care premiums per year. No income taxes on overtime by senator Martins. Senator Weber, a three year freeze on property taxes that would save every one of our constituents, every one of our property owners money, myself, with the single largest tax cut in the history of New York state, which could be paid for by slowing the rate of growth to the same 2% cap that every other municipality lives by that would save the average taxpayer $5,000 a year. Those solutions, you don't touch. It's more taxes. It's more spending, and it's exacerbating the affordability death spiral that the policies of this chamber over the course of the last eight years have put New York in, and this budget just throttles it up. I'll be voting no.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Rhodes to be recorded in the negative. Senator Wyke to explain her vote.

[Senator Alexis Weik]: Mister president, we've heard concerns about the situations of in Iran driving gas prices up, yet there's no proposal for gas tax holiday in this budget. My colleagues across the aisle have boasted about how they're making New York more affordable for New Yorkers, but this budget only increases taxes and spending. We proposed a bill that actually slashes taxes for New Yorkers and even eliminates income taxes for most New Yorkers when it's fully phased in. It's called the taxpayer rescue plan by senator Rhodes, yet it's nowhere in this budget. This budget is an increase of 11,500,000,000.0 from last year's enacted budget, yet there's no relief at all on the massive energy increases caused by the CLCPA. No plan to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. An $11,500,000,000 increase, and yet the basic needs of most New Yorkers are still not being met. This is another budget full of mismanaged special interest funding, and I vote no.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator White to be recorded in the negative. Senator Martins to explain his vote.

[Senator Jack Martins]: Thank you, mister president. Mister president, this document is not a serious document. I think everyone in this chamber, including the majority, knows it's not gonna see the light of day. You've promised everything to everyone all at the same time. And eventually between now and hopefully April 1, you'll turn around and you'll tell everyone that's either the governor's fault or somebody else's fault that you're not gonna be able to actually write that check. You've increased spending by $16,100,000,000 year over year for state operations. Think about that for a second. If we could actually make this state more affordable by increasing spending, you've done it. But we all know that's not true because we all hear from our constituents just how unaffordable the state is right now. So what's your answer? You wanna tax corporations. I've said it before. Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes, and they pay all of them. Taxing corporations is just what politicians do as a sneaky way to pass taxes on to people. Not right. Own it. You're not gonna be affordable by just simply increasing spending. Mister president, I vote no.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Martins, to be recorded in the negative. Senator Chan, to explain his vote on the resolution.

[Senator (Unidentified, called 'Chan')]: Thank you, mister president. In the short two minutes that I have, I hope I can cover enough. And I hope I'm tall enough to, address this tall order of a resolution, speak on behalf of the people of Southern Brooklyn, the cost of living upon us is extremely high. It is very stressful. We are borderlining on struggling. We have utility bills that are outrageously high, and over the past six, seven years, I I believe they've gone up to up in upwards of 40% or so. Here we have have a golden opportunity to give our rate payers a tax holiday, saving them 25 to 30% over the next one year. In some cases, that can amount to two, three, four thousand dollars. Yet nowhere in this resolution does it address that. My constituents are also very concerned. Well, right now in Brooklyn, we pay the highest auto insurance rates possibly in the country. We have no provision to address that. And when we try to address it, we talk about insurance fraud, but we never talk about uninsured motorists because I can say that almost every accident in my district involves some kind of uninsured motorist. As a result, the ratepayers of insurance premiums have to pick up that tab through their own policy. My constituents cringe every time our mayor speaks. They feel that they're being held hostage. Every time that he speaks, my constituents feels that here here comes a here comes the kicker. We're gonna get fleeced with something else. We feel that the mayor is shaking down the state, that if he doesn't get what he wants, he's gonna take it out upon the taxpayers of New York City and the residents. So on on that reason, my vote is no.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Chan to be recorded in the negative. Senator Steck to explain his vote.

[Senator Dan Stec]: Thank you, mister president, to explain my no vote on the senate's one house budget bill. This budget is proposing an increase from last year's 254,000,000,000 to a proposed $270,000,000,000. It's clearly not addressing our affordability issue. There are two key components that could have made a difference to every New Yorker's everyday lives that are completely ignored in your one house budget bill, energy. In 2019, New York State was a 136% the national average on energy cost. In 2024, it is a 152% of the national average. So this is against we are an outlier against the national average. And, oh, by the way, those are over the Biden years, not the Trump years. 1,400,000 rate payers are in arrears at least sixty days or more as of December. That number could easily be twice that now. That's one in four New Yorkers are potentially already behind in their in their energy payments. And yet, and that's according to the Public Service Commission, Roy Christian, not our guy, the governor and your guy. A $4,000 increase for every annual energy cost for Upstate homeowners and $5.25 a gallon for gas when the CLCP is implemented. That's according to NYSERDA, Dorian Harris. Your guy, not our guy. These are your numbers, not our numbers. And yet this budget proposes to do nothing about the energy costs, zero. The other thing that's completely ignored is Medicaid. We spent $49,000,000,000 a year in this state in Medicaid. You've got the comptroller saying you've got a Medicaid fraud problem. There are some estimates that have been done on the outside that say that that number is $20,000,000,000 a year in Medicaid fraud. Nothing in your proposal to do that. If we fixed even a fraction of the Medicaid fraud and you did something about energy,

[Senator Mario Mattera]: those are two areas that you

[Senator Dan Stec]: would make affordability a reality for New Yorkers. I'm not sure this body should use language if you don't know the definitions of the words. I'll be voting no.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Stack to be recorded in the negative. Senator Weber to explain his vote on the resolution.

[Senator William A. Weber Jr.]: Thank you, mister president. You know, every budget year, we start off in this chamber talking about affordability, say we need to make New York state more affordable. And after every budget, the last number of years, we said we address New York state's affordability, and yet here we are. Now, mister president, I think I might be a couple of years older than you, but know, when I see bloated budgets, it always reminds me of that Wendy's commercial from the early nineteen eighties. Where's the beef? We found the beef. $16,000,000,000 more than last year's, current year's fiscal budget. That's where the beef is. This budget raises taxes by $6,000,000,000. Now I thought we were gonna deal with the tax issue, give serious middle class tax cuts. Maybe it's on a page that I didn't get, but, you know, this budget is not giving people the reasons to stay in this state. You talk about college age kids like my daughter, talk about younger generations of my kids in high school, you talk about retirees. What in this budget document is going to give them reasons to stay? It's not. And it just becomes more and more affordable. We had an opportunity to deal with, utility relief. It's not in here. And, unfortunately, people, as we heard earlier, falling more and more behind on the utility bills without some of the changes that are gonna happen. So, you know, it's it's unfortunate. It's a missed opportunity. I have the same, hope that we'll get this budget done on April 1. So we have a couple of weeks to get this fixed, but we really gotta do a better job than this. I'll be voting no on this resolution, and I encourage my, colleagues to do the same.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Weber to be recorded in the negative. Senator Staviski to explain her vote on the resolution.

[Senator Toby Ann Stavisky]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if you vote no on this budget, you are voting against a number of important issues. For one thing, you are voting against the construction money, the capital budget for SUNY and CUNY, desperately needed. You are voting against SUNY and CUNY Reconnect, which provides a wonderful program of free tuition for people between the ages of 25 and 55 in, high need areas of of study. And you are voting against the free to the no tuition increase that we imposed when we took the majority in 2019. There has not been an increase in tuition for your constituents since then when in the past there was and when you controlled this chamber, there was a $200 increase every single year. And it was borne by your constituents. I proudly vote aye.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Staviski, to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Walchik to explain his vote.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you, mister president. You can't spend your way, to solve the problem of affordability. If you could, New York state would already be the most affordable state in the union, and you know that. You've proposed a $16,000,000,000 increase over last year's budget just in your one house budget resolution. That accounts to 11% in increased state spending over last year. People's salaries haven't gone up 11%. Their wages haven't gone up 11%. You've included $500,000,000 in new funding for New York City public housing, $500,000,000 in new funding for New York City homelessness. I was looking at the the school aid expecting that you would invest in our next generation. I saw $285,300,000 over what the governor proposed in foundation aid. My school districts are hurting with energy costs. They're concerned about the e bus mandate, but I didn't see anything repealing that in your budget resolution. Their their health insurance costs have skyrocketed, and they've got a lot of concerns about special education costs in their schools. And yet, for hold harmless schools in the state of New York, and if you don't know, that's two thirds of the schools in the state of New York. You're proposing a 2% increase in foundation aid. Well, you do an 11% increase in overall state spending. So you've showed me where your priorities are. This falls onto property taxpayers because school districts are gonna have to go out unless they're cutting teachers from their school district. They're gonna have to go out to the property tax payers and ask them to pay a lot more, and it hurts our youth. So I'd ask you to consider that as you go on in budget negotiations. I'm not voting on a budget resolution today that's going to become law. This is your answer.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank you, senator Walzik. Your two minutes is up. To be recorded in the negative. Senator Kavanaugh to explain his vote.

[Senator Brian Kavanagh]: Thank you, mister president. Very proud to support this resolution today. We've had a lot of discussion today on the clean energy transition that we are investing in. I'm very proud that we're doing $1,000,000,000 for sustainable futures and thermal energy networks and the Empower program and some others. I want to just highlight a few of the housing aspects of the budget as the chair. This proposal includes $3,000,000,000 in new operating capital subsidies for housing. That includes really large investments in our public housing, both in New York City and throughout the state. 100,000,000 for to support our Mitchell Lama developments and numerous other programs that this house has championed, including block by block and infill programs that are building housing in all of our communities throughout the state, the and the small rental development initiative, which is working in smaller towns and villages in our rural communities. There's also a very large investment that we facilitated this by by this budget in the capital needs of both coops and condo buildings and rental buildings in New York by expanding and reforming the j 51 tax abatement program. Our proposal today is significantly more generous to the property owners than the executive proposal, and I'm sure that's something we'll be negotiating. We also recognize that people need services to keep them in their homes. We are investing $40,000,000 in the homeowner protection program and $60,000,000 for tenants who are facing eviction. We're investing $30,000,000 in our neighborhood and rural preservation programs. And finally, a big and continued focus on rental assistance here. $250,000,000 for the housing access voucher program, has been successfully launched in the last couple weeks, and a separate program to pay the rent when people are facing eviction. And the eviction rates in a lot of our communities are exceeding 10%. That is a program that we launched last year and has been already, kept almost 1,600 households in their homes. With that, and time is short, I will wrap up today just say thank you for yours for everyone's support for this, and I look forward to continuing negotiations. And I vote aye.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Thank you, senator Kavanaugh. To be recorded in the affirmative, senator Zellner to explain his vote on the resolution. Two minutes and one second for your birthday.

[Senator Jeremy Zellner]: Thank you, Mr President. I just got here, not 2019. But right now, New York State is under attack from the federal government. A trillion and a half dollars cut across this country for health care, millions cut from subsidies in our own state that help our most vulnerable who need, food subsidies, and trillions taken from New Yorkers through illegal tariffs. So we have a job to do here, I guess, and, it's to help maintain the services and programs that make this the Empire State and to help take care of the most vulnerable that the federal government seems to have abandoned. And I think this budget does that. So I vote aye.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Zellner to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Borrelo to explain his vote.

[Senator George Borrello]: President, you know, while this, debate was going on, I actually got a text, from a friend of mine, Tom Daniels, owns Tom's Family Restaurant in my town. A great place to get a meal at a really low price. His he sent me a copy of his electric his utility bill, $3,891, which is almost double what it was last month. Now I heard a lot of excuses as to why this is happening in New York, but there was a great article actually in syracuse.com believe it or not, which I consider to be a pretty left leaning publication that says that this is really a uniquely New York problem. From 2021 to 2024, when almost every other state's utilities were dropping, New York's were increasing. And why are we having the problems we're having? Because we don't have enough baseload power. We don't have a baseload power because you've told the power companies not to invest here. You said by 2040, that's it. Who's going to invest billions of dollars to modernize equipment when you're saying they're going to be obsolete in 2040? This is a uniquely New York problem, and we've done nothing about energy prices in this budget. Another issue, Medicaid. You all wanna blame the federal government. We have billions upon billions of dollars of Medicaid fraud, waste, and abuse that has not been addressed. And the Medicaid inspector general, he's kinda like the Maytag Maytag repairman, not doing much. If you fix the fraud, a fraction of it. If you fix the fraction of the fraud, we could stop everything that we've lost from the federal government impacting any single New Yorker, but you won't. Why? Because too many people are profiting off of that fraud. That's the problem. This budget itself is fraudulent, and I'll be voting no on this resolution. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Burrell, to be recorded in the negative, senators Kufis to explain his vote.

[Senator James Skoufis]: Thank you very much, mister president. I I certainly understand the loyal opposition's job is to identify and and and raise concerns and criticize even when quite frankly sometimes there isn't anything to actually criticize on the merits. I I find it strange that there is this equating of spending more money with unaffordability. And so perhaps, you know, there are some colleagues here who when they go home and and they criticize additional spending, go talk to the young family who has a four year old who just saved $15,000 because we're increasing our investment, our spending in universal pre k. Go talk to a young family who has a zero to three year old who's going to be part of the childcare expansion. And by the way, we have to do a lot more outside of New York City. But talk to one of those families who's gonna save $20,000.25000 from their household budget thanks to the investments that we are making. We've heard from my colleague, Senator Kavanaugh, talk about various programs including an expansion of the housing access voucher program. Talk to one of those families who's gonna save tens of thousands of dollars because of the investments that we are making. And yes, the governor came out with a 1% baseline in foundation aid. We're doubling that. Could we do more? Yeah, sure. I guess if we're sort of pretending in terms of putting together our own budgets and living in a fantasy land, could be 10% or 20% or 50%. But the simple matter of fact is we doubled what the governor proposed and that is a savings, would be a savings to property tax payers who don't have to backfill that hole, that would be left with only a 1% baseline in foundation aid. And so for all these reasons and many more, I'm proud of the investments that we make. These are investments in affordability. Many of these programs bring down costs for our families, and and for those reasons, I vote yes. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Scoop is to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Krueger to explain her vote on the resolution.

[Senator Liz Krueger]: Thank you so much. First off, I wanna thank all my colleagues for their participation. I want to associate myself with pretty much everything this side of the aisle said today. But I wanna highlight my point, people are talking about affordability and fraud. Those are important issues. We're looking at it the wrong way though. Because I lived through all the years of republican majority rule, where everyone was obsessed about medicaid fraud and they kept saying, all these people are illegally using medicaid. So what did we do? We did a bunch of medicaid fraud reform. Except nobody noticed. Medicaid fraud is the medical institutions, not individuals signing up for extra health care. It's the medical institutions. So please be aware, if we're gonna go after Medicaid fraud, we're going after our hospitals, our nursing homes, our doctors, all of our healthcare providers. That's where Medicaid fraud takes place. And I'll be damned if I was I'm gonna defend them. I don't want anybody to go through fraud. I don't wanna have to pay for fraud. Prop I'm sorry, car insurance. We we had a hearing. We learned that the car insurance companies are claiming they're on the verge of bankruptcy when they're having some of the largest revenues in the history of insurance. There's some kind of fraud here, but it's not the occasional fake lawsuit, which then doesn't get through the courts anyway. So isn't really the cost of the skyrocketing insurance. We have too much fraud. And then we've all been really busy, but some of my colleagues had a hearing this week on white collar fraud. Do you know that according to the federal government, before this president, it's the number one cost driver for everyone in this country. Over $1,000,000,000,000 a year of corporate fraud. With a whole series of federal agencies who were supposedly going after it, guess what? It's no longer in their job descriptions a year later. We're not even trying to go after fraud. So you wanna deal with affordability? Go after corporate fraud. And then last night, by accident, I was reading about that the IRS in the last year has basically ended any investigations of the ultra wealthy and corporate fraud in not paying their taxes. I'm always saying it here. If they don't pay their taxes whoever they are, we pay their taxes. So you wanna do something about tax rates? Please, let's do something about people committing fraud, corporate fraud, not paying their taxes. It's ridiculous. And finally, just because I've been here forever, I remember all the years of republican control where everybody always talked about we're not raising taxes. So there's two models. There is borrow and spend, that was the republican model, Kept borrowing and skyrocketing long term cost of the state for the next generation and the next generation. Or tax and spend. Personally, I wanted to stand here and be able to justify why we do sometimes have to tax people who we're taxing, but then be able to say, we're not just kicking the can down the road for the next generations to have to pay what we spent. So I proudly vote yes today. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Senator Krueger to be recorded in the affirmative, majority leader, Andrew Stewart Cousins, to close.

[Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins]: Thank you so much, mister president. And, of course, before I begin, I wanna thank my deputy leader, senator Mike Gionnaires, for once again helping guide through the debates of the day. I also want to thank his counterpart. Is this your birthday too? Oh, happy birthday. This is probably not your birthday present. But we're gonna get out early, so you're good. So thank you, Senator Lanza, and of course, to to the minority leader, Bob Ord, and to the rancor, Tom O'Meara. And of course, special acknowledgement to the wonderful senator Krueger, who, again, countless hours spent on trying to get through what we know is only the beginning of one of the most important things we do here. I also wanna thank Governor Hochul and speaker Hasty for our year round partnership. And again, I'm always grateful that we are collectively rowing in the same direction. I wanna offer my deep gratitude to our staffs on both sides of the aisle because none of this is really easy. But I particularly want to thank my senior staff and their crew, starting with Jonathan Lang. Where are Jonathan? Back there somewhere, okay. The secretary of the majority council and program, Dorothy Powell, the council, Chris Friend, brand new finance secretary, a great job for your first time out. Of course, Mike Murphy, our communications director, Emily Bruggemann, deputy director of of intergovernmental affairs, and all the staff member whose hard work and dedication made our One House possible, so let's give them applause. Thank

[Senator Peter Oberacker]: you, thank you.

[Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins]: And, of course, I wanna thank, my, amazing senate majority, conference who have spent, untold hours not only in hearings, but, you know, on Zooms. And and thank you always for your invaluable input. I know I have to look back here and there. For your invaluable input and for your constant advocacy, not only on behalf of your own districts, but on behalf of, all the people of New York State. Today, we're advancing a one house budget resolution that defends our values, lowers costs for families across multiple sectors, and delivers for all New Yorkers across the state. Families are facing high costs. Municipalities are being asked to do more with less. And once again, we're seeing harmful actions out of Washington that threaten essential programs people rely on every day. We've seen cuts to health care, to food assistance, to public benefits, and other basic supports that help keep families afloat. New Yorkers are under pressure, and I hear from constituents every day in the same way you do about the stresses they feel in order to keep their lights on and to keep food on the table. I talk to young people who are uncertain about their job prospects and they're worried about whether they can pursue higher education. Every year throughout this process, I say and we say that budgets are about our priorities. And this fiscally responsible and balanced budget resolution reflects our priorities. It protects essential services. It supports local communities. It invests in long term economic opportunity, and it does ask those who can most afford it to contribute more so we can continue meeting the needs of working people across this state. Our responsible revenue measures ensure the wealthiest individuals, large corporations, and luxury industries pay their fair share. At a time when federal threats and economic uncertainty are putting enormous pressure on our state and our local governments, we're taking responsible action to generate sustainable revenue so municipalities can continue delivering vital services and families can get the support they need. We're also continuing our affordability agenda with targeted investments that help New Yorkers lower everyday costs. That includes working towards universal child care, which you heard over and over again today. Expanding access across the entire state, supporting the child care workforce was a $500,000,000 investment, beginning implementation of two care seats in New York City and helping ensure more families can actually access the care they need. We're building on the work we've already done to lower energy costs, strengthening energy affordability. New Yorkers have long been burdened by some of the highest utility rates in the country with little to no transparency about how these rates are determined. And this cold winter has only exacerbated the strain these high bills place on businesses, yes, and on families struggling to keep their heat on. This budget invests hundreds of millions of dollars in energy affordability and advances utility reforms to provide greater transparency, greater accountability, and fairness for ratepayers. New Yorkers deserve utility bills they can understand, a process they can trust, and a government that is willing to stand up for them when costs go too high. We also continue our strong commitment to education and youth opportunity with greater investments into our school districts to provide the proper resources so that every child, regardless of their ZIP code, has the opportunity to learn, to grow, and to succeed, not just during the school day, but beyond it. We support expanding program I'm sorry. We support expanding the success of universal school meals by growing the farm to school program to include breakfast and snacks. We're strengthening foundation aid with additional investments for high needs students, increasing transportation aid, supporting universal pre k, investing in community schools, after school programming, tutoring, libraries, civic education, youth employment, and, yes, youth sports. We're also expanding higher education opportunities. This budget increases financial aid for students, supports workforce training program, invests in SUNY, CUNY, and community colleges. We're providing millions in tuition assistance, making it easier for our students to access this crucial help. We're expanding nursing programs across the state, supporting a bilingual educator pipeline. Higher education remains one of the clearest pathways to opportunity, and we must keep this path open and affordable even as the federal government cuts down on your opportunity to borrow so that you can indeed contribute. On health care, this budget sends a clear message. New York will protect care, protect coverage, and protect people. At a time when federal actions threatened to destabilize health care access, we're directing the Department of Health to minimize coverage losses while strengthening support for financially distressed and rural hospitals, nursing homes, health centers, and long term care providers. It also advances lower prescription drug costs, and we're providing funding, yes, for gender affirming care in the wake of the federal administration's attack on health care for the LGBTQ plus communities. We continue major investments in reproductive freedom and maternal health. New York will remain a firewall for reproductive freedom in a state that continues to confront maternal health disparities head on. We're also strengthening mental health and behavioral health services because we know it all matters. We're also standing with our brothers and sisters in labor by strengthening labor protections, cracking down on wage theft, and we remain committed as a conference to reforming tier six and improving benefits so that a career in public service can continue to be a pathway to stability, security, and dignified retirement. This budget restores and increases arts funding, supports tourism, and downtown revitalization. It redesigns aim, which we have increased over the past few years, so it works better for our municipalities. On housing, the senate continues to take decisive action to afford a expand affordable housing, prevent homelessness, protect homeowners and tenants. We're investing in rental assistance, public housing, and homeownership opportunities through the New York First Home Savings Program while strengthening support for NYCHA, Mitchell Lama Preservation, and raising the scree and dre thresholds. We continue to lead on climate, resilience, and clean water, and under the belief that investments in renewable energy will continue to lower energy costs for New Yorkers. This budget restores a billion dollars for the sustainable futures program, increases the environmental protection fund, increases clean water funding to work towards lead pipe remediation, private well testing, and drinking water grants. We invest in our local infrastructure, expand transit safety and affordability. This budget builds on our past historic investment in CHIPS funding, which as you know, to support our road and infrastructures. And we provide resources to our crucial public transit systems in New York City and across the state. We're continuing to value our New York farms and the agriculture industry that sustains our state's economy. We know that without farmers, we won't have food on our tables. We're making targeted investments in safer communities, including increased funding for successful community violence prevention programs like SNUG, and providing help for our local law enforcement and first responders. We're strengthening human rights and justice by investing in legal services, including additional funding for the office of new Americans. And we remain committed to achieving the goals of New York for all with our partners to advance solutions that protect immigrant families and ensure that every community in our state is treated with respect. As we progress through this budget process, I welcome the challenging yet necessary conversations and negotiations with the executive, with the assembly. The senate democratic majority remains united in our commitment to ensuring New York remains an affordable, equitable, and resilient place to live. And I look forward, as I'm sure you all do, to the work ahead as we continue negotiating a final budget that ultimately delivers for the people of New York State. So thank you for your work. And, of course, we've only just begun. And just for everybody, this is the the end of the beginning. Monday will be the beginning of the middle. Thank you very much, mister president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: Majority Leader Stewart Cousins to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk, identity unspecified)]: In relation to the resolution, those voting in negative are senators Ashby, Barello, Kansas City, Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallatin, Griffith, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Matera, Murray, Obrak, O'Mara, or Palumbo, Rhodes, Rawson, State, Todisco, Walls Of Weber And White, ayes 38, and ayes 22.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: The resolution is adopted. Senator Gianaris.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: Mister president, returning to motions for a moment on behalf of senator Jackson on page 22, I offer the following amendments to calendar four forty three, senate fifty one eighty three, and ask that said bill retain its place on the third reading calendar.

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: The amendments are received and the bill will retain its place on the third reading calendar. Senator Gineris.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: Is there any further business at the desk?

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: There is no further business at the desk.

[Senator Michael Gianaris]: We will be back here on Monday, March 16 at 3PM. I move to adjourn until then, with the intervening days being legislative days. On

[Acting President of the Senate (Chair, identity unspecified)]: motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Monday, March 16 at 3PM with the intervening days being legislative days.