Assembly Live Stream

Well, I kind of think that, you know, they saw an individual you just mentioned, a former colleague of ours. They never should have eliminated it. And with regards to the extension, they really should have extended it for a longer period of time to give us more time to find a recovery path.

No.

This is, I think, being transferred through the stability fund.

Ms. Lunsford.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ways and Means Committee members, make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room, please. Ways and Means Committee members to the speakers conference room. We have no

purpose of an introduction. Thank you Madam Speaker for allowing me to interrupt our proceedings for the purposes of an introduction today. I am pleased to be joined by Elizabeth Sobel. She is the CEO of the Saratoga Performing Arts Center, which is this year celebrating its 60th anniversary. It is nestled in the Saratoga Spa State Park. And if you haven't had an opportunity to enjoy the Saratoga Jazz Festival, the New York City Ballet, the Philadelphia Orchestra, or any number of Live Nation concerts under the stars at the Saratoga Performing Arts Center, may I suggest that you add that to your summer tour this year. The Performing Arts Center has, over time, been part of the economic renaissance of Saratoga Springs. There was a time 60 years ago where you could roll a bowling ball down the street and never hit a person. But because of the investments that were made to build the Saratoga Performing Arts Center, which was both a public and a private enterprise, and the ribbon was cut by then-Governor John Rockefeller, it has turned around, or been part of the renaissance that turned around our little upstate city. So please join me this morning in welcoming CEO Elizabeth Sobel on this great occasion when we'll be passing a resolution to that effect later today. And please offer Elizabeth all of the cordialities of the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today I rise with a great pride to recognize and welcome an outstanding group of Latina entrepreneurs from my district. These remarkable women represent the strength, resiliency, and entrepreneurial spirit that continue to uplift our communities and inspire future generations. Please join me in welcoming President Maribel Perez, Elida Almonte, Clarissa Felix, Grace Lantigua, Rosa Ayala, Carola Liranzo, Giraldy Belloz, D'Kelsey Paulino, Kayla Perez, Bianca Rodriguez, Katia De Los Santos, and Jamie Jimenez. We are honored to have them with us on the floor today and I thank them for their leadership dedication and contribution to our district and to the New York State Please welcome them to the People House and extend the cordiality of the floor Thank you

Today I rise to introduce a trustee that represents one of the largest global organizations celebrating, Sai Baba, who is celebrating today a privilege resolution on his 100th birthday. And it really is significant because of the contribution of this spiritual leader that has promoted peace, love, nonviolence, and has promoted volunteerism throughout the world, here in New York State and throughout 50 states. And he's represented today through the organization as a trustee, Sundar Venugopalan, who's an IT professional, has exhibited tremendous volunteerism throughout New York State and in my community of Yonkers. and he's here to celebrate the privilege resolution of Sai Baba and to really encourage peace and prosperity and nonviolence. Madam Speaker, if you can please give our dear guest Sundar Venugulopan the cordialities of the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to recognize three amazing men who have done more for high school athletes in recent times than any other group of people. Specifically, their contributions to the sport of wrestling and to student-athletes across New York State will be felt for generations. First is we honor Mr. Don McGee, whose lifelong dedication to wrestling has impacted generations of young athletes throughout central New York and beyond. From founding the Bear Club Wrestling Program in Chittenango to helping build the nationally respected Mohawk Valley Wrestling Club, Don has spent decades mentoring athletes, expanding opportunities, and serving as a true ambassador for the sport. Joining him is Gene Mills one of the greatest wrestlers in Syracuse University history a two NCAA champion four All Olympian and member of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame And last we also honored to welcome Dr Robert Zayas Executive Director of the New York State Public High School Athletic Association, whose leadership has strengthened education-based athletics for hundreds of thousands of student athletes across our state. Madam Speaker, please join me in welcoming these distinguished guests to the chamber of the New York State Assembly and provide them all the cordialities of the House. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Speaker. I am proud to introduce three of my constituents. We have Cooper King, who is a member of the debate team of middle school 318 in my district, where they have just won the borough-wide title of middle school debate. They are accompanied by the wonderful Daniela Gilead, who is a supporter and friend, and their parent, Khaki King. I know all three of them from their incredible involvement in local issues, and so I'm very excited to show them how the process works and how debate is put into government here in the State Assembly. If you can offer them the cordialities of the court.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, the House may stand at ease.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, may we please call the house back to order.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to introduce two student constituents of mine, Bridget Burns from Briarcliff Manor and Darren Cooney from Croton-on-Hudson. And they are both very interested in politics and what goes on here at the state capitol. So they are here today. Darren is a senior at Croton Harmon High School and is interested in possibly pursuing a career in law, even as he is just going to be a freshman at SUNY Binghamton. And Bridget is a rising junior at Fordham who is majoring in political science and minoring in communications. So I hope that they have a wonderful day here, and I hope that you will offer them the cordialities of the people's house.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce Dr. T. Vishnudatta Jayaraman, a man who represents the American dream, someone who seized every opportunity, pursued excellence across continents, and used the power of journalism to inform, connect, and uplift communities. Dr. Jayaraman is the founder and editor-in-chief of the South Asian Herald, a distinguished news platform dedicated to reporting on the South Asian diaspora in the United States. Since its launch in October 2024, South Asian Herald has quickly developed a growing readership nationally and internationally, becoming an important voice for a dynamic and influential community. He has built an extraordinary career covering some of the most powerful and important institutions in the world, including the White House, the U.S. Congress, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. He also had served as the Washington Bureau Chief for News India Times and Desi Talk, and he worked with the United Nations Department of Public Information and leading publications such as the Hindustan Times, the Times of India, and the Tribune. His life and career remind us of the highest calling of journalism, to seek truth, deepen understanding, and give voice to communities whose stories deserve to be told. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming and honoring Dr. T. Vishnudatta Jayaraman.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm rising to introduce a gentleman from my district, Art Hunsinger, who's probably best known for all of his years and years of volunteerism with the Clifton Park Fire Department. But he's here today with, and wearing a different hat, He's here today with two young ladies who reside, respectively, in Assemblymember Santa Barbara's District and Assemblymember Forrest's District. So Art is the director and executive team member for the Miss New York Volunteer Program, which is the official New York State preliminary for the national Miss Volunteer America system. Art is joined by two Miss New York volunteers, Miss Teen New York volunteer Eliza Luzinski and Miss New York volunteer Shannon Kelly. So Eliza attends Chalmont High School. She is in Assemblymember Santa Barbara's district. She hopes to major in pre-dental biology. She's focused her volunteer efforts on raising money for the one-site organization. She's collected and donated over 40,000 pairs of used eyeglasses and has helped create the Raise the Roof campaign for the Northeast Association of the Blind. If she wins nationally, she hopes to continue her mission of educating on vision care nationally. Shannon is from Brooklyn and attends the borough of Manhattan Community College. Her goal is to become an actor or director. Her volunteer efforts include educating people about mental health and empowering individuals to prioritize self-care, creating product drives to provide self-care products to those who can't afford them. Madam Speaker, would you please welcome these three remarkable individuals to the People's House? Thank you.

Thank you.

On Ms. Lunsford's motion, the A calendar is advanced.

Absolutely, Madam Speaker. The bill before us contains major components of legislation that are necessary for the implementation of the state budget as it pertains to health and mental hygiene. This bill includes legislation to extend the Medicaid global cap, provide increased investments from the Health Care Stability Fund and to support hospitals and nursing homes, and provide a targeted inflationary increase for human service workers.

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the Chairman yield for some questions?

The sponsor yelled.

Good to talk to you again.

It seems like only yesterday.

Total Medicaid spending is $117,787,882,000.

That is all agencies.

Okay.

Well, everything will become available to the public because we're very transparent in our actions.

The enacted budget includes $2.1 billion, or 8% increase to the global caps.

So then we do remain in the global cap then? Absolutely.

It should be what I gave you earlier, $117.8 billion.

From a general fund, that would be $32,965,000.

$294 million.

No. No.

No.

Yes.

It actually went down a little bit.

Yes.

That's being handled by the Medicaid Inspector General.

Yes.

No.

It's a small increase there.

No, there are no new benefits.

Okay, that money has been reallocated to the general fund. We didn't do anything with it in this budget.

I believe the state share is $140 million.

I'm sorry, $104 million.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

On the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Jensen.

Will the chair yield?

The chair yields.

Well in answer to your question I give you a rather lengthy answer You absolutely right The provisions of H 1 that was enacted July 2025 disqualifies most of the lawfully present immigrant population from receiving premium tax credits Due to this the current 1332 waiver will lose more than half of its current operating revenue, rendering it insolvent beginning in July of 2026. To maintain coverage for as many essential plan enrollees as possible, the state received authority from CMS, Dr. Oz, to terminate its 1332 waiver and reactivate the previously used 1331 Basic Health Program effective July 1, 2026. The reactivation of this Basic Health Plan allows the state to access $9 billion in Basic Health Plan Trust Fund to offset the loss of premium tax credit revenue and temporarily maintain the solvency of the essential plan for over 1.2 million enrollees. So by returning to the 1331 Basic Plan, 470,000 individuals with incomes between 200 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level will lose essential plan coverage. The state was not able to offer continued coverage for these individuals due to the immense cost associated with backfilling the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding. So the provision of the health care coverage is a long-standing partnership between the state and the federal government. Unfortunately, the actions by our current administration to roadblock longstanding eligibility standards have left thousands now ineligible for coverage.

That's not good, but yes.

Well, I think that through our financial plan, we're trying to maintain as many individuals as we possibly can for them to maintain some form of health coverage.

So to comply with the court order in ensuring coverage for those affected, we're using the reverting back to the original essential plan waiver to ensure that we're complying with the court order.

And there will be no interruption in coverage for that population.

Hopefully, yes. Okay.

Yes.

Those numbers are about correct and we're trying to figure out now how to alleviate that and keep it from happening. So we are concerned and we trying to figure out in the out years how we going to ensure that this time six years from now we addressing it Yes Moving on to the MCO tax and HICRA I understand that this budget bill takes the legalized federal money laundering scheme of the MCO tax of 0 on total premium from health plans and extends it from the managed care organizations to all entities that offer health coverage including private commercial plans

Okay.

Well, they're already being taxed. There's nothing changing there.

I believe it was already there, and this is going to be the same.

Yes.

No, I believe it's going to be the exact same number.

Yep.

Okay. Well, as you, I know, are well aware that we used to depend on federal support. Without that support now, we're still trying to find ways to cover these individuals.

Well, I kind of think that, you know, they saw an individual you just mentioned, a former colleague of ours. They never should have eliminated it. And with regards to the extension, they really should have extended it for a longer period of time to give us more time to find a recovery path.

No.

This is, I think, being transferred through the stability fund. You know, we're increasing funding to hospitals and nursing homes.

So.

Okay. Well, I don't think we're looking to increase any taxes, and our investments have been spread out to be sustained over a number of years. How many years?

Well, there's a lot of numbers.

Four years? Okay.

Yes.

$750 million.

Under the new taxing structure, how much does the state anticipate in collecting? $165 million.

Well, I'll give you all of the MCO tax reinvestments. $711 million for hospitals, $451 million for nursing homes, assisted living programs, and hospice. $50 million to the physician fee schedule, $50 million to mainstream managed care quality pool, $330 million to the safety net transformation program, $40 million to clinics and federally qualified health centers, $15 million for FQHC value-based payments, and $500 million to the global cap offset, which comes to a total of $1.47 billion.

Okay, well, I just think enacted budget includes savings of $28.5 million by carving the Medicaid out of the independent dispute resolution process. No other state in the United States allows Medicaid in the IDR process. This proposal brings New York in line with 49 other states and the federal government's surprise billing law.

No.

I think, well, depending on a reduction, I'll be looking for the next four years, four or five years on the NYSHIP participation. We'll want to see how that pans out over the next few years.

We believe that health insurance premiums will go down as a result.

Okay, well, the goal is to bring the margin closer.

Madam Speaker, can we have the Social Services Committee to the Speaker's conference room, please? Social Services Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's conference room. Social Services members, Speaker's conference room. Mr. Sempolinsky.

Mr. Slater.

Ms. Walsh?

Colleagues, can we have quiet in the chamber or take your conversations out? Thank you.

Mr. Levine. Will the members of the local government's committee please meet immediately in the speaker's conference room? Thank you, Speaker. Thank you. Local government committee members, please make your way to the speaker's conference room, local government speakers conference room, Mr. Molitor.

Mr. Keith Brown?

I'm not sure if that's mentioned in this bill.

I believe that's part of the bill that we discussed earlier and is not included in the bill in front of us.

Well, I think two years ago we mandated that they pay at least the Medicaid rate for those services.

Well, private insurers were paying less than the Medicaid rate.

And we mandated that they pay at least the Medicaid rate. We increased it.

We've been, over the last couple of years, trying to increase that.

There's nothing in the budget pertaining to that.

There's nothing in the budget pertaining to that.

Thank you, Ms. Lunsford.

Could we please have the Health Committee to the Speaker's conference room? Health Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's conference room. Health Committee members, Speaker's conference room. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will generally be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are members who wish to vote yes, now would be the appropriate time to do so at your seats. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lunsford.

The majority will generally be in the affirmative on this bill. If you would like to register your vote in the negative, you may do so from your seats. Thank you. Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Walsh to explain her vote. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So I appreciated the discussion that we had, the debate that we had on this particular bill. I wanted to just explain my vote because I do really, although I'm constrained to vote no on this bill because of other reasons, I did want to say that I thought that as far as the targeted inflationary increase, formerly known as COLA, I'm glad for that 2.7 percent increase. Because of the work that I have done historically over the years with the developmentally disabled community, A lot of advocates come and meet with me and I know that they really did want 4% because they've been historically not treated well in previous budgets. I am glad to see the 2 I don think it enough and I would also say that I do wish that there was greater flexibility as to how it could be spent But I did want to just state for the record that I do agree with my colleagues and all of us agree I think that if we're going to put cuts in this budget, this is not the place to do it. I'm glad to see the increase that we have. I do wish it could have been more, but I do think that it will help us to continue to make investments in the workers who take care of our most vulnerable. So I do support that piece of the budget and other pieces as well. Overall, though, I can't support the total amount that's spent on Medicaid. I think it's just such a huge, huge part of our budget, and I don't think it's sustainable going forward. So I will be a no, but I do appreciate that piece for the COLA. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Walsh. In the negative, Ms. Giglio, to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. I also agree with my colleagues. I was very happy to see in both one-house bills the increase to 4% for the COLA, the fact that it got diminished down to 2.7%. I agree with my colleagues in that they have been operating at a structural deficit, and the rate of inflation keeps rising, and the increase that they are given each year don't equate to what they need to run these homes and run these places where our most vulnerable population goes. So I appreciate the efforts of both houses and their one-house bill, but I am not happy to see that it was diminished down to 2.7 percent. And because of many other things in the bill and the spending problem that this state has, especially with the Medicaid budget, that I will not be able to support the bill. But I do appreciate the 2.7 percent increase. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Ms. Giggly on the negative.

GovOps Committee members, Speaker's Conference Room. GovOps Committee members, make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 101, nays 41. The bill is passed. page 8, Rules Report 217, Clerk will read. Assembly number 10009C, Rules Report 217, Budget Bill. Governor's messages at the desk, Clerk will read. I hereby certify to an immediate vote, Kathy Hochul, Governor. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Pratlow. Yes, Madam Speaker. I'm going to give you a lengthy explanation and maybe it will then not require many questions on debate. This bill would enact major pieces of legislation that are required to implement the revenue proposals that are necessary to ensure a balanced state budget. This bill would rise an additional $562 million in state revenues during state fiscal year 2627. In the out years, revenue will increase by $1.9 billion for fiscal year 27-28, $2.3 billion for 28-29, $1.6 billion for fiscal years 29-30, and $841 million for fiscal year 30-31. Major provisions within this bill include language to provide protecting our wallets energy rebate checks eliminate income taxes on state wages enact the temporary Article 9A corporate franchise tax extension rate for two years three years I sorry authorize New York City to impose a surcharge on property that does not serve as a primary residence, enhance the New York City musical and theatrical production tax credit, increase income eligibility thresholds for scribe and dry programs, streamline the STAR program, enhance tax credits for donations to food pantries by farmers, amend property tax exemption for certain disabled veterans, expand standard bread testing requirements, and provide extensions to various tax credits and exemptions that already exist in current law. With that, Madam Speaker, I encourage the members to support this piece of legislation. Mr. Palmisano.

I knew you'd still have questions.

The Chair yields.

It's $562 million for a state fiscal year 26-27.

I believe it was $1.9 billion the fiscal year 27-28.

The only decrease we're doing is for tax on tip wages.

Yes.

Well, beginning with the city's fiscal year 28-29, the tax rate would range from 0.8% to 1.3% for one to three family residences and condos and co-ops with a market value in excess of $5 million. The surcharge applies to a co-op unit. Where a surcharge applies to a co-op unit, the proposals include language to require the co-op corporation to collect the surcharge from the tenant shareholder associated with that unit. This proposal has certainly been in the news, and it's been talked about pretty extensively.

Okay again this proposal would only impact a very small percentage of properties in the city Additionally the proposal would exempt certain recently constructed properties So are you concerned that this I know you say a few people but high income high wealth are you concerned that that might reduce that investment?

We've heard these arguments before, yet the number of high-income earners has increased significantly over the past few years. In New York City and New York State, even after raising income taxes a few years ago, people who can afford multimillion-dollar second homes are unlikely to relocate simply because of this proposal.

We know that the city is facing severe fiscal challenges in the coming years and allowing the city to change the amortization schedule is just kicking the can down the road. Is the revenue projected for this new tax on sturdy ground?

Was taxpayer behavior a factor in the estimate for how much this tax would generate?

And if the tax fails to generate its projected revenue, will we be here next year or the year after trying to figure out another way to make this up?

That would be up to New York City. If they don't attain the funds that they think, they may come up with a different idea.

I don't believe so.

Stockholders.

Yeah, I could do that.

Well, the language in the bill says that the co-op board will collect this solely from the individuals who own these high-value properties. And it wouldn't be passed on to the other residents of the co-op or condo.

Yes.

Yes. that really affected timing and treatment of research and experimental expenditures and other deductions. Why is the state moving to increase near-term tax costs on manufacturers when the manufacturing community,

Well, sir, I really don't believe that is the case. What we're doing in this legislation is maintaining current law. H.R. 1 took away the requirement to spread R&D expenditures over a number of years to make it fully deductible in year one. What New York State is doing is maintaining what's always been and having that deductibility spread over a number of years. The net effect to the corporations is negligible because the They just don't get it all up front, they get it spread over the life of the property.

Because I mean, there are some states that are decoupling, but there are some states that are not decoupling.

I really hate to compare New York State with any other state.

For the most part, they don't have as complex a tax system as we have here in New York. Okay.

It does not raise the tax. It maintains what tax is on the board right now. And over the course of the amortization period, the net dollar effect is zero.

Because that's what was put into H.R. 1. Those are the individuals that received the opportunity to put their R&D cost expense in one year.

Well, not to show anybody under the bus, so to speak, but this was a proposal by the executive, and we accepted it. Okay.

Yes.

Yes.

We didn't have the funding available to let this expire due to the increased Medicaid costs that we've experienced because of the massive cuts in Medicaid to this state and our need or our desire to to maintain as many individuals covered by health insurance that we couldn't otherwise do if we let the tax increases expire.

I really don't think that the tax revenue gained by those actions would be equal to the tax revenue lost by letting the tax increase of the past expire. And we needed something definite and something definite now because as stated in the previous bill in the 1st of July which is two months from now hundreds of thousands of individuals are going to lose their health coverage

That could be argued, but I think that our business community in New York right now is very vibrant.

I really don't have the answer to that. Sorry.

Yes.

I believe we're giving, the total would be $1 billion.

How much would it be for like a family for like income range? $200 for joint filers with incomes below $150,000. $150 for joint filers with incomes between $150,000 and $300,000. And $100 for single filers with incomes below $150,000.

That would be, but it's not in this bill.

Maybe we'll consider it in a committee before the end of the year.

That is something under consideration right now, and maybe we can get it done in the next two weeks, or hopefully we can attack it next year.

It's a help. It's a step forward. It's, you know, to some people $200 doesn't mean a lot. To many people $200 is a lot.

Yeah. Something is better enough. I agree. But we can always do more.

If there are, they're not in this bill.

Well, I believe that was an effect of things that happened in Washington that took away the federal subsidies that were being allocated to electric vehicles.

You can use your second 15.

Education Committee members to the Speaker's conference room. Education Committee, member speakers, conference room, Mr. Paul Misano for your second 15th.

Yes, it does.

Yes.

Well, the nicotine is usually a product of tobacco.

It has similar effects. and, you know, arguably it has the same health hazards associated with it in the form of gum, tongue, and throat cancers, even though the manufacturers claim that's not the case. It is also attractive to young individuals since they have been manufacturing flavored nicotine pouches,

Well, you know, there are other optional alternatives, like chewing gum to smoking. Nicotine is classified as a poison. It's used in some weed killers.

We'll use the same apparatus in place for the nicotine enforcement for six cigarettes on this to make sure that people are not selling untaxed vouches.

Well, like you say, most of these same taxes are regressive taxes. The people that can lease afford them are usually the ones that are paying the most because they utilize the products that we're trying to eliminate. But in answer to your question, we're doing the best we can with the current situation that we find ourselves.

Well, no, we tried that a while ago when we tried to limit indoor smoking, and that was replaced by vaping. And what we found then is that people use vaping products to attract more kids toward nicotine by introducing all these different flavors, bubble gum and ice cream and all kinds of flavors of vapes. And then we find out that vaping is just as hazardous as smoking.

I'm sorry. Say it again. Yeah, sure.

I understand that's been anticipated in this bill in front of us, and it's in the fiscal plan. Okay.

I would hope so, yes.

Yes. This was their proposal.

That will be determined by the authorities.

It was considered an annual decision to go along with the state. Proposal of tax and finance.

Madam Speaker, on the bill? On the bill. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, we're in the process of passing a budget of more than a quarter of a trillion dollars. The fact of the matter is, as we take up this revenue bill, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I'm very concerned about the continuation of business taxes that were supposed to be temporary, that were supposed to go away, the impact that will have on businesses that are here that want to stay here. I think that's a concern that I have and will continue to have. Businesses have. They want to invest here. They said it was a temporary tax, but yet it's not temporary. And we know that we have a challenging business climate already here in this state. I'm also concerned about these power rebates. It's nice we're going to send a $200 check to families, but that's not just a drop in the bucket to help provide direct, immediate ratepayer relief.

Thank you, Mr. Pirazzolo.

Fabulous. And you?

On the bill, sir.

position you have been in for generations. Mr. Perizzolo, we need to make comments relative to the bill, sir. Thank you. Ms. Forrest, and actually we're going to go to Ms. Lunsford first. Ms. Lunsford.

Thank you, Ms. Forrest.

On the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Mr. Mankdalo.

Mr. Pratlo, will you yield?

No, I don't.

I think the eligibility criteria is a veteran must be 100% disabled or permanently and totally disabled.

I just mean designated as 100% disabled.

Yes.

Would I still qualify for that 100% exemption?

I'm riding my motorcycle and I'm 50% rated and something happens to me, I black out because of my service disability.

Because I've already heard from several veterans about who is 100% disabled.

That wouldn't be up to the locality or definitely not this legislature.

Yes.

Then he or she would be eligible for the increase in the exemption that we're allowing the localities to offer to their fully disabled veterans.

I'm not sure what the...

I'm not sure.

And who would I ask that question to?

The VA?

Okay.

Well, the locality gives you the ability to make...

Your question was in relation to who determines if a vet is 100 disabled That is not determined by the locality That is determined by the VA Okay you correct and I agree with that So going back to the locality if the locality decides to give the exemption

No.

Well, they can.

If my community wanted to do it, they have the wherewithal to do it.

My community says, you know something?

We just don't have the financial wherewithal to do that.

That was my next question.

So what are we going to do to help those communities if that happens?

It's up to them to make the offer.

So if another community can do it, then it's the best interest of that vet, if they can, to locate.

So I think that question is kind of moot.

That's up to the community also.

That could be put into the language when they...

Yes.

look, I may have 100% disability before I do.

Well, having a close relationship with the Director of Veterans for the state, officially known as Mama V,

So the director, you're talking about Viviana DeCohen?

Okay.

No, it isn't.

I believe so.

One second. So what we're doing now is increasing eligibility.

Yes.

Madam Chair, on the bill. On the bill.

So thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Chair, for your time, and thank you. Thank you. Mr. Johnson?

Mr. Prello, will you yield?

Mr. Prello yields.

That really wasn't considered. The tax department indicated that they were losing revenues on sales of these pouches and suggested a 75% on the wholesale tax, which is what we had done. There were some people that were actually pushing for a unit tax on them. I don't know if you're referring, if you want to go in that direction. But what we have in front of us is a 75% wholesale tax on so-called pouches.

I would imagine so.

harmful to New Yorkers even though the gum has a higher nicotine volume. So Mr. Jensen, are you suggesting that we increase the tax on nicotine gum?

That's not addressed in this bill. What we have in front of us is the tax on the nicotine pouches.

Okay. Well, there is a difference there where the nicotine gum is an FDA-approved smoking cessation product,

Well, I don't believe we tax medical devices.

Yes, I'm informed that if the pouches get FDA approval, then this tax would be rolled back because then it would be considered a medical device.

Well, that's always the case. I mean, you know, Jersey doesn't put a nickel deposit on soda cans, and New York does. I know that we're not going to stop selling soda in New York because Jersey doesn't require a deposit. So I can only deal with what's happening in the confines of the state of New York and not really be concerned with what individuals do to go outside of New York to sort of prevent whatever laws we have in place in the state.

We're always concerned, but I can't do legislation with that as a driving force. I have to only look at what's effective and what we need in the state of New York, which is where we all live.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Jensen. Ms. Gallagher.

On the bill.

Thank you, Ms. Gallagher. Ms. Shrestha.

And they are leaving the state because they can no longer afford to live here and have a decent quality of life. All of this has been made worse by the federal administration's cuts on Medicaid as well as SNAP, which means the most vulnerable people will further find a challenge in continuing to live in this state. But this spending plan from the federal administration also gives tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. To be specific, collectively the millionaires in this state will be saving $12 billion every year going forward. And that means the state budget this year had one core function, to address the affordability crisis and act as a counterweight to the assault the federal administration is unleashing on the working families of this state However the refusal to raise money from those who have it from those who are hoarding it so as to not invest in programs that would stabilize the lives of our constituents, Has it made it so that people increasingly don't have a reason to truly believe in why they should be excited about democracy, why they should participate in this process? People need to believe that the government exists to watch out for their well-being. And the message we are sending with this revenue bill, specifically the very explicit refusal from the executive chamber to not make the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, is basically saying we are going to allow the working families of New York to be the victims of one of the highest wealth disparities that exists in this country. New York State has so much wealth that it is richer than countries like Denmark and Sweden. But at the same time, we are having people fight over scraps, fight over what program can be funded over another, and still have none of these programs fully funded. For example, we do not want people living on the streets. And yet, we do not want to fund housing access vouchers which would help people have stable homes. And that is an ask of only $250 million, which is a drop in the bucket compared to how much money people who are the richest in this state are keeping to themselves. The purpose of money is to exchange hands, not to sit there collecting dust. The purpose of money is not to increase the wealth of a few people. It is to fund our collective wealth being. It is to invest in a social infrastructure that gives everybody the opportunity to have a decent quality of life. That includes stable housing. That includes lower utility bills. That includes access to health care. That includes access to high quality education as well as good well-paying union jobs. So to say that we are not going to invest in New Yorkers simply because we do not want to touch the pockets of the wealthy is an abdication of this government's responsibility. And for that reason, I will be voting no on this revenue bill. Thank you, Ms. Reshta. Mr. Slater. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a few clarifying questions? Will you yield, Mr. Sponsor? For Mr. Slater, absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're doing good. You're doing good. Are you going to tell us you're opposed to this budget because it doesn't tax the rich? Well, that's not really what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to talk about was your – there's a couple of questions in here about the child and dependent care credit. Yes. If we can just have some clarification, just a few questions on that. This is restructured within this particular bill and replaces the current federally linked structure with a new standalone state credit beginning in tax year 2026, correct? Yes. And obviously very happy to see that we trying to address some of the challenges and financial burdens parents are facing in finding affordable and reliable child care something our conference has been pushing for And I know this is one of those bipartisan issues that we seen commonality with and we appreciate that Has the department estimated how many taxpayers will be impacted by the shift from a federal linked calculation to this new formula? I think we're looking at 230,000 filers. 230,000 filers. Yeah. That it would impact. Which would be 316,000 children. Understood. And how much will the average benefit for qualifying taxpayers go up for the average family of four? $576. And this part allows room and board for caregivers, correct? I believe so. And can you explain to us, I just kind of want to make sure I understand exactly when it comes to what we're trying to achieve there for the definition of caregivers. Is that for a live-in au pair, or who would benefit from that particular provision in the bill? The same individuals that are under current law. Right, and so can you explain to me who those individuals are? Susie and Charlie. I don't know who they are. I'm just trying to understand when we talk about giving room and board for caregivers, again, what does that entail? Someone whose position is in place to take care of a young individual. So there's no minimum of the number of young individuals that they would be in charge of? I don't believe so. And would the benefit, again, just to make sure I'm clear, would the benefit go to the caregiver themselves or those who are paying the caregiver? Actually, it's the individual that's paying the caregiver. The employer, essentially. The employer. Understood. And the other thing that we saw was there were ancillary costs related to educational expenses that were not allowed when they also enable work. Can you tell me why those costs were not included? Okay, we didn't make any changes to the eligibility criteria. And so are educational expenses included? Yes, as they are under current law. Understood. How about in regards to some of the regulatory reforms? I know we talked about this, I believe, in one of the previous bills. Is there anything in this bill that speaks to any of the regulatory reforms that I think both sides of the aisle have been trying to examine? No. Just making sure there's no other questions that I have there. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for answering my questions. I appreciate it as always. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Slater. Ms. Valdez. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Two facts should have motivated, defined this budget. One is the 450... On the bill? Oh, sorry. Pardon me. On the bill. Thank you. Two factors should have defined this budget. One is the 450,000 New Yorkers who are about to lose their health care because Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress have taken a buzzsaw to our already threadbare social safety net. The second is the $12 billion in tax cuts that the wealthiest New Yorkers are getting this year from that same Republican Congress. New York State had the opportunity and the responsibility to lead. The overwhelming majority of New Yorkers are demanding that we tax the rich to invest in the working class of the state to make our lives more affordable and more dignified. But Governor Hochul answered to different New Yorkers, that small number of billionaires and CEOs who refuse to pay their fair share and who donate to politicians to keep it that way. So what are we left with? A pied-a-terre tax on second homes worth more than $5 million. It's a start. And against a governor who so beholden to her billionaire donors, she swore she wouldn't allow a penny in new taxes. It is a victory. I want to thank the thousands of New Yorkers who made calls, who canvassed their neighbors, who showed up to rallies in their cities and here in the Capitol. Your organizing made a difference this year. But in a moment of profound inequality, when the rich have never been richer, when one in four New Yorkers lives in poverty, and hundreds of thousands will lose their health care and their food stamps in a matter of weeks, It is simply not good enough. Make no mistake, this is on austerity budget. But we will continue to organize for a just budget that recognizes that it is the working class that make the state run, not the CEOs and billionaires. I vote no. Thank you, Ms. Valdez. Mr. Bologna. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the chairman please yield first a couple questions? Will the chairman yield? So, Steph. I can limit you to two? A couple more, but I'll be brief. A few. I'm going to be on part K if that's all right. So the 75% wholesale tax, and again, some of these have gone over, but I just want to clarify. These are non-combustible products. We're talking about non-traditional cigarettes here, right? Yes. Okay. And would you agree that a lot of adults use these products as an alternative to smoking? I'd imagine so. So generally speaking, as we move away from combustible cigarettes, I think that would you agree that it's a positive that people are moving away from tobacco to just nicotine, even if it's just a gateway to get off altogether? Possibly, yes. Okay. So would you agree, well, it's data, I mean, this is from the CDC, that lower-income folks are at a three times higher rate of smoking and using tobacco products than higher-income earners? Let me rephrase that. I guess I'm telling you, according to the CDC, lower income earners are at a three times higher rate to smoke and use tobacco products than income earners. So would this excise tax then hit lower income earners at a disproportionate rate than people who don't smoke or use tobacco? As I stated earlier that mostly all of the sin taxes affect poorer people because they utilize these items more than wealthier people And that a percentage of their income It a lot higher So, I mean, in a weird way, we're actually kind of effectively helping balance a budget on the backs of lower-income earners, are we not? That is not the purpose of what we're doing. The purpose of what we're doing is to maintain the good health of all individuals and to discourage actually the use of tobacco products. Mr. Brett, that's all I have. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. On the bill, if that's all right? On the bill, sir. All right, so this bill raises billions in new revenue for New Yorkers that are already struggling with some of the highest tax burden in America. Nowhere is that clear than Part K, the 75% wholesale tax. Now, let me be clear. I'm not standing here advocating for nicotine use. But I am questioning the logic of lower risk alternatives that many adults use to get away from combustible cigarettes. As I said earlier, that lower income earners are three times more likely to use these products than higher income earners. And I frankly, I find it rich that we are sitting here listening to some folks lose their ever loving minds over higher income earners. But essentially what we're doing is we're making it more difficult for lower income earners to get off cigarettes, increase their risk of cancer and put them into the health care system. I find that a little bit odd. So who's ultimately paying this bill? Working class New Yorkers, lower income New Yorkers, at risk New Yorkers, blue collar people struggling with addiction and trying to quit smoking. And instead of helping them transition away from cigarettes, Albany sees an opportunity to generate revenue. This is a fundamental problem with this budget. Temporary taxes ultimately become permanent. And kind of getting on to the energy thing here with the rebate check, one-time rebate checks does not fix the underlying problem of energy. I appreciate the fact that someone wanted to pick up the ball and run with it from our conference's plan. But at the end of the day, you only got one piece of it. We still need to systematically reduce the cost of energy across the board. And a one-time rebate check is kind of a slap in the face to everyday New Yorkers without the additional piece. We still have the All Electric Buildings Act, All Electric Vehicles Act, the Cap and Invest, the 2025 Building Code, the 100-foot rule. We're still systematically getting rid of natural gas, reducing our energy portfolio, and doing nothing to increase the affordability or reliability of our entire energy system. But yet New Yorkers are still supposed to be happy with a $200 rebate check without the long-term benefits of systematic change. It's a change in PR. And really what it is is damage control. And the irony is staggering because our mandates, what we've done in this body, is essentially what has driven up costs to ratepayers across the state. And then we send taxpayers and ratepayers a partial refund and expect to get applause from the very crisis that we helped create. I will die on this hill, but we do not have a revenue problem in New York State. We have a spending problem and a philosophical utility problem. The answer to all this is fiscal discipline This budget does not do that We need permanent tax relief economic growth and a government that fondly learns how to live within its own means And I will say this on the nicotine tax Madam Speaker While some may laugh about this Indiana Jones searching for the lost nicotine pouch in Albany's newest tax adventure, for the working families across this state, nothing is funny about being treated like an ATM machine by their own government. Thank you, Mr. Bologna. Ms. Metanyas. Oh, pardon me. Mr. Keith Brown. On the bill, Madam Speaker. On the bill. Our state is not going in the right direction. While we sit here and debate, we ignore problems we're creating right here in this chamber. We talk about the policies that are coming out of Washington, D.C. Well, let's look under the hood here. What has New York done since 2019? Where does New York stand in comparison with every other state? We have the second highest total tax burden in the country. We have the highest individual tax burden in the country. We have the fourth highest property tax burden in this country. Our residential electricity rates are 62% higher than the national average. Our commercial electricity rates are 63% higher than the national average. We haven't adequately addressed many social ills. We have a housing crisis. We had over 2,000 New Yorkers overdose last year. We have a veteran suicide crisis and a growing problem of problem gambling, especially amongst teens. We have a teen vaping problem and a teen mental health crisis. Child care is 11.4% higher than the national average. We have the worst business climate in the country. The Tax Foundation ranks us dead last, dead last in tax competitiveness. We're number one, though, in an hour migration. We've lost a million of our residents since 2020. One New Yorker leaves this state for somewhere else every two minutes. And what do we do with this bill today makes it worse? We do nothing about Medicaid fraud. The Empire Center says we spent $2.1 billion on non-New Yorkers last year. Three million more people are on the rolls and are financially eligible to Medicaid in New York State. And in 2000, when I came into this chamber, we spent $177 billion as a state. This budget is over $268 billion, an estimated 48% increase. That's some austerity budget, I tell you. Inflation is 2.4% this year. And this budget is an operating spending of 6.8%. It's not sustainable. We don't have a revenue problem. We certainly have a spending problem. I'll be voting no. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Now, Ms. Matanjas. On the bill. Today we voting for a budget that reflects both the possibilities of what working people can win when they organize and fight and the deep failures of a political system that continues to put wealthy interests ahead of the needs of everyday New Yorkers Year after year, members of this body are expected to vote on a massive budget bill negotiated behind closed doors with little transparency and little meeting participation from the communities we represent. The people of the state deserve a democratic process where working-class New Yorkers, immigrants, tenants, families, and environmental justice communities have a real seat at the table, not a process dominated by executive power and last-minute negotiations driven by political calculation. Because while New Yorkers are struggling to pay rent, afford groceries, keep childcare, and stay in their homes, this budget process continues to treat transformative change as something to fear instead of something to fight for. Communities like Sunset Park and Red Hook that I represent know exactly what the environmental injustice looks like. We live with higher asthma rates. We live alongside polluting infrastructure, truck traffic, flooding risk, peaker plants, and industrial contamination. Working class black and brown immigrant communities are always the first forced to suffer the consequences when politicians decide to water down climate protections. The consequences will not be abstract. They will impact public health, air quality, flooding, vulnerability, and our ability to transform away from fossil fuels and the urgency the crisis demands. We had an opportunity to tax the rich. An investment that could have represented critical steps toward building publicly owned renewable energy infrastructure that is democratically controlled and centered around public good instead of corporate profit. It creates the opportunity for New York to lead the country in building a renewable energy future that moves away from fossil fuels pollution and racism. We should not have to fight this hard to protect the bare minimum while we have a governor who simultaneously is weak in legislation that's taken this body years to pass. We saw the same dynamic throughout our fight for immigration justice. Our communities fought for New York for all. Real protections that would finally establish clear separation between local governments and federal immigration enforcement and ensure immigrant New Yorkers could live with dignity and safety and continue to contribute into the economy. And then the governor stood in the way. We were forced to settle for weaker measures and partial protections after enormous resistance and reluctance. Even so, immigrant advocates, organizers, and legislative allies fought hard to secure meaningful wins in this budget. These victories matter, but they don't go far enough. At a moment when immigrant families across this country are living in fear and under increased attack, New York should be leading with courage and clarity, not compromise and hesitation. communities should never be treated as bargaining chips during budget negotiations. Our fight does not end here. We will continue organizing, legislating, and pushing to strengthen these protections until New York fully lives up to its promise as a safe home for all immigrants. New Yorkers are facing one of the worst affordability crises in generations. Families are being crushed by rising rents, health care costs, utility bills, food prices, while billionaires and major corporations continue to receive enormous tax breaks and protections. We fought to make the ultra-wealthy finally pay their fair share. We fought for real progressive revenue solutions that could fully fund housing, health care, public transit, climate investments, child care and public education. And once again, We face constant pushback. Instead of fully taxing the rich, this administration chose to protect wealthy interests and corporate power while asking working-class New Yorkers to continue carrying the burden of a broken economy. Now, there are important wins in this budget that deserve recognition, but even those victories exist alongside austerity, compromise, and missed opportunities that continue to leave too many New Yorkers behind. I recognize the hard four victories won by movements, advocates, organizers, and legislative allies. Our communities deserve better than incrementalism during a moment of crisis. Working people are looking for leaders willing to improve their lives. They're looking for leadership willing to confront corporate greed, invest boldly in public goods, protect immigrants without compromise and treat climate change like the emergency that it is. And too often this governor stood in the way of that vision. Despite those barriers our movement continues to grow stronger, working-class New Yorkers continue to organize, and we will continue fighting for a future where housing is guaranteed, healthcare is universal, energy is public, immigrants are protected, and our economy serves the people who make this state run, not the wealthy elite who profit from inequality. This budget did not go far enough, but our fight does not end here. I will continue building a New York that belongs to all of us. I vote no on this budget. Thank you, Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill. On the bill. So I've listened to, as usual, with interest to, you know, there are 150 of us here sometimes. Well, it seems like there are a lot of us here right now, which is kind of good. We're all listening to each other, I hope. And, you know, we have a wide difference of opinion on this bill and on this whole topic of revenue. So I want to just use my time to talk a little bit about what's on my mind with this bill. This enacted revenue budget increases state taxes by $2.5 billion over two years. It includes an enhancement of the Child's Independent Care Credit, energy rebate checks, taxes on alternative nicotine products, as well as a new surcharge on high-value second homes in New York City, an extension of business tax rates, and decoupling from various H.R. 1 provisions. So by, you know, some budget bills are very thick with many, many, many subparts. This has 36 parts. So, you know, we're not going to like it all. Or if you like all of it, you probably should have your head examined. If you hate it all, you probably don't have a heart. So there are definitely parts of the bill that I think are decent. And I'm a glasses half full kind of gal, so I'm going to tell you what I like about it so far. I like the tipped wage income exemption. I think that's good. The rebate checks are good as far as they go. I just think that, you know, again, they're a little gimmicky. They're not really – when you go to the grocery store or you fill up your gas tank and you think about what these rebate checks are really going to mean to you, it's not going to be that much. It's really not going to be that much. I'm grateful – let's put it in a positive spin – I'm grateful that the New York City Pied-a-terre tax did not get imported to upstate. I'm very grateful that that didn't get into the final enacted budget. I don't think we want it up here, but we'll see how it works in the city. You know, I think when I came here 10 years ago the enacted budget was billion Last year it was billion and this year it will be billion an increase year over year of $14 billion. And I listened with great amusement to that being described as an austerity budget. I don't see in what realm of reality that is an austerity budget when you're increasing it by $14 billion. I just think what I'm coming away with, what I've been feeling for some time now, is that no matter how much money this legislature has to spend, it will always want more. It will never be enough. It will never be enough. And, you know, that has an impact. The governor promised no new taxes, but then over time that became no new broad-based income or statewide business tax increases. So it changed a little bit, the messaging, right? That's Albany speak for. There are, you know, there is going to be state tax increases, but we're going to look at over two years. It's going to be $2.5 billion. New York City businesses have the highest combined corporate tax rate in the country, while statewide business taxes are generally among the highest nationwide. And I won't re-quote all the great statistics that were offered by a previous speaker, but suffice it to say that I believe that we are already taxed considerably here. For those of my colleagues who are very disappointed that we're not taxing the rich, I would say we do tax the rich. We tax the middle class and we tax the poor, and we already do that. And, you know, I think overall I'm just disappointed again that we're – it seems as though there are some in the chamber who are taking a victory lap and kind of saying, we didn't make it any worse, you know, we didn't make it any worse. But really, in fact, it was already pretty bad. And I would say that over the 10 years that I've been in office, an increase of well over $100 billion is a lot of money. And it is what it is. Let me say one more good thing now before I close. I was very happy to see in part JJ, which is all the way at the end of this budget, very, you know, this budget bill. And what this part does, which is very helpful for my district, and I did want to point it out because, like I said, I believe in calling out the good stuff when it's there, is let me get it in front of me. I have a village in my district, Boston Spa, and it's actually where my district office is too. And that, they have a very old brownfield site. And we've been wanting to see that get redeveloped for like a long time. And there were some brownfield tax credits that were issued several years ago, but then the pandemic happened and a lot of other things happened. and proposals you know developers kind of came in with ideas and then those developers went away and to make a very long story short those brownfield credits were ready to expire and that would have really detrimentally impacted the owner of the property and any potential development ideas for the property It makes it much more attractive to redevelop that property with the brownfield tax credits. So with this part, JJ, and it's not just for Boston Spa, but it's for other areas too, those brownfield tax credits are going to get extended for a few more years to allow for the appropriate development process to move forward. And hopefully we're going to get a good project in there that's really going to help that village out quite a bit. So I'm very grateful to see that. So to answer colleagues who thought that we should have taxed more, we should have taken more from those who could, in their view, very well afford it, I would just say I think that this bill does plenty enough damage, and I can't support it, although there are certain aspects to it, as there would be with 36 parts to it. There are certainly some parts that I'm happy to see. So I'll be voting in the negative, Madam Speaker, and I thank my colleagues and you for the time. Thank you, Mr. Tate. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and on the bill, please. On the bill. I saved you a little time, Mr. Chairman. I didn't ask you any questions this year. There's no white smoke, so we're good. I'm going to be very brief, Madam Chair. This is just ridiculous. Here we are all this time late on a budget spending $100 billion more than what we did back when I first got to this chamber. and I hear people whining and crying and blaming the governor, blaming the federal government. No, the blame is in here. The blame is on the second floor. There is no one paying attention to what the heck is going on. How can we spend $100 billion more in 10 years when we have less businesses, less people living in this state? What are we doing? And then we attack people that have been successful. Let me tell you what, a lot of those people that you're talking about that are millionaires and billionaires now, a lot of them grew up poor, started with absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing, and they made their way the American way. New York should and never ought to be a socialist state. Nor America. I can't believe that we have people in this room that think it's okay to just give away the store and let everybody else pay for it. That is not how this country came to be. Sure in the heck not the way I want to live. So, I mean, I hear all this. Some people are voting for it. Everything I've seen so far is absolute junk. As a matter of fact, I ought to tear it up and just throw it in the garbage can. This is not responsible. This is afraid of saying no to people. And when you're in business and you're running, and when you're here and you're running government, sometimes you have to say no. We can't afford it. the people we represent can't afford it. As long as we have our priorities, our emergency services our law enforcement and we keep the wheels of government going that priority I just I don get it I don get it I guess I just I live in an area of the state where people work hard every day and expect to get something back for the fruits of their labor. But what we're doing to people, and you know what, you want to talk about being rich, or whatever. You have to have a million dollars to be able to live in this state. Because over the last 10 years, we've made it so unaffordable for every single person to live here that if you don't have a million dollars, if you don't make a million dollars, you can't live comfortably here. And it's all because of the things that happen in this chamber, that chamber down there, and the second floor. People are out of touch with the real world. They're out of touch how hard people work and how hard people struggle to pay the bills. That's where I came from, blue collar. I started with nothing. Didn't have rich parents. Didn't have parents give everything to me. I got up at 3.30 every morning, and I worked my tail off, and I paid my fair share of taxes in the last 50-plus years. You want to really do something for the people that you represent? Start thinking about them. Not giving away the story, but start thinking about programs and things that can really help them get going while cutting the budget and lowering people's taxes. Why don't we think about that one time? I could never support anything like this. This is just absolutely ridiculous. almost $300 billion with a B. Where the heck is it coming from? And the nonsense about Washington, D.C. and the federal government, that's been happening since Obama was in office. So I don't want to hear that. And the same thing with the health insurance. There's been a problem with health insurance for the last 30 years. Nobody's fixed it. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on. It's so ridiculous. Put your money where your mouth is, get a set, get some guts, and do what we're supposed to do here. Make the people in the state of New York's lives better by doing the right thing and never mind the politics. I vote no. Thank you, Mr. Taig. Let's make sure we use appropriate language. I'm not really... Well, getting something is not appropriate. it. Ms. Giglio. Thank you, Madam Speaker, on the bill. On the bill. New York doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. Spending is out of control. As my colleague stated earlier, the budget went from $175 billion to today's $268 billion in less than 10 years. Taxing, taxing and taxing is not sustainable. Corporate greed, tax the rich, and now we're extending taxes on small businesses for three more years. And that's the flow. When you run out of the money at the top, it starts trickling down to the bottom, to the businesses and to the middle class. Money flows into New York City from our state budget. While the state legislature or the city legislature, the financial plan from 2026 to 2029 shows a 16% salary increase for the elected officials in New York City with 13% fringe benefits and a mere 3% increase for the 80,000 work that make the city work. What will we do to stop the exodus? New York's share of millionaires is falling compared to other large states. Wall Street to y'all Street is real. More than 100 companies are duly listed in New York and Texas, and they're planning their exodus. JPMorgan Chase employs more in Texas now than New York. Goldman Sachs is building an 800,000-square-foot building in Dallas for 5,000 employees. Wells Fargo opened a new campus in Las Colinas, bringing 4,500 workers there from New York. Charles Schwab moved corporate headquarters to Westlake, Texas, with 7,000 employees. Bank of America, 5,000 employees to Texas. Scotiabank Regional Office in Dallas, 1,000 workers there. What will we do to create a better business environment in New York so that we stop leaving and losing these large companies that are paying these taxes that we're all talking about here today? The structural deficit and unsustainable revenue source will affect our bond rating in the future. The well will dry out. This spending is out of control, and the Wall Street to Y'all Street is real. They're leaving. and it will fall on the middle class. The spending has to stop. And for that reason, I'll be voting in the negative. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Otis. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you all. On the bill? On the bill. On the bill. I think something that's been left out of the discussion is where the money is going. The money in this budget is going not to state government, but mostly back into the pockets of our communities and our institutions. Health care, hospitals and nursing homes needed help. They're getting some relief in this budget, especially upstate hospitals, very much at risk because of what's going on in Washington. We're doing the best we can to help. It may not be enough for some institutions. Money is going back into what we're doing with foundation aid and school aid, back to the taxpayers. We increased in this budget the minimum a school district could get in aid from 1% to 2% for those that are on Save Harmless, an increase that school districts asked for repeatedly. We did it. Increases in child care, increases in school breakfast and lunch funding, Assistance to utility rate payers, not just with the rebate program, as has been mentioned somewhat disparagingly, but it's a billion dollars, but also in changing, more importantly, the rules by which rate increases are approved by the Public Service Commission. Hopefully we'll see better results on those applications. Increases in AIM and other kinds of transportation assistance to local governments back into the pockets that will help offer property tax increases. $1 billion for our Sustainable Futures Fund, which will help us do some of the energy efficiency kinds of programs that we need to do. $1 billion is not enough, but it's what it looks like in this budget we can afford. We added 25 million so total 525 million for clean water programs which has provided to local governments in this state these programs over three billion dollars of assistance since those programs were created And we have a new 175 million dollars for clean water related to housing We will see how that program works out but that is a potential money out the door that helps at the local level. And with it, it's just too easy to say too much spending without reflecting on the fact that very little of it, most of our state agencies are at zero increases for their budgets. It's out the door to help people, help affordability in this state. So I vote aye on this budget. As with any budget, we're not all happy with every element, and that comes with the territory. But we're doing real things to lower costs for the people that we serve. That's something we should all be proud of. I'll be voting aye. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Smolin. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill? On the bill. So here we are with another budget and more new taxes for New York. The new state taxes this year benefit New York City to the tune of a half a billion dollars. Yet New York continues to have the number two overall tax burden in our nation. We have the most state and local taxes in the whole country at $12,500 per person in New York State. But meanwhile, the Tax Foundation ranks New York number 50 dead last in the whole United States. The budget itself is up 5.6%, but inflation last year was only 2.6%. What gives? Why are we spending more than we need to? This spending is at historical levels. It's up from $170 billion in 2019 to almost $270 billion here in 2026. And this spending, we spend more than any other big state in the country. California spends $349 billion, but they have 40 million people. It's outrageous. That's because Texas spends only $169 billion and they have 31 billion people. And sunny Florida spends $114 billion with 23 million people. So is it any wonder that a million people have left upstate New York in the last years? Is it any wonder that people realize that New York is on the wrong track and they are voting with their feet? We need to stop this insanity. I vote no on this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chang. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This budget has both positive and negative. On the bill? On the bill, sorry. On the bill. This budget has both positive and negative. And there is, as the previous, as Mr. Smolin says, that we lost nearly a million people for the past five or six years, and our budget has ballooned. So why are we increasing the budget, why are we losing people? And we're paying more per person than not. If we have to find a way to just find a fraud, waste and abuse in the system, we don't even need to increase the taxes. We could even cut the taxes and bring back the business itself. This bill doesn't address that, especially for a useless, Wasteful Homeless Program that doesn't help. Education, we lost in New York City not even a million kids enrolled. Not too long ago was it over a million, but it's less than a million now And the cost per student is in New York City nearly 42 And education level were in the middle of the pack Not in the top of the pack but in the middle So this budget as my previous colleague is is not a tax problem or revenue problem but it a spending It's the priorities that we spend on this that is wasteful, that is not accounted to all those non-governmental programs that need to be ordered, need to be, need to account for. Are they successful or not? We're just pumping useless money. And I am debating on this bill, should I vote yes or no, because there's a lot of positive in this bill. There's some tax releases in there. There is some expanding or decreasing on government regulations. So there is a lot of greatness and goodness on this bill. So that's all I have, and that's my thought on this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Ms. Moreno. Madam Speaker, on the bill. On the bill. As one of the newest members of this body, I was elected less than four months ago as a proud democratic socialist, ready to fight for my constituents at a pivotal moment for New York and our country. I've had countless conversations with my neighbors who are worried about not being able to afford the rent or childcare while watching Trump gut government agencies slash social programs and threaten the very fabric of our democracy to line his own pockets and the pockets of his billionaire oligarch friends. Madam Speaker, point of order please. I ran for office precisely because I saw that our state government has- Madam Speaker, point of order. Point of order, Ms. Verano please stop talking for one moment please. What is your point? My point is that the comments of the speaker deviate from not only our decorum, but are also not related to the bill. Okay. Your point on decorum not sustained relative to speaking on the bill, it is sustained. We will speak on the bill in front of us today, please. Sounds great. Ms. Moreno. I ran for office precisely because I saw that our state government has a unique opportunity and a responsibility to protect New Yorkers from the class warfare and attacks on our democracy from the federal government. Unfortunately, I have been deeply frustrated and frankly shocked by the undemocratic process by which this budget has been negotiated. Witnessing a budget process that feels completely divorced from the lived reality of my constituents has been disappointing. We have watched our executive co-op the language of affordability in our budget process to insert her own policy priorities of auto insurance and district giveaways and climate law rollbacks while ignoring the vast majority of New Yorkers who wanted to increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy. But we know that a real affordability agenda means taxing the rich to fund the essential programs that working people need to live. Our governor refused, despite the fact that a majority of New Yorkers supported these measures. It was through our movement and the advocacy of thousands of everyday New Yorkers that we did win a pied-à-terre tax for New York City. This is an initial and important step towards taxing the ultra-wealthy. But the reality is that we have failed to protect New Yorkers from the federal government's egregious budget cuts. In July 450 New Yorkers will lose their health insurance An additional 300 households will see cuts to SNAP food assistance and tens of thousands more will lose the housing access vouchers they depend on to keep a roof over their head. New York State had a chance to reverse these devastating cuts by having the wealthiest corporations and individuals pay their fair share. While the legislature was ready to take action this session, Governor Hochul refused. This was not a negotiation. This was a complete capitulation to billionaires and corporations by Governor Hochul at a time they're already receiving $12 billion in tax breaks from the Trump administration. This budget does not address the urgent need of New York's working families, which is why I will be voting no. But I refuse to give up. We refuse to give up. I know that many of my colleagues are ready to fight to raise the essential revenue that we will need to protect vulnerable communities, take on the billionaire class, and deliver an affordable future. And I encourage working New Yorkers to join us. It will take all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Tenusas. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill? On the bill. You know, since I joined the Assembly five years ago, the budget has increased dramatically. Almost 40% more than when I started here in 2021. And this budget does nothing more than increase taxes and increase fees. And does not do much of anything in incentivizing families to stay here and businesses to stay here. As we continue, we hear more and more people are fleeing the state. They are going to safer, more affordable places to live. And as I sit here in this chamber and I hear some of my colleagues say that this budget didn't go far enough because it didn't tax enough and try to villainize people because they are successful. I am proud to represent a district of immigrants. My parents are immigrants. Came here for that American dream. We are the land of opportunity. We are not here to villainize success. What we needed this year were tax cuts to put more money in people's pockets, not tax increases that will continue to make living in New York State unmanageable. I vote no. Thank you, Mr. Morinello. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've stated this yesterday. I'm going to state it again today. On the bill, sir. Yes, it's on the bill. I am sorry. As an attorney and a retired judge, we work on definitions. There's two terms that have been utilized, both in the budget debates and on the bills. One is immigrant. Two is, what is the fair share? I only ask that at some point those definitions be put in and be stated. We have different categories of immigrants, and I'd like to know which ones they're referring to. Number two, I'd like to know what a fair share is. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Norber. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill. On the bill. I know that we said this a few times today about comparing New York to Florida, but I think we should reiterate it a little bit more. There are 3 million people living in Florida today than there are in New York State. And it's not that we have a little bit of a difference in terms of the budget. Their budget is $113 billion. Ours is now $270 billion. They don't have different type of people. They have the same type of working class, the same type of middle class, the same type of rich people, and the same type of people that need to be taken care of. It's not some magic recipe that we have to look into. This is actually happening in our country. They are able to maintain a budget probably about 40% lower than ours, and at the same time, probably cutting property taxes. So if we really cared about our working class, I'm not talking about the rich right now, even though they're paying, our top 1% is paying 40% of our tax revenue. But if we really cared about our working class, our middle class, our business owners, our small business owners, we could take that $160 billion discrepancy and give it back to them. If we really wanted to. If we cared about the affordability. So I think we should really look at ourselves and not be willfully blind to the solutions that we have here in our country. So I'll be voting on the negative. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ms. Lunsford? Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know while we wait for our friends in the Senate I just want to rise to add some of my comments to what I heard today I just got a little bugaboo about state comparisons, since maybe I'm a little raw from this budget. But I think it's worth noting that New York actually has more people than it's ever had. We're growing slower than we used to, but our total population is still bigger by every measure. The total percentage loss of our population is a fraction of a percent. Just want to correct some of the record there. Also, when you're comparing New York to other states, it's hard to compare New York, where it snows, to states that have concrete roads that are simply easier to maintain, to states that don't provide as much health care as we do, to states that have substantially fewer modes of public transportation, things like that. I'd just like to point out that New York is an expensive state because we have awesome stuff that people like. If you look at where our population growth has come from, it's come from natural growth, not migration, because people move here, stay here, and multiply. People want to raise their kids here. People like to live here. My community is bigger than it's ever been. I'm voting for this budget. There's things I don't like. There's things that I do. But I know that we can support New Yorkers here by giving them everything that they need, and some of that is through revenue raising. With that, I vote in the affirmative, and thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Kellis. Thank you. On the bill? On the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This budget is about values. Who bears the burden and who we ask to contribute more in a moment of extraordinary crisis Just because working New Yorkers make less does that mean they should pay more relatively Because that is our current reality. At a time when working families across New York are struggling under the cost of housing, childcare, groceries, healthcare, transportation, and rising utility bills, we did not go far enough in asking the wealthiest New Yorkers and the most profitable corporations to pay their fair share. Meanwhile, we are told there is not enough money to fully protect health care coverage for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers. Not enough money to stabilize hospitals, nursing homes, hospice providers, EMS systems, and rural health care infrastructure already at risk of closure. Not enough money to truly fund universal child care with living wages for child care workers. Not enough money to adequately support our public schools, our teachers, or fully address the inequalities of the Tier VI pension system. We have the largest number of billionaires of any state in the country, yet half of renter households are paying more than 30% of their income just to keep a roof over their heads. And we did not adequately fund the housing supports needed to keep people housed in the first place, including programs like HABP that help low-income New Yorkers facing eviction, homelessness, domestic violence, or unsafe housing conditions stay housed and avoid falling deeper into crisis. We also failed to meet the scale of the climate crisis at a moment when communities across New York are already experiencing flooding, extreme heat, infrastructure damage, rising utility costs, crop losses for farmers, and worsening public health impacts. But somehow there is always enough money for tax breaks at the top. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, New York millionaires received roughly $12 billion annually in federal tax savings from Trump's tax policies. And yet the modest proposals many of us carried to increase taxes on ultra-wealthy individuals and highly profitable corporations would not even have clawed back the full windfall they already received. Across the state, hospitals are warning about service reductions. EMS systems are operating on the brink. Child care centers are losing workers. And working families are leaving New York because they simply cannot make the math work anymore. This is the affordability crisis. And working people did not create it. The nurse working double shifts did not create it. The child care worker making poverty wages did not create it. The teacher buying supplies out of pocket did not create it. Yet they are the ones repeatedly asked to absorb the consequences while billionaires and multinational corporations continue accumulating extraordinary wealth, with many of these large corporations not paying any taxes at all. And when New Yorkers are asked, the majority of people across the political spectrum support higher taxes on the wealthy and profitable corporations to fund public services and affordability measures across the political spectrum. We must come back to fight for health care, child care, housing, schools, climate action and public services. We must come back and insist that in one of the wealthiest states in the wealthiest nations, working people should not be the ones carrying the burden while the wealthiest continue receiving billions in tax breaks. This process is not about simply spending less while somehow getting more. That is not reality. It is about who and where the money is coming from and on whom and where it is being spent. This year we did not go far enough. While I support the good in this bill and vote yes, I will join the majority of the New Yorkers moving forward who demand that we do better. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sempolinsky. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill. On the bill. So I'm glad that the Assistant Majority Leader brought up state-to-state comparisons because that's where I wanted to go. And she said correctly that New York State is bigger than it has been. However, since 2020, the population of the state of New York has grown approximately 1 million people. I'm sorry, since the year 2000, the population of the state of New York has grown to approximately 1 million people. That's over 26 years. Over that same period of time, the population of the state of Florida has grown to approximately 7.5 million people. The population of the state of Texas has grown to approximately 11 million people. So, while it's technically true we are bigger than we used to be, we are growing at a dramatically reduced rate to our peer group states. over that same period of time, the net migration over the last 26 years out of the state of New York has been over 4 million people from state to state. The net migration into the state of Florida has been over approximately 3.5 million people, and the net migration into the state of Texas has been approximately 3 million people. So, clearly, the weather isn't that much different now than it was in 2000. What we make the roads in different states hasn't changed that much over the last 26 years. What has increased dramatically over that time is our spending. And we spend approximately what those two states spend together, and they are cleaning our clock. So the governor can talk all that she wants about affordability. and some of my colleagues can talk about austerity. When we spend that much more compared to peer group states and we tax that much more in this bill compared to peer group states, that's not an austerity budget. And you don't increase affordability in the state of New York by ripping funds out of everybody across the income spectrum and then saying somehow we're going to give it back to you. Just leave it in people's pockets, cut spending, cut taxes, and we would do a lot better compared to other states. Thank you very much. Ms. Gonzalez-Rohas. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill? On the bill. Today we're being asked to make choices about what kind of New York we want to be and whose side we're on in this moment of deep economic uncertainty and growing inequality. First, I want to commend the Speaker and my colleagues in this Chamber for advancing an Assembly One House budget resolution that recognized the urgency of this moment and included the proposals to tax the wealthiest New Yorkers so that we can make meaningful investments in our communities. That vision acknowledged what many New Yorkers already know. We cannot continue balancing our priorities on the backs of working families while extreme wealth continues to grow unchecked. And while New York City peer-to-teer tax included in this budget was a step in the right direction, it was only that a first step. We must not stop until we truly tax the rich statewide and make transformative investments in housing, health care, education, and affordability. At a moment when the federal government under the occupant in the White House escalating a tax on our health care system New York had an opportunity to lead Instead we did not go far enough An estimated 400, nearly half a million people, could lose health care coverage on July 1st. And this budget does not do nearly enough to protect them. We should be expanding access to care, strengthening our safety net, and ensuring no New Yorker loses health care because of decisions made in Washington. Governor Hochul must take action to ensure these New Yorkers are not left behind. We have the means to do it. By taxing the ultra-wealthy and asking those who have benefited most from New York's economy to contribute their fair share, we can protect health care and invest in the people and communities that make this state strong. This budget was a step in the right direction to help address New York City's fiscal challenges, but it could have gone further to protect health care and fully invest in an affordability agenda that meets the scale of this moment. New Yorkers deserve bold action. They deserve a state willing to fight for affordability, for dignity, and as health care as a human right. And we are going to keep fighting to tax the rich and win a truly affordable New York. And for these reasons, I respectfully vote no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. On a motion by Mr. Pretlow, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Party vote's been requested. Mr. Gandolfo. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will generally be opposed to this budget bill. However, any member who wishes to vote in the affirmative may do so at their desk. Thank you, Ms. Lunsford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will generally be in the affirmative. If anybody would like to vote no, they may do so at their desks. Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Pirzoa to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So as I said before and the members have mentioned, we're talking about $260 billion. That's $100 billion more than 10 years ago. The Governor likes to say we're open for business, and I have to agree. We're open in the business of keeping your children undereducated. We're in the business of keeping people homeless. We're in the business of keeping people unaccountable for their crimes and their actions. We're in everything that's a bad business, Madam Speaker. I'm not trying to say that there's nothing good out of this budget, because there has to be. Everything can't be all bad. But to pretend that this is all good, and we have the socialist members here standing up, and they're very gleeful at how we're going after people's money and their fair share. And, you know, no one has any idea. It's all happy and fun. We're going to get the rest of your money, too, in the future. People really need to wake up in New York State, and they have to understand that, you know, as I said before, you can't blame President Trump for everything. And if you want change, you're the only thing that can make a change, is you have to change the way you vote. Thank you. I'm voting no. Mr. Perrozolo in the negative. Mr. Levine to explain his vote. If we've seen anything today, we've seen that politics can make strange allies. The rugged individualists who have prospered by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps are voting no. At the same time, the utopian socialists are voting no. I simply represent communities that are middle class and struggling. at a time when consumer confidence in our nation is at an all-time low. I am proud that New York, with all its described faults, is a place that I love. I want to live nowhere else, and that we remain the land of upward mobility. So I want to simply say that we have provided as best we can for education and health care and that important to my communities And I am happy to remain at the Pragmatic Center at a time when the Pragmatic Center realizes all too well that our nation faces daunting and unparalleled and unprecedented challenges. The Center must hold. I'm pleased to vote in the affirmative. Mr. Levine in the affirmative. And before anybody else clicks and puts their light on, when you speak on the bill and or explain your vote, you should be speaking for yourself, not referencing other members, not referencing what other members are voting, what they're doing. This is your explanation of the vote. This is your speaking on the bill. We're not talking about national politics, and we are not speaking about how each other are voting. We will be shutting that down. So speak on your own behalf, please. Ms. Tapia to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I support this budget bill because it advances some strong progressive priorities at a time when New Yorkers are still struggling with affordability, housing costs, child care costs, and economic uncertainty. This bill continues our effort to expand the child and dependent care credit, provides our one-time power credit to help households with utility costs, supports food insecurity, though farm-to-farm pantry and students' meal provisions, and expand protections for seniors and people with disabilities to screed and drive. I also want to highlight the amazing achievement we have made together by pushing for a second home surcharge for high-value non-primary residents in New York City. At a time when ordinary renters and homeowners are being squeezed, it is fair to ask the owners of luxury second homes worth more than $5 million to contribute more. That is common sense and it belongs in this budget. The Governor has said this could raise at least $500 million annually. through the controller has raised questions about whether the final number may be lower, which is exactly why implementation and transparency will matter. There are more revenue raisers we must continue to explore. Thankfully, we are continuing to preserve revenue by extending the higher corporate tax rate on larger corporations with more than $5 million in income, because there is not reason why we should be giving large corporations a quiet tax cut. Thank you, Ms. Tapia. How do you vote? Are struggling. How do you vote? I voted in the affirmative. Ms. Tapia in the affirmative. Mr. Chang, to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. As each bill presented to each of our colleagues, never is perfect. No bills are perfect that satisfy us all. Even for me, I look at the balance, what's good and what's bad, and I always think about what's my constituents, what's best benefit for this bill. And there are many in this bill, and there are many not. The one I want to highlight is why this bill is good is for the Medicaid to pay for our medical health professions, make sure that our health professionals are good. Hospitals and doctor's office are stay afloat. That's very important. And a few other tax deductions and child care credits involved. So I look at it as a positive. So overall, I look at this bill. I will support this bill as a positive. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chang. In the affirmative, Mr. McDonald to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Sorry about that. I just want to say that I am supporting this legislation. There are a lot of great attributes to this. And yes, always there's some things we may not care for. A lot of them actually don't apply to the areas I represent. But what I want to speak about specifically is our support for upstate cities, both small and large. They are struggling. They're struggling for a variety of different reasons. Although they're forewarned about the ARPA funding going away, sometimes it's difficult to slide away from some of those programs because they're not only well-intentioned, but they're effective. Same token, what we're doing is recognizing that these legacy cities is what built this state, and we need to continue to provide them the support. They're under a lot of pressure because the market for employees has gotten much more challenging, which is causing upward pressure, health care premiums at the local government level continue to rise. So I know it's, you know, cliche to say this, but we need to continue to work on helping to support our upstate cities. We need to find out what we can do to continue to make them sustainable. I want to thank the speaker for his leadership in making sure that we're delivering for these cities, particularly in upstate New York. And by the way, that funds helps minimize future tax increases. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McDonald, the affirmative. Ms. Glick, to explain her vote. Thank you, Ms. Speaker, to explain my vote. As we've discussed how New York continues to fund essential services like schools, higher education, nursing homes, hospitals, and to provide some relief to utility rate payers, it's not really out of line to talk about how the cuts from the federal government have added pressure to our state and that our state, to some extent, has been targeted, as some others have, on a political partisan basis. while we see those people who have been aligned with the federal administration doing quite well. Now, I don't seek to villainize successful people. I think that's great. But facts demonstrate that extremely wealthy people have continued to benefit from extraordinary tax cuts that force middle-class Americans and New Yorkers to shoulder the burden. So I actually think, almost in a religious way, that greed should be villainized. Now, a famous New Yorker said, the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. And the former governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt had it right and was a president who sought to balance the needs of people who were hardworking people middle class people and was called a traitor to his class because of it So I will be voting for this even though I think we need to do more. And I vote in the affirmative. Thank you, Ms. Glick, in the affirmative. Ms. Levenberg, to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. To explain my vote, we finally voted on the state's revenue bill today, almost two full months after the deadline. And once again, there was some good, though it does not go far enough, in my opinion. We did get the utility rebates included, which will return a bit of the money we have all been spending on energy. We've extended and continued some necessary tax credits, including the phasing in of increases to our child tax credit. We also made some changes that will make it easier for residents to apply for and receive enhanced star rebates, which I know is very important to my constituents. But we could have and should have done much more to raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy New Yorkers, who are, as we have heard multiple times, collectively receiving a $12 billion windfall from the federal government. That windfall is being paid for by snap cuts, health care cuts, and other new holes in our social safety net. New Yorkers deserve better than this. We could have gone so much further to make this state more affordable, child care, health care, and so much more. It's unfortunate because both Assembly and Senate majorities agreed on sensible, modest increases to the personal income tax for people earning over $5 million annually and the corporate tax rate for highly profitable companies doing business in New York, regardless of where they are headquartered. I'm voting yes because there is good in this bill that must go forward. I'm going to keep fighting alongside my colleagues to ensure that the wealthy finally pay their fair share and we win a more affordable New York. Thank you. I vote yes. Ms. Levenberg in the affirmative. Mr. Ekes to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. to explain my vote. If for no other reason, I would have voted yes on this because of Part EE. In Part EE, what we've done is we corrected a law that we had passed last year, which actually didn't allow any veterans to really qualify. And today, I want to thank the speaker. I want to thank Chairman Stern and the Veterans Committee for taking this into serious consideration. Part EE, it states that a county, a city, a town, a village, or a school district may adopt a local law or resolution that will allow the primary residence of any seriously disabled veteran to be fully exempt from taxation and special district charges, assessments, and special ad valorem levies. The qualification for this is that a veteran be 100% disabled. And let me tell you, if a veteran is 100% disabled, we should be doing everything in our power to give back to that veteran and to their family. And so, again, I want to thank them very much, and I want to indicate that I am definitely voting in the affirmative. Thank you, Mr. Ekes, in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 93, nays 49. The bill is passed. Ms. Walsh, for the purpose of an introduction. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So we have a very special guest joining us today, who some may remember To my left is Tom McKevitt who is currently the Nassau County Deputy Presiding Officer Legislator for the 13th District But we all remember Tom from his time serving in the Assembly from 2006 to 2017 He was in my chair as floor leader. And Mr. Mikkelin, who is not here today, is the person who is attempting to fill Mr. Mikkevich's shoes. But Tom was absolutely just one of the most brilliant floor leaders, was always really on top of his game, very meticulous, very energetic and very happy to serve. And he was very much missed when he left us. I'm so glad to have him back today. So, Madam Speaker, would you please extend to him a warm welcome and a welcome back to the People's House? Thank you. Yes, of course. On behalf of Ms. Walsh, the speaker, and all members, welcome back, Mr. McEvitt. It's wonderful to see you. Once a member, always a member. We know that, extending to you the privileges of the floor, and it is very, very good to see you. That smile you have is what I remembered when I first started and you were the floor leader. So it's wonderful to have you back. Congratulations on all the good works that you've been doing in the community. Don't be a stranger. It doesn't seem like you come back very often, so it's very wonderful to see you here today. Thank you for joining us today. Ms. Lunsford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We're going to continue our floor work with Rules Report No. 214 on page 3, followed by Rules Report 215, also on page 3. Thank you. Page 3, Rules Report 214. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1003D, Rules Report 214, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government aid to localities budget. Governor's message is at the desk. Clerk will read. I hereby certify to an immediate vote, Kathy Hochul, Governor. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Pretlow. Yes, Madam Speaker. I have a longer explanation for us today. After many weeks of hard work and nearly as many extenders, today we are concluding the process of adopting a budget for the state fiscal year 26-27. The input of our members has guided the discussions that have led to this legislation. I would like to extend my gratitude to the many individuals who have helped us get to this point. On behalf of the Speaker and myself, I thank you for your consideration and contributions throughout the process. The enacted budget is expected to authorize approximately $268.1 billion in spending, which is $5.4 billion over the Executive's proposal. This legislation includes a package of revenue proposals that will generate a total of $1.6 billion in state fiscal year 26-27. and $1.9 billion in 27-28. The package also includes $1 billion for utility rebate checks. It is an important step forward to provide the people that we all represent some relief in an otherwise turbulent economic climate. Some of the major tax provisions contained in the overall budget framework include elimination of income taxes on tipped wages authorizing the City of New York to impose a surcharge on property that does not serve as a primary residence providing a property tax exemption for certain disabled veterans and enhancing tax credits for donated food to plantries and farmers Through these proposals, the legislature demonstrates our continued commitment to assisting working families. This budget provides $39 billion in general support for public schools, an increase of $1.7 billion over the prior fiscal year. It includes changes to improve the foundation aid formula, updating metrics, as well as guaranteeing a minimum 2% annual increase for all school districts. The budget also includes $1.6 billion to implement universal pre-K statewide and by the 28-29 school fiscal year. The budget expands free tuition at SUNY and CUNY schools for individuals pursuing associate degrees in high-demand fields to include those studying at four-year institutions and increases opportunities for those seeking a nursing degree. Additionally, operating and capital investments are also included for public colleges and universities. In health care, the budget invests $2.2 billion in support from the Health Care Stability Fund, including increased rates for hospital and nursing homes and increased federal funds for federally qualified health clinics. The budget provides $1.3 billion in multi-year support for the Safety Net Hospitals Transformation Program and added $500 million for distressed and safety net hospitals. This budget continues funding of the $34.5 billion for the DOT five-year capital plan, as well as increases of $50 million for local roads and $30 million for upstate transit. In addition, the budget allocates a new $1 billion in funding for climate mitigation capital projects, including investments to school districts, residential buildings, and municipalities in transforming to clean energy. The enacted budget will include $25 million of increases to the Environmental Protection Fund over the prior year, and an additional $25 million for a total of $525 million for clean water infrastructure. In order to keep up with increasing enrollment in the state's child care program, program. This budget includes $3 billion for childcare subsidies, an increase of $830 million over fiscal year 2526. The enacted budget makes meaningful changes for public employees who are tier 6 members, investing $146.3 million to support state costs associated with improving pension benefits. And finally, we're recognizing the importance of ensuring wages for human service workers continuing to rise, including $279.5 million to provide a 2.7 percent inflationary salary increase. With that, Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Mr. Palmisano. Yes, Madam Speaker, over chairman, you're. Well, Mr. Pratla, will you yield? I will yield for any class. But I believe my remarks would answer every question that he could possibly have. You were certainly very thorough, Mr. Pratt. Well, I will give you that. But I do have a few extra questions here for you. Yes. Actually, one quick question for you. Where's your assessment where we are in this game now? What inning? We're getting there. I know we're getting there. What in the fifth inning? Fifth inning, okay. Just curious. Four innings to go. The metals coming together? Metals coming together. Batteries are charged up. We're in good shape. Good. I shouldn't have mentioned batteries. I'm sorry. That's good, sir. Yeah, you don't want to get you on a phone. You don't want to get me going. I don't want to get you on a phone. Good point. Actually, what I would like to get going on here is I know we finally have the financial plan. Yes. So I'd like to talk by going over some of those numbers if we could. Okay. First, how much does the enacted budget spend on an all-funds basis? All funds is $268.1 billion, which is $5.5 billion or 2% over the executive's proposal. And that compared? $9.2 billion over last year, which is about 3.5%. Okay. How about for state operating funds? State operating funds, the estimate is $161.5 billion, which is an increase of $2.6 billion or 1.7% over the executive's estimate and $12.7 billion, or 8.6%, over state fiscal year 2526. Okay. Is it possible for you to give us kind of a breakdown of how this additional spending will be allocated? I guess I can. $2.4 billion in Medicaid and health, $1 billion in social services, $543 million for local government assistance, $469 million in education, $300 million for capital projects, $205 million in general public protection, $184 million for higher education, $127 million in general state charges, $52 million for housing, $47 million for economic development, $13 million for the environment, $10 million for transportation, and $10 million for mental hygiene. All right. Thank you, Mr. Prello. How about our out-year budget gaps for 2026-27? For 2026-27. We have a balanced budget for 2026-27. All right. And then 27-28, 28-29, 29-30. Give me a second. Cumulatives, $30 billion. $30 billion. 2.4% above the executive. Okay. I'd like to talk about reserve funds now. Our conference has always advocated for making deposits into our reserves funds for the purpose of helping the state in true economic downturn. Does this budget include any increase in our reserves? No, it doesn't. How much is the current? Well, you want to know, the current rainy day reserve is $8.138 billion. All right. How about the economic uncertainties total fund? $4.2 billion. And the tax stabilization total billion Okay thank you The governor has consistently highlighted her success in bolstering the state reserves to unprecedented levels providing a strong safeguard against unforeseen economic downturns or so-called rainy days. With significantly lower reserves than previous years, is the state maintaining the 15% reserve level? Yes. How will the state respond to a potential economic downturn if the reserve levels drop below 15%? Well, we don't expect that to happen, but we will handle it as the need arises. Are reserve funds being used to help with additional spending needs in this budget? For the current fiscal year, yes. Anything from that you can break down specifically? How that's being used? I think we'll use like $2.5 billion for... We're moving $2.5 billion into our fund balance for this year. Okay. Has there been any discussions about making the Economic Uncertainties Fund a statutory reserve fund that has a specific use and payback provisions instead of a cash fund that can be used for any purpose? That's not being contemplated. All right. I want to talk about debt now, if I could. When passing the debt service bill, the numbers were still in flux. Do we have an updated debt outstanding number for fiscal year 27? You said for fiscal year 26, 27? Yes, please. 71.8 billion. There's a state supported. How does that compare to the governor's number and compare to last year? Last year it was $61.6 billion. We're projecting for fiscal year 27, $71.8 billion, going up in fiscal year 28 to $80.8 billion, and fiscal year 29, $89.5 billion. The liquiding financing measure was put into law to address cash flow needs during COVID-19. Why do we continue to extend this authorization when the state's receipts are coming in higher than forecasted and we continue to increase spending each year? Okay, we're still handling some of the state obligations that have been around since COVID. Okay. Now the state will come close to breaching the statutory debt cap in fiscal year 31 with only about $832 million left under the cap. Are there any measures within this budget that would reduce the state's overall debt burden? I believe just prepayments. Okay For this bill how much does this bill before we get into some more detail how much does this bill appropriate The total appropriation for the aid to localities. Okay, $242.3 billion. Okay. And is there a fiscal impact or actual amount to be spent? So the old funds is $208.2 billion. Okay. So for programs funded within this bill, particularly discretionary or newly established ones, Are they subject to performance audits by the state comptroller to measure actual outcomes, or do they solely undergo basic internal agency financial compliance reviews? The latter. I didn't hear what you said. I thought you were waiting. No, the latter. I didn't hear what you said. The latter. Okay, gotcha. Sorry, thank you. So to ensure that taxpayer dollars are achieving their intended outcomes, can you commit to sharing all the internal evaluation reports, statutory compliance data? I don't have access to all of that. Okay, that's fine. Just wanted to ask. I would definitely like to talk about education for a moment, if I may. Based on the enacted budget data, 64 districts across the state will see a decrease in their UPK aid because of changes we are making to the UPK program. Can you explain in simple terms why these districts are seeing a cut? I don't believe that is accurate, sir. Okay. When the executive budget was released... Okay, the data is...the way the reporter...the way it's reported is being changed, the data hasn't changed. They're not getting any less money. Okay. Because I guess, you know, from looking at our numbers, you know, we're worried about how the districts are supposed to move towards mandated universal pre-K in two years if their UPK allocation is not up to where it should be. Okay. When the executive budget was released, we were told that the UPK changes would generate an additional $130 million in claims for reimbursement through the UPK aid that was not reflected on the school aid runs. Has that estimate changed as we received feedback from districts during budget cycle about their ability to scale up their programs? That hasn't changed. No? Okay. I just want to ask about prior year aid claims. We know that's always an issue at a time when districts are struggling to find new revenue and taxpayers are already paying some of the highest property tax as a nation. what's the justification for not providing even modest appropriations to take care of some of these backlogs Well I don think we have the funds for that Okay We had it in our one house It didn make the final cut All right I want to talk about the energy affordability guarantee real quick In here, I know it says it's for those individuals who electrify their homes through the NYSERDA and Power Program, they do not spend more than 6% of their income on electric bills. How is this quantified? quantified, how is this determined to make sure that they know that it's only 6% of their income, and if they meet that 6%, exceed that 6% threshold, what happens? Okay, it's being used, it's being calculated based on income tiers, similar to how tiers on your income tax forms are. Okay. Okay. Also, I know that the budget provides $33 million in new funding to provide participating utility customers, including their service territory and the Long Island Power Authority, a $25 per month credit on the utility bills, utilizing eligibility criteria to be established by the Department of Public Service. Can you provide any details concerning eligibility thresholds for this funding? I don't have that available to me. No? Okay. I'm going to... I'd like to pivot to some funding relative to migrants and Office of New Americans. Can... obviously we know the the migrant crisis that we had going on in the city and the funding concerns. Can you provide an update on how much the state has spent overall the last few years on the migrant crisis in New York City? How much the state has spent? Approximately $2 billion. How much will the state spend? We've reimbursed New York City for about $3 billion. So $2 billion? $2 billion. And how much will the state spend this fiscal year? There's nothing in the current appropriations. Okay, so just the $2 billion we've given them? From last year, yeah. Okay. Now, has the new mayoral administration been seeking reimbursements to help with the migrant costs? Well, the monies that we were referring to earlier was by law, New York City was responsible for providing housing, and that money was used to pay for housing for them. Okay. I have one question I want to ask you on raise the age, if I may. Does this budget remove any barriers preventing counties outside New York City from receiving raise the age funds? We didn't change anything here. Does it address counties' concerns that without upfront funding, they may struggle to implement raise the age and cannot wait to be in reverse by the state for such spending?

Okay. Okay, but I know, but the problem still exists. Are there any changes allowing counties to access Raise the Age-related program funding before they spend their own county funds?

No? Okay. I'd like to go to local government assistance a little bit here.

I know there's a, how much is in here for, we have AIM funding and then we also have the temporary municipal assistance funding.

How much is in the temporary municipal assistance funding?

$150 million? Okay. I know we had the question about taxes. Is it always temporary taxes? Will this mean this is going to be temporary permanent assistance or no?

Hopefully?

All right. Is there any way that, you know, given, are we, is the majority confident that we're going to be given enough to help those many municipalities to stop so they don't increase local taxes to show up their budgets with the assistance we're giving them?

Okay. No point intended. No point. Relative to New York City aid, we know they're getting a lot of assistance from the state throughout this budget.

and we know that the state and city have no problems generating revenue, but the forecasts consistently underestimate actual results. And I know that this language here requires attestation from the city that the aid will be used to help close their budget gap and avoid further burdening city taxpayers. Shouldn't this assistance, this extra assistance, this bailout, however you want to refer to it, come with more contingencies, though to ensure that the recipient of those funds take the steps to mitigate the need for future assistance?

Okay. And do we foresee that we're going to need to continue this level of assistance for the city in the future?

I also noticed that this budget also has other cities around the state are getting some extra assistance,

that the aid has helped close the budget gaps. Any idea why so many cities around the state are struggling to maintain their budgets?

Given that, and I know I asked it with New York City, you don't see this as a recurring issue. We're going to have to continue to provide extra assistance to these other municipalities, are you?

Okay. I know many local governments across the state are managing these inflationary pressures you know stagnant AIM funding obviously we got the temporary assistance growing service demands Isn't there a more holistic approach we could take to relieve these burdens, such as working to make the state more competitive to attract business, to bring businesses to these communities so we can increase their tax base? Wouldn't that be a good approach to help deal with these fiscal crises?

I'm sorry, what were you saying?

Maybe. All right. I have a question I want to ask. There's a program of grants to counties on emergency response equipment in vehicles.

Does this program differ, or how does this program differ from the Volunteer Fire Infrastructure and Equipment Grant Program?

Okay. I know there's a question I want to ask you. on agriculture for tariff relief. I know the enacted budget includes $30 million in local assistance funding for relief from federal tariffs on agricultural products. How do we envision this $30 million tariff relief getting into the hands of our farmers who need it, and what safeguards are going to be in place to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse?

Okay. I have one housing question, the Housing Access Voucher Program. The budget provides another $50 million for the Housing Access Voucher Pilot Program. How has the rollout of this program gone since March 1st?

All right. Has there been any issues administering the vouchers?

Do voucher recipients need to be state residents at the time of their application?

How long does it take for recipients to receive their voucher after applying?

Okay. I want to go back that I didn't get to before a little bit on the preamble language at the beginning. The preamble language within this bill once again authorizes the director of budget to withhold payments in the event of a structural imbalance. What payments are exempt from this withholding authority?

Same as last year. And what happens if there's a structural imbalance of less than $2 billion?

Okay. I know past budget bills used a different mechanism to identify a structural imbalance during a given measurement period Why wasn that measurement used here This is the same as last year Okay. All right. Let me just check here. You know, Mr. Pratt, well, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. I'm going to go on the bill now, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, certainly when we're spending more than a quarter of a trillion dollars, there's going to be good things in here. I'm glad we finally got a chance to talk about the financial plan and walk through that. I appreciate the chairman's time. You know, some things in this budget that are in this bill that are good is obviously education increase, aid increase. You know, we wanted the governor pulls 1%. We want to at least get that back to that 2% base, and we were able to do that. Obviously, to see an increase in library funding is a good thing. To see the temporary assistance, municipal assistance for local municipalities, hopefully the word assistant, temporary, in this case, means it becomes permanent, like it seems like the tax increases, temporary tax increases have been. I was very glad, I didn't get a chance to ask a question, but I was very glad to see the appropriation for Donate Life. That's a very important issue for myself, a lot of people in this house. But my concerns are much more broader. Again, when you're talking about a quarter of a trillion dollar budget, think about it. That's $60 billion more than when the governor took office. That's nearly $100 billion more than when one-party control took over Albany Chambers and governorship. Again, I will remind you, we do not have a revenue problem in this state. We have a spending problem. But what do we do? We continue to increase spending. We continue to increase debt. We continue to grow and increase out-year budget gaps. We continue to have more taxes, more extensions of temporary taxes, not adopting tax relief that would help encourage private sector investment and job creation. We should be looking to reduce taxes, regulations, and spending. Let's really get at the heart of these rising energy costs. You know, property taxes are burdensome. We need to be fiscally responsible. That's what the people want us to do. That's what the people need us to do. We need to encourage private sector investment in job growth and job creation. This will help turn our economy around here. This will help businesses come here. This will help businesses stay here. This will help families stay here versus continue our nation-leading out migration of more families, farmers, small businesses, manufacturers leaving the state. This fiscal path we are on, this spending path we are on, is not sustainable. It's certainly not feasible. It's certainly not wise or smart. We have to do better. We must do better for those individuals, families, seniors, veterans, disabled, businesses that we serve. Listen, our families and businesses are making difficult decisions each and every day. They don't spend their way out of a problem. They make tough choices. They cut their budgets. They pay down their debt. We don't do that. We just keep spending. We just keep taxing. We keep just putting more burdensome and costly regulations on families and on businesses We just keep increasing our debt Why I think the answer is I think sometimes and I said this on this chamber I think to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I think sometimes you think this is your money and forget it's the people's money. It's sad and it's wrong. For these reasons and many other reasons, I'm going to be voting in the negative on this bill, although I'm happy with some of the things that are in here. But the bigger structural problem where we're heading with this overall budget, a budget of more than, again, a quarter of a trillion dollars. I mean, it's a very large budget. So for that reason and not having more controls on spending and not making the proper decisions, I'm going to be voting in a negative. And I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the chairman yield for some questions? Would the chair yield?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get into health questions, I do have one education question. I'll give time for the line change. Correct me if I'm incorrect. Is there a $100 million being allocated in this budget appropriation for a three-year-old UPK in New York City?

There's no line item for $100 million appropriation to fund the three-year-old UPK in the city of New York?

Okay, so if there are more seats that are increased in New York City, there is a subsequent appropriation based on the formulaic change to help New York City schools afford it.

Foundation aid, okay. There's not a separate line item to that. Okay, fair enough. So we're doing that for New York City. But there are 73 school districts across the state that also offer three-year-old UPK. Do those school districts have the equivalent increase to their foundation aid to help cover the costs for any new enrollments they face?

Why?

So they're getting $10,000. How much would it be?

Well, but $73,000 offered for three-year-olds. So New York City gets it, but the rest of New York State doesn't?

Okay. Nice for New York City, not nice for the rest of us upstate. As we noted, now shifting to health. As we noted throughout the budget process and earlier today, I know that a lot of the specific details surrounding the Medicaid funding aren't directly in Article 7 language or appropriation language. Before we took up this bill, was there a financial plan published or an available public Medicaid scorecard?

Not public?

On double secret probation? In the executive budget proposal's Medicaid scorecard, it was included approximately $1.9 billion in financial plan resources for the Medicaid global cap due to anticipated changes with the essential plan.

unnecessary. Do we know what is the total amount of the financial plan resources being used in this budget to offset Medicaid global cap?

Zero. Terrific. And without the Medicaid scorecard being publicly available yet...

Well, yeah, but...

Well, but for the seven people watching...

Could you walk us through some of our specific funding that we would see based in Medicaid for a couple different items? First of all, the reallocation for nursing home VATVAP funding.

capital rehabilitation. Okay, so that was, we reallocated that to the tune of 20 million? Yes. Okay. For the health home qualifying conditions reform. Pardon, say

microphone. Health home qualifying conditions reform. We restored that. To

administrative reimbursement at 15%.

$7.5 million. Okay, thank you. In the health and mental hygiene budget, there was an amending of the governor's proposed changes to biomarker coverage, which was a proposed saving of $50 million. Is there a new fiscal attached with the proposal due to the amendments?

There is not?

Moving to the MCO tax, HMH legislation we took up earlier lined out approximately $1.3 billion in health stability fund investments. And I know we talked about it a little bit earlier, but for those seven people watching, just want to get into it again. Is this the full amount of revenue that we received, that was received under the previous MCO tax extension?

No? what's the difference?

A billion in additional. Okay. Also in HMH that we took up earlier, we authorized a new MCO and HICRA tax framework. Could you provide the amount the state projects to receive under this new tax for fiscal years 27 and 28?

27.

27, 28.

Or both years?

It's one year.

Well, you'd ask for 26, 27.

Okay 27 28 fiscal year is million Okay And there nothing in 26 27 Okay Is there any overlap between the previous MCO tax arrangement and the one we approved a few hours ago

No? Okay. Moving to the essential plan, we're no longer receiving the funding for the ALIESA population enrollees under the essential plan. Could you provide a projection of federal revenue compared to the expenses for the essential plan moving forward?

The revenue versus the expenses.

I don't have that information, sorry. Would that be something that we would see on the financial plan or the Medicaid scorecard once it is public?

Okay. And I know we brought this up that earlier today that I believe it was mentioned that there's $9 billion in the Essential Plan Trust Fund.

How much do we anticipate after this fiscal year will remain in the trust fund?

Okay, and we anticipate to be consistent over the next few out years, a $3 billion? Yes. Okay. And I know earlier today we talked about that there is a concern that the plan could become insolvent as soon as 2032, and we're going to be looking in future to address that. But do we have any idea that in the event that the plan does become insolvent, do we know what sort of resources from the general fund would be required to continue providing coverage for the essential plan?

So we will cross that bridge as we approach it?

Okay. But we do know that there's a situation in the future that we have to address. Okay. I know earlier my colleague from Yorktown brought up the Medical Indemnity Fund, and this budget bill includes $155.5 million in funding for the fund, which is a little over $55 million less than last year. Will this funding be adequate to ensure services for those currently receiving MIFF services?

As well as prospective enrollees?

Okay. And I know that the HMH budget bill extended the current rates and excluded the governor's proposed benchmarking of rates to Medicaid and Medicare. Is there a possibility that funding issues for the MIFF reoccur and that there could be a need for a new proposal to keep the MIFF solvent this year or in future years?

I know that our record on Ways and Means was very passionate, along with a lot of members on both sides of this house, for Donate Life. How much was included in this appropriation for Donate Life?

A million dollars. How does that compare to last year?

Same? How much is included for Spina Bifida?

$75,000, okay. Is there any funding for the Alliance for Safe Kids?

Is there any appropriation to fix the long-term inequity of early intervention services across the state in clear backlogs?

No additional?

I know that in the Health Stability Fund we talked about earlier that there was some hospice funding. Is there any money directly appropriated to hospice care in this budget appropriation?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your answers. Madam Speaker, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Mr. Pretlow, will you yield?

Sponsor yields. Thank you, Mr. Pretlow. So I wanted to ask you on this bill. This is one of our appropriation bills. Where in this bill is there funding for the new convertible pistol ban that will be in effect?

Sorry, what...

What's the exact line item for that one?

Well, I would like to... I'll take up your entire 15 minutes looking for that line. I would like to know what... how much money this particular bill appropriates for the new convertible pistol exclusion.

Where can I find that?

So $550,000 is going to be allocated for what exactly?

A task force?

That's going to do what? to evaluate the technological aspects of the bill that we're passing.

So how does that have anything to do with this appropriation bill that we're passing?

I understand. I'm not talking about 3D printers.

Well, but the bill that we passed just a couple days ago, So that creates a new criminal penalty for someone that sells, transfers, or possesses a gun that is currently legal but will not be legal as of May 31st of 2027.

No, but what I'd like to know, and maybe your answer is this, is there anything in this bill that appropriates money for that new criminal penalty?

Okay, thank you. Is there anything in this bill that supports the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act?

Anything in this appropriation bill that we're discussing that supports...

Okay. Is there anything in this appropriation bill that supports the New York State Bivens Act?

Okay. Is there anything in this appropriation bill that supports restrictions on immigration enforcement by state employees and municipal governments?

Okay, but not this bill.

Okay. Is there anything in this bill that supports the prohibition of immigration enforcement in schools?

Is there anything in this bill that supports the enforcement of sensitive location protections from immigration enforcement?

Anything in this bill that supports the prohibition for law enforcement face coverings?

And anything in this bill that supports the Office of Immigrant Trust?

Okay.

Mr. Manktelow.

Yes, Madam Speaker.

I believe that's the correct number.

Okay, if you're comparing numbers this year versus last year, it'll look as though there is a decrease, but it's really not the case when money was transferred to the Department of State to handle certain programs that were handled that the Department of Veterans Services used to handle.

$525,000.

Right. It's for the Alex R. Jameris.

Yes.

Well, she's really not doing that. She's just transferring some of the expenditures that were formally made at a Division of Veteran Services to the Department of State. The overall, the legislature actually added money to the veterans programs. The total amount that was shifted was $525,000 for the Alex J. Ramirez Immigrant Legacy Program and $250,000 for the Military Family Relief Fund.

Okay, this is a tax checkoff, and doing it this way reflects better as to how much money is being allocated toward it.

It's a tax checkoff, like on your income taxes. Doing it this way better reflects how much money the state is putting toward the programs.

I haven't, no.

I would imagine they do, but not through the latest future.

The Department of Veterans Services.

Yeah, I believe that they're no longer operating the program.

They backed away from it, yeah.

On the bill.

On the bill. Mr. Sepulinski.

Yes, I will. Yes.

Could you repeat the question, please?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Yes, it did.

I don't know what the state of the negotiations are right now with the Seneca Nation and the second floor, the executive.

On the bill?

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

I can chew and talk.

I'm not sure.

Yes, sir.

Yes, it is. It is. Okay. How much? All right, it was about a million dollars. I'm sorry, a hundred million dollars, a hundred million. Okay. And will this require approval by the federal government? I don't believe so. No. Okay. And what is the purpose of this line item?

No, absolutely not.

In my opinion, no.

I don't believe so.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Walsh.

I'd have to find that out. Give me a second. If it's in here, I'll find it for you. I believe around $7 million.

Yes.

I'm not sure what it's going to be used for.

There is a contract with the Buffalo Bills that's a reoccurring contract.

In total, yes.

I believe maybe $20 million.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes.

Well, you know, if you look at that list, we have new administrations that when they got into office,

Yeah, it looks that way.

Yes. And that's going to be kind of spread among the different public radio and public television stations? Yes. Okay. Is that, am I correct in remembering that last year we did something kind of similar, only it was for newspapers, wasn't it?

I think we did for radio last year.

Okay.

On the bill?

Thank you. Mr. Chang?

For a question? That's one.

Right.

Yes.

Well, every school is guaranteed at least 2% of an addition in foundation aid. And some of the differences in the foundation aid and the total education increase have to do with special categories that were given additional school aid like English language learners and the poverty rate or the homelessness rate of individuals in a particular school district.

The formula is basically the same for the creation of foundation aid.

Well, are you referring to the New York City's formula versus the state formula? because I can assure you that in the state formula, no one's been slighted. The number is what the number is, and it always comes out the same if the formula is followed. New York City always has some special circumstances. It does have almost half of the total student population in the state. It has several hundred schools, several thousand teachers, and it also has some special requirements that it has to contend with.

On the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Levine.

Is it on the bill, sir?

Mr. Bendett.

On the bill, sir?

Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh.

Thank you.

Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Sempolinski to explain his vote.

sort of chosen, picked out, nice cities. I just want to pick out one of them. $55 million to the city of Buffalo. The population of the city of Buffalo is 278,349. You take $55 million, divide that among that, that's $197.59 per person in the city of Buffalo in additional funding. The largest city in my district is the city of Olean. And if you do the same math, the city of Olian should get $2,753,862.96. People in my district are going to pay for these bailouts, for these cities that are wildly irresponsible. Where do my constituents, what's the form they fill out? Where do they apply for their money? Because they've got to pay for This seems like it's unfair to me. I don't know.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, to explain my vote, when we take a look at this bill, it's many, many pages long, but I immediately go towards the veterans section. And it's just amazing what we are doing for our veterans here in New York State. We're appropriating more than 17 million for this year, re-appropriating 31 million. One of the famous programs is the Cohen's Veterans Network, and a half a million there. And then to assist our county sheriffs, we have a 20,000 for Orange County Sheriff's Department and a 100,000 for the Rockland County Sheriff's Office. I'm also very pleased to say that we are recognizing SUNY Orange, which is a community college, as a center of excellence, and we are giving it $250,000 to start its program with AI and those types of things. We also are working with mental health and the Veterans Suicide Program with $1 million, and peer-to-peer, which we all know is very successful in Veterans Programs with $2 million. It's just amazing. One of the most famous programs that all of my justice departments and sheriff's departments, police departments do, is the Joseph P. Dwyer program, which we're putting another $8 million into. And finally, I've been asking for this, and finally it's here. Again, for the veterans, they do support Girls State and Boys State, and we're giving them each $150,000 each. each and I thank the the speaker for this and all the folks that work to get this money into the budget I know that these folks who are in need will really

vote thank you madam speaker there's a lot of good things in this budget earlier as I say and there's a lot of bad things one as one thing is very I encourage that the veterans are getting their fair share of our education budget. A lot of localities, especially in New York City, Brooklyn that I represent, there's many, many funds are supporting many of these programs. Unfortunately, there's one program I haven't seen very much, is teaching civic class, Americanism, patriotism. And many classrooms that I walk through in my district, Many don't even have an American flag. I used to grow up with an American flag inside a classroom, but I don't see them now. I don't know. Is Americanism being frittered away? So I believe in teaching as a basic course as a civic, especially for new immigrants, what is Americanism and being patriotic in this country. Other than that, I will support this bill because of many good things that my constituents would benefit the most. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ayes 108, nays 34.

Clerk will read. Assembly number 10004D, Rules Report 215, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government capital projects budget.

Clerk will read. I hereby certify to an immediate vote Kathy Hochul Governor An explanation has been requested Mr Pretlow

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Paul Masano.

Yes, I will.

Well, good evening. It is evening. Good evening, sir. So before I get into a lot of detailed questions, I'll just start out with some top-line questions. How much does this bill appropriate?

What is the fiscal impact or actual amount to be spent in this bill?

How much in new debt is authorized in this bill?

How much debt will be issued in fiscal year 27?

Okay. Can you identify the appropriations or programs in this bill that are discretionary funds supported by the governor and a majority that do not have a set recipient or are not distributed by a formula?

You want to know what the appropriations include?

Okay. I see there's a the Crest Resiliency, Economic Sustainability, and Technology. The Crest program has over 1.8 billion in reappropriations. With that reappropriated, why is it necessary to authorize an additional $385 million in

Okay, so you think what we have in the reappropriation is not enough to meet our needs without having to add another $385 million?

Okay. I see that this bill is also transferring $156 million in uncommitted economic development funds to the local community assistance program. What were these funds originally designated for, and why are they no longer needed for these original programs?

Okay. I see that this bill is breaking these funds into two separate parts, one for the statewide local community assistance program and one for the adaptive local community assistance program. Can you explain what the difference is between the two? And why is one program getting over $125 million more than the other?

Okay. I'd like to pivot to transportation for a minute if I could.

Certainly the issue of CHIPS is something I've been very vocal about. Our entire conference has been very vocal about it. I know some of your members have been very vocal about it. I do see this does have a $50 million increase, is that correct?

Now, I know when we did the, I can't remember what was in the one house, but I remember the Senate did a $250 million increase. Do we understand, I mean, I know it's a negotiation, but why we ended up with just $50 million and not more?

Okay. Do you believe that $50 million is enough to meet the needs of our local communities?

Can't argue with that, Mr. Pretlow.

Our counties and municipalities continue to report a growing backlog of local road repairs. I guess my concern is at what point does the state acknowledge that flat or near-flat infrastructure aid is effectively a funding cut after inflation? And the reason I say inflation, there's a study that came out that said the three-year federal highway cost index over the past three years was 70 percent. So any amount we're giving to our local municipalities is being eaten away by inflation. Should we be looking to take that into consideration maybe in the future, hopefully?

We had a really horrendous winter this year. It caused a lot of rain, had a lot of rain, and then freezing and thawing, which caused numerous potholes, which are extremely expensive to repair. You know, patching a pothole really doesn't work. The patch usually comes apart. So if you have a series of potholes on a street, it usually more cost effective to redo the entire street But we spend over a million dollars a mile trying to do streets and localities really don have the wherewithal to do that nor does the state or the counties Certainly. Obviously, you know, I've been a very vocal critic of the CLCPA, and I'll talk about a portion of that in here in a minute, but when we see how much we're spending on this program, we know that program alone is more than a quarter of a trillion dollars. probably I think there's a billion dollars of additional funding for the sustainability program, which we'll talk about. Wouldn't it be better to use more of that money for some of that, at least some of that money of that billion dollars for CHIPS to kind of boost up to meet that inflationary increase? Wouldn't that be a better way to do that, for bonding that much money?

Okay. All right. Well then, I will move here a second.

I know under environmental conservation, the budget includes $175 million for water infrastructure in support of more housing. And it says $50 million that's focused on rural areas. Could you tell me what specifically this new fund is intended to address that hasn't been addressed through the normal water infrastructure mechanism? Is there something new about this?

Okay, so it's for new housing?

All right. Now I'd like to go to that sustainable future program we talked about, if I may.

The enacted budget, as I understand, restored the Governor's sustainable future programs from last year, which allocates $1 billion for climate resiliency initiatives, which also, while also introducing additional legislative oversight and specific funding allocations, including the reappropriations from last year, the total amount of this funding comes to $2 billion. How is this program being paid for?

Okay. And how is this accounted for in the financial plan?

How is this accounted for in the financial plan?

As bonded capital, okay. And I'm sure you generally support enhanced legislative oversight for climate-related expenditures, both within this proposal and across other climate-focused programs, correct?

And how do you believe such oversight can ensure effective use of these funds and accountability in achieving the climate goals?

Has any of the prior funding been spent yet? And if so, on what?

Oh that okay Last year enacted budget as we said provided billion for this program all of which is reappropriated Now it seems we adding another billion dollars Can you tell me why this funding is necessary when last year's funding wasn't touched?

Okay. A significant portion of the sustainable future funding supports electrification initiatives, such as EV chargers, thermal energy networks, and electric school buses.

With hundreds of millions of dollars going towards electrification incentives, What assurances does the state have that New York's electric grid can handle the additional demand these programs will create?

So should we, because the concerns with the grid, and the reason I bring it up is, and I've talked about it on the floor, the NISO has said we have both short-term and long-term reliability gaps that are out there that need to be addressed.

But yet, we continue to march towards full electrification of everything, heat pumps, vehicles. Shouldn't really we be prioritizing grid reliability investments before expanding these electrification mandates?

Okay. All right. I wanted to go to the portion of the bill that deals with the electric fleets, vehicles for the fleet. $17 million. It's my understanding there's $17 million, the same as the governor, the same as last year, to support the conversion of light-duty vehicles in New York State fleets. Is that correct?

Do we know right now how big the state fleet is for light duty vehicles?

Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Parlo. Do we know how big the current state fleet is for electric vehicles on light duty?

Okay. I guess I would ask the same question on heavy duty.

No, I don't.

Do we know how big our state fleet is of vehicles? I include police vehicles and trucks for highway departments.

I don't know the exact number.

Now, it's my understanding, when we pass this in the statute, by 2035, our entire light-duty fleet has to be converted to electric.

and then by 2040, the medium and heavy duty fleet would have to be converted.

I remember in 2025 it was supposed to be 25% of the fleet, 2030 50% of the fleet, 2035 the entire fleet as we acknowledged. Do we know how much of our fleet has been converted?

Okay, that's fine. The other thing on this I would like to point out, and I'll probably emphasize when I talk, too. It's my understanding, in the language of the statute, if the state of New York has issues on converting the fleet by 2035 or 2040 for the heavy-duty fleet even, if issues of cost, issues of feasibility, issues of reliability, practicality, they could pause that because it's not a mandate, it's a goal. Is that correct? Is that accurate, what I'm saying?

And isn't it, I mean, it's a different issue, but isn't it interesting that the state has that out for costs, feasibility, reliability, practicality? So if they can't make their 2035 goal line or their 2040 for heavy duty, then they just don't have to do it. But our school districts, and thank God we pushed back the timeline to 2040 for the conversion of their fleets, But if our school districts can't have, if they have concerns for cost, affordability, reliability, practicality, they won't have that same option, correct, because they will have to begin buying them in 2032.

they can apply for a waiver.

And with this $17 million that we have there, which was the same amount as appropriated last year, is there any requirements in the law, in the legislation, that would require the materials to be sourced here in the U.S.? Any, like, Buy American requirements in the law that they have to follow, or no?

No.

No, okay. And you probably know the reason why I asked you that question.

Should we dive into it a little bit?

We shall not.

Maybe I'll just do it on the bill of comments.

I know, Mr. Pratalo. I appreciate it. But I just think it is kind of ironic. Mr. Pratalo, I really appreciate your time in answering some of my questions here.

As I said with the last bill, you know, when we're spending a quarter of a trillion dollars, there are going to be good things in it. When you're borrowing money to buy things or support things, there are going to be some good things. You know, I point to the library construction grant. That's an important program that we talked about. And we talked about CHIPS. I mean, CHIPS is something we've been advocating year after year. that's an important program to our local municipalities. Unfortunately, I think $50 million is just a drop in a bucket, although I'm appreciative of the increase. I know they'll be appreciative of the increase. What I'm concerned about is it's not going to meet need because as I said earlier, according to the Federal Highway Cost Construction Index, the inflationary increase for our municipalities has increased over 70% over the past three years. So any money that we're giving to them is being eaten up by inflation. And I think a stronger, more vibrant commitment from us, a stronger partnership from us, and maybe if we would have done what we did in our one house and what the Senate did, that would have showed a much more stronger commitment to address that. And I will tell you, because you see it, we have deteriorating roads and bridges all across our state. And when we push for these local roads and bridges and culverts, it's warranted and justified. Why? Because 87% of the roads in New York State are owned and maintained by our local municipalities. 52% of the 18,000 bridges in New York State are owned and maintained by our local municipalities. And 48% of the miles driven are driven on our local roads. And when we see the reports that come out, like Tripp came out that said it's costing New York drivers over $40 billion annually, more than $3,700 a person in driving, would damage to vehicles, less fuel efficiency, problem after problem. problem. But we don't make the critical investments we do. We're just kind of like my colleague was saying, we're just patching potholes. That's not going to solve the problem. The costs are going to go even higher. And I just think that that investment, that commitment could have been better. And I think when I think of the sustainable futures program, we put $1 billion in last year. It doesn't seem like we appropriated much from it. And we're appropriating it. Now we're putting another billion in. And what I've been critical of the CLCPA in this program is how it impacts ratepayers. Now we're borrowing money to pay for some of these things. You know, we got the electric vehicles, you know, higher electric rates. These policies continue to hit New York families, seniors' pocketbooks, whether it's through more taxes, whether it's through higher electricity rates, whether it's through higher bonding costs that are being bonded to pay for these programs, it just doesn't make sense. It's not affordable. It's not feasible. It's not reliable. And when we talked about the electric vehicles when I had the conversation with the chairman, how interesting is that when we look at the fleet, I'll compare it to the heavy-duty fleet. The state of New York's heavy-duty fleet has to be converted by 2040. And now because of that pushback on the electric school buses, thank God we did something like that. It should be repealed in my opinion, but at least we pushed it back to give them a little bit of breathing room. So now our school districts have to have their fleets converted by 2040, and supposedly the state of New York has to have their fleets converted by 2040. Here's the kicker, though. The language in the bill for the school state says it's a goal. for the state to convert their fleet. Not a requirement. What does the language say in the statute for our school districts? They have to convert their fleet by 2040. It's a requirement. Sure, there's waivers in the waiver process, and I know if you were talking to your schools during this process they were complaining about the waiver process It wasn helpful It wasn getting us to where we go And now so we got a little bit of a pause but the problem doesn't go away. The problem is still there. The fact of the matter is, in a few short years, the school districts are going to have to buy electric school buses again. The infrastructure is still not there yet. The capacity is still not there. The costs are still expensive. The range issues are still issues. This is problematic, but yet we're going to ask them to do this and complete the conversion. And oh yeah, like I said, the state of New York has an out if they can't afford it, if it's not feasible to do it, if it's not practical to do it, if the energy grid infrastructure is not there for it to take place. But yet, our school districts and local property taxpayers don't have that same luxury or privilege. So yeah, we gave them a little bit of pause, but the train's still coming down the tracks at them full speed. And when it hits, it's going to hit hard. It'd be nice if it was a goal for the school districts, too, instead of a mandate. So as I'll conclude my comments, yeah, there's some good things in here. But remember, this is more borrowing. This is more debt to go on top of record levels of spending, to go on more taxes, to go on more regulations. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, This financial path, as I've said over and over again during these budget discussions, it's not sustainable. It's not feasible. It's not workable. It is not in the best interest of the people we represent back at home. It's not in the best interest of trying to encourage more businesses to stay here, to invest here, to grow here and not leave here like we continue to see businesses leaving time and time again because of the policies that we enact. When I talk about energy policy, if you talk to businesses, they care about two things. Is their energy affordable and is it reliable? And I'm telling you, if they can't get affordable and reliable energy in New York, they're going to go elsewhere, and they are. My one colleague, when we talked about the financial services industry

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Pratla, will you yield?

Chairman Yields.

Which section?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, it would.

Yes, we do.

On the bell, sir.

Thank you. Mr. Molitor?

Mr. Pretlow, will you yield?

Sponsor yields.

I'm not following. What are you looking for?

No.

Okay. Does it contain any appropriation for – I won't go through the entire immigration omnibus as I did before.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

In this bill?

Okay. That's all the questions I have. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would Chair Pratlow yield?

Yes, I will.

Yes.

I know, but there's a definition for underserved regions, though.

It's not tied to any of the other programs that are under,

where it's underserved, underserved by humane societies or shelters?

I understand that.

Yes.

But I live in an area that's pretty rural.

but there is a great need, so I'm just wondering

That was the premise of my question.

under the clean water infrastructure,

Right.

No, I do not. That would probably go through.

I personally don't know. The money is awarded annually, and that does not come through the legislature. It probably goes through DASD or some other...

It probably goes through DASD or some other governmental agency, but it does not go through the legislature.

Yes.

All right, well, thank you.

Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lunsford.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to explain my vote on the capital projects budget. Tonight, in this budget bill specifically, there is a $1 billion fund for sustainable futures. And the fund, according to the language of the budget bill, is supposed to help to protect communities that are struggling either with storm surge, flooding, and all of the other impacts of climate change. Madam Speaker, it is my hope that the dollars that are reallocated from last year and allocated again this year will actually be spent on communities like the ones that I represent. I represent a community that is surrounded by water, a peninsula, whether it is a high water table with high ground water or our beach and or bay that needs to be protected The reality of the situation is that Madam Speaker we nearly two decades post Superstorm Sandy and there's not a single leg of protection along Jamaica Bay. But we are seeing projects continue to advance along our beach, which is very important to protect, but there are a lot of homeowners who are black and brown who live along the bay. And I'm always wondering if that's the reason why that they're not receiving dollars. So I'm grateful that this Sustainable Future Fund that is in this capital budget bill will make it through. And it's my hope that those dollars will find their way to the Rockaways and other communities that are impacted by storm surge. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I withdraw my request and proudly vote in the affirmative.

Madam Speaker, to explain my vote, Tupper Lake has been dealing with a water crisis for far too many years. And while the people of Tupper Lake have been resilient, they should not have to shoulder this alone. And many residents have been forced to rely on portable water. But I am increasingly proud to be able to help in this situation with a critical and historic investment in Tupper Lake. All New Yorkers deserve clean water. they can drink, that they can bathe in and cook. And this is one step forward towards a safer and healthier North Country. There are no Democratic or Republican water lines. These funds directly impact the health and safety of this community. And that is a universal benefit. This is a monumental investment, and it will also further the economic development of the village and surrounding area. It will breathe new life into this region. We need sustainable solutions to bring resources to the North Country, and this investment is one of the best examples in this budget. It has been a great pleasure to work with leadership, as well collaboratively with Mayor Fontana through this process, and I vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My district is predominantly rural, and we really have a crisis of health care in the 100th district. And I am so proud to be able to say that two organizations, the Center for Discovery and Evergreen Meadows for Middle School Girls in Crisis, have been funded with this budget. this health care funding is really going to be transformational and I thank

explain her vote. Thank you. I rise today in support of this capital projects budget bill. In particular I want to speak to the 20 million dollars that has been allocated for resiliency projects within the County of Suffolk and more specifically even at least 6.5 million of that which will go towards the Stony Brook Milk Pond Dam project. This has been a project that has gone too long unrepaired, and this funding from the state will absolutely help with moving that timeline along and making sure that the community's economic engine, public safety, and environment are restored as they should be. I'm very proud to have helped bring this across the line and proud to vote yes on this capital project budget bill. Thank you.

Ms. Shimsky to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We spend a lot of time at Budget Time here talking about investing in the future Often that means things like education social services libraries and so on But the fact of the matter is, nothing can happen unless we take care of the underlying physical reality, which means our infrastructure, our buildings, our roads, our utilities, our water and wastewater provision. We know that we are way behind where we need to be to make sure our infrastructure is functioning properly and is well maintained. New York State's roads rank 47th among 50 states in their quality at this point. We have all kinds of problems in the C to D range with various parts of our infrastructure. We need to plan for the future. This budget will help to some degree. We've taken some of the edge off of inflation, for example, with the extra $50 million in CHIP funding, and we've done that with some of our own state responsibilities as well. But in order to take care of everything and to transition into the future with clean, sustainable energy sources that will save us money and all kinds of other innovations that are needed in transportation, building systems, and so on, We are going to have to take a serious look when we look at how we are going to tackle affordability issues, childcare and everything else. We are also going to have to look at long-range planning to make sure our infrastructure becomes second to none again. Thank you.

I vote in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I mentioned previously, this budget bill has a lot of positive and a lot of negative budgets in there. But let me emphasize the positiveness of this bill that I support. First is infrastructure. This is a ready need to be done, current, to maintain the physical infrastructure of New York City and the state, because we need that to be run. We need to have transportation, roads, and people to move effectively and efficiently. And the small increase to support the Second Avenue subway system. Improvement of the National Guard facilities, they definitely need to be done. Many facilities are well over a century old. Supporting libraries, very extensive in New York City. And even though it's a very small increase of $10 million, but in my borough of Brooklyn I represent, is the botanical garden, the aquarium, and the zoo. And this funds will support that, which I do know that many of my constituents' children do go to that using their facilities. Overall, unfortunately, this budget is not broad enough to completely upgrade our infrastructure, our bridges to a current standard. More need to be done. But again, there's some budgets in there. There's some allocations that is not, I call it, wisely spent. But overall I have to think about our community and my constituents and I support this bill Thank you Madam Speaker Mr Chang in the affirmative Ms Walsh to explain her vote Thank you Madam Speaker So I going to support this bill and I wanted to just call out a couple of the things that I think are really important for my region The county infrastructure grants are really important. The emergency medical services, or EMS, modernization that needs to take place is being supported here. The volunteer fire infrastructure and response equipment grant program I think is very important. And I could name a lot of other things. And then lastly, as many people have said, the CHIPS funding I think is really important. I'm glad to see it increase. I also share the concern that many people voice that I just don't think it's going to be sufficient. Everything that I'm hearing from my highway superintendents, the counties that are dealing with increased weather events and the strain of all the EV and the heavier vehicles and everything on the roads, it's going to need more money as we move forward. But I am glad to see that it was increased somewhat and that at least extreme winter recovery, bridge New York, pave New York, pave our potholes, all that stuff remained at least at the same levels as last year. So I really do think that as we look big picture at our state spending plan, And as a list of our priorities, I think that our priorities really need to be in maintaining our infrastructure. So I'm pleased to support this bill. I would just note that legislative additions are of $490 million. I don't think any of that's coming back to my district, unfortunately. But I'm sure it will do a lot of good in other people's. So I'll be in the affirmative.

Announce the results. Ayes 107, nays 35.

Thank you Madam Speaker. I am delighted to announce our two final budget bills. Rules report number 212 and rules report number 213 on page 3. I would like to note sunsets at 822. Let's see what we can do.

Clerk will read. Assembly number 1-0-0-0-0-D, Rules Report number 2-1-2, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government. Governor's message is at the desk. Clerk will read. I hereby certify to an immediate vote, Governor Kathy Hochul. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Pretlow.

Mr. Palmasano Madam Speaker, will the chairman yield for some questions?

Yes, I will.

Thank you, Mr. Pratlow. Top of the ninth, bottom of the eighth?

I swing big here, then I guess not.

Well, I predict a grand slam at the bottom of the ninth, so.

I'm not going there. Sorry, I have a little inside joke over here. How much does this bill appropriate?

I know, I'll tell you again.

Okay.

$44 billion in all fund spending.

Thank you. I want to ask a couple questions on agricultural, specifically around the Office of Renewable Energy City, if I may.

The budget continues to provide fighting for auras to facilitate the sitting and approval of renewable energy projects across the state. Given the continued state investment in these efforts, do we know how many acres of agricultural land have been converted for wind and solar development over the past five years? years? Do we track that? Do we monitor that? Do we have that dot data? That would be helpful

I'm sorry, sir, I do not have that data.

Yes.

Not being a farmer or a person in agriculture, it seems to be a lucrative investment for many individuals. So it may not be beneficial to excess food production, but if it's for increasing one's wealth,

Sure. Certainly, I don't blame the farmer because, unfortunately, some of the policies in the House have really punched him on the chin in a number of ways.

But I'll go on. Is there anything in this budget bill that will help the Department of Ag and Markets to address the health and safety consequences of damage to wind and solar facilities on these agricultural lands?

Not to my knowledge.

And do you know, to your knowledge, any information, has the state ever conducted any analysis on the long-term economic impacts of taking thousands of acres of agricultural land out of production for industrial-scale energy products?

No.

Do we know how many of these renewable energy projects approved through ORAS have, well, we know many, have approved, have faced opposition from local governments or residents. And with that wide volume of opposition that we continue to see in many local communities, particularly in upstate New York, why does the state continue to override these local concerns and opposition?

I understand that. And I know the Bond Act was approved to do some funding, but that was for a host of issues. And what we're discussing right now are part of one of those issues or some of those issues. Sure. And when I look at that, and I know how you said to approve for the climate bills that we passed to address that need,

Are you aware of those statistics?

No, that's true.

But I guess with that, isn't it something maybe we should be saying,

before we take prime farm land and things of that nature?

I understand. I understand where you're coming from. Regarding environmental conservation and energy, on that same concept, I know you know the NISO has continued to raise the alarm, and I mentioned in our previous debate about grid reliability, and we really have put ourselves in a position because of the support of the CLCPA the closing of Indian Point, which was clean energy, bringing 2,000 megawatts of power to 25% of the population in New York City. Can you tell me, is there anything in this bill that supports the development of reliable baseload power, such as natural gas or nuclear power, in this bill or this budget?

Okay. All right. Give me one second. Bear with me, Mr. Pratlow.

Oh, yeah, okay. Public protection, correctional facility funding. As we know, I think we talked about before, we know because of the staffing crisis that we have in our correctional facilities, the governor fired 2,000 corrections officers. I believe there's a shortage of over 4,000 corrections officers, so they had to resort to put our emergency National Guard inside our correctional facilities, correct?

And they've been there for over a year now, correct?

And we spent about million last year is that correct I not sure of the number but I think We probably spend the same amount this year Okay and then so probably looking at over a billion dollars in funds to have the National Guard in there

and Do you with that funding that we spent in there do we have any reports from the governor back or do we know what you know What specifics can be provided on plans to stabilize the system with this funding? I mean, are we getting any specific plans back?

Right. Okay.

Right.

Okay. Do we know how many National Guard?

3,000 Guards?

No, you're good, Mr. Prello, so you're good. So 3,000 Guards, okay.

So it's 4,600 vacancies. Since we're on corrections, I have a question. I know that on the Commission of Corrections, there's $3 million in additional funding that's provided to the Commission on Corrections, but the Board of this Commission currently can't do anything because they don't have enough members. Do we know?

No, I'm sorry. This is on the Commission on Corrections. It's my understanding there's $3 million in additional funding to provide the Commission on Corrections, But it's hard for them to do anything because the board currently can't do anything because they don't have enough members. So my question was going to be on that front. Do you know or do we know when the governor plans to fully staff this commission?

but I'm not sure of the commission you're referring to.

Okay. One second, I'm sorry. There's one question on health I want to ask, because I know we were talking about... We talked about the nicotine pouches before. This budget bill does not include $4.7 million for vapor product enforcement. That was in the executive proposal. So should we assume this is due to the emission of other vapor product tax proposals?

Okay.

And then a little bit, I'm going to get into the Office of Cannabis Management for a minute, if I could. I'm sorry to keep making you guys get up like that. I apologize I promise I not doing it on purpose We obviously seen problems with the Office of Cannabis Management We've seen, as far as enrolling, problems with when they had the distance set up. I'm just kind of curious, do we know how they're dealing with the issue of the illegal, let's say, sticker stores, you know, that are still operating? Is that, are we just empowering the locals to deal with that? Or is the state office, are they doing anything on that? Are we hearing any feedback from them on that?

Okay. One more question on that. I know this budget provides $79.8 million to support the Office of Cannabis Management, which is really $11.7 million more than last year. This increase is supposed to support contractual services for implementing Office of Canvas Management's C-to-Sale, PAC, and Trade System. Can you tell us the status of enrolling all the active licenses within the SDS system and how does the SDS system work?

I promise I won't be asking you the question in a month from now. How about that? Where was I? I want to ask a question on the Office of Child Care and Early Education. It's my understanding, this new Office of Child Care and Early Education is being allocated $1.5 million to implement universal child care.

How will this office, do we have any idea how this office will intend to implement this? Is there a time frame for its implementation?

Okay. Will this office be responsible for providing any cost estimates for the universal child care? Will they be doing that?

Do we know how much would implement a universal child care in New York State will cost?

Okay. That's fine. Mr. Prat-Low, you know, I appreciate your time very much. Thank you. I'm just going to go on the bill now for the rest. Thank you, Mr. Prat-Low. Madam Speaker. On the bill. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, the end is in sight. One more bill after this. Our state operations budget. Bill, just a couple points that I kind of talked about during the debate. I just want to highlight. It's very unfortunate that we still have to spend probably over a billion dollars now to staff our correctional facilities with our National Guard individuals who really never wanted to do that, and they were forced into doing it, don't have experience being inside our correctional facilities. We know working inside our correctional facilities is a dangerous job. but they're there to help. This happened because the governor fired 2,000 of our corrections officers, and because it assists the situation inside our correctional facilities, the violence inside our correctional facilities, the mandatory overtime, the other challenges that they were facing was problematic. One way to get more corrections officers, I mean, I will say on a positive note, what we did yesterday in passing the death gamble legislation was probably one of the most positive and significant pieces of legislation this House has done to support our corrections officers. I'm glad we did that. I was proud that was part of that bill. It's something we've been advocating, especially after we passed it unanimously three times, and the governor's, two different governors vetoed it several times. But what we want to do, if we want to take care of the staffing crisis inside our correctional facilities, we really need to double down and pay these corrections officers more money, give them better benefits, give them more staff, make the work environment inside the correctional facilities safer, whether it's, you know, the screening of contraband. You know, we've seen stories after stories. We see about the assaults happening inside our correctional facilities on a regular basis. We also see about stories of corrections officers and other civilian staff being overcome by substances that are getting inside our correctional facilities. So we can make the system inside our correctional facilities even better, so we just have people working there and not just having to deploy the National Guard at a cost, like I said, over a billion dollars over the past two years. I will talk about ORS again for a minute, just because. we see them time and time again. They are taking prime farmland. As the chairman said, it could be lucrative for our farmers. I don't have any problem with the farmers looking out for their best interests because what this body has done to our farming community over the years has not been positive. It goes back to the Farm Labor Act. It goes back to other provisions that we've done that have made it very difficult and challenging to farm. So we allow them to put solar and wind on their farm. We didn't allow them to get natural gas out of their own land for some reason, because we thought that was a bad idea, especially to the farmers in the southern tier who were screaming for it to happen on the PA border. They throw a stone. It happens to them, and they can do it in the PA border, but they can't do it in the southern tier of New York. But that's another discussion. but we continue to prioritize wind and solar, which is not a reliable base load generation. The ORAS continues to override local input, local control. If a local community doesn't want solar or wind in their community, why are they being forced to have it just to meet these clean energy mandates? And the problem with this, too, is the amount of land this is taking up. When you talk about base load generation, natural gas and nuclear is reliable base load generation. And just to put into perspective the land use matter of this for solar and the Climate Action Council plan says you need eight acres per megawatt And the Climate Action Council plan costs for 60 gigawatts of solar That is 480 acres of land You know where that land's going to come from? It's going to come from upstate New York, because we have the land, as the chairman acknowledged. But if you look at nuclear, which is energy-dense, Indian Point, which the previous governor thought was a great idea to shut down, that was 2,000 megawatts on 240 acres of land. So eight acres per megawatt or 240 acres for 2,000 megawatts. Fitzpatrick up in central New York, it's 800 megawatts on 900 acres of land. So when it comes to a land use perspective, nuclear is far, far superior to wind and solar. From a land use perspective, it's a far, far superior alternative from a reliable, dispatchable, baseload generation. And when you levelize those costs out over the entire lifespan of the projects, because nuclear facilities last longer than wind and solar projects, those panels, those windmills, they last longer. So when you state-levelize those costs, it's even more cost-efficient. And with the technology advancing the way it is, when we get there, it's going to be even better. But until we get there, because the NYISL said we aren't there yet, the technology's not there yet, we need natural gas. But we continue to see this hostility of natural gas. That's why it'd be nice to see some things from the state's support on that side of it. I know the governor calls for the all of the above, but policy after policy we continue to see doesn't show that all of the above approach. It just seems to have more of a hostility, really designed to dismantle the affordable and reliable natural gas infrastructure supply and delivery system, designed to take away consumer choice on how you heat your home, cook your food, power your building, the vehicle you drive. It will jeopardize the reliability of the grid and lead to more nation-leading out migration. But for a host of reasons, like others, you know, the amount of money we're spending in this budget, the amount of debt we're taking on, taxes, as part of this whole package with the state operations bill, I will be voting in a negative, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Mr. Prattler, will you yield?

Sponsor yield.

Okay. And it's my understanding that the Immigrant Trust Office is basically to enforce subpart A, subpart C, and subpart D of that immigrant omnibus bill.

So you would agree with me that that money that you just referenced does not have any connection to the other sections of that bill?

I sorry employees Right but like for example subpart B of the Immigration Omnibus Act creates the New York State Bivens Act which is a cause of action

It has nothing to do with this, no.

Okay. All right. I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Mr. Pretlow.

On the bill?

Last year, this body passed a piece of legislation that created a statewide dyslexia and dysgraphia center at the State Education Department. This was important legislation to address the literacy crisis and to help some of our most vulnerable children who struggle with language-based learning disabilities. This year, in this budget, we provide $1.5 million of direct state funding to make sure that center can do its necessary work by hiring professionals to promulgate best practices, professional development, and guidance to schools throughout the state. I thank the leadership here in the Assembly, particularly Speaker Hastie, as well as Governor Hochul, for making sure that this necessary funding for the Dyslexia and Dysgraphia Center happened this year. I want to again thank Governor Hochul for her leadership on literacy and evidence-based practices in our classrooms to solve and to address the literacy crisis in our state. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Pretlow, will you yield? Yes, I will. A little bit. Mr. Pretlow yields. Really, my questions out of just pure curiosity have to do with the emergency response funding under correctional facility emergency response. Do you know how much longer we're going to be doing things this way, where we have the National Guards people in there doing this? We have 4,600 vacancies in our penal system right now. We have assigned 3,000 National Guards men and women to fill some of those or most of those vacancies. vacancies. We put several things in place to try to recruit and retain several of the existing employees, retain existing and recruit new employees so that we can reduce the number of National Guards people that are now assigned in our system.

I can't give you a date. If they all went to a job fair tomorrow, we hired 4,000, they'd be gone day after tomorrow.

On the bill.

Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote has been requested.

Thank you, Ms. Lunsford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will generally be in the affirmative on this bill. If you would like to cast a no vote, you may do so from your desks. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to explain my vote. There's a lot of good, a lot of bad, and a lot of pork I've seen, a lot of self-linking ice cream program that is, I believe, a duplicate. And when I look at my district and education side veterans support of military I look at overall that it will benefit then I vote for the affirmative for this bill Thank you Madam Speaker Thank you Mr Chang in the affirmative Are there any other votes Announce the results

An explanation has been requested. Mr. Pretlow. Yes, Madam Speaker. The bill before us contains major components of legislation that is necessary to enact the legislature and judiciary budgets for state fiscal year 2627. This includes an all-funds appropriation of $4.8 billion.

Yes, Madam Speaker. On the bill. On the bill, sir. And I wanted to go on a bill instead of explaining my votes in case I need a little bit more than two minutes. Not a lot more, but just so I have it. I really just wanted to start out my comments to say first thank you to my colleague Mr. Pretlow, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Thank you, Mr. Pretlow. It's been an honor and a privilege to work with you when I got put in this position and sitting next to you during the budget hearings. I've enjoyed our conversations. I've enjoyed our debates. I've enjoyed our banter. I've enjoyed that. we can laugh a little bit while we have these discussions. So I just wanted to say thank you to you first and foremost. I also wanted to say thank you to your staff, Phil and your team. First, I apologize for making you guys run back and forth when we bring up different issues. I just want to say thank you to all of you guys for what you do. I know the incredible work you do for Gary and your whole conference. And thank you for the relationship you have with our Ways and Means team, too. I know how much they appreciate it, and we appreciate that you have that relationship. with them. So thank you and we salute you too.

our staff in the minority conference. Every person, every department, every role, every position. I truly hope you know what a vital part you are of our conference, that we need you and we thank you. We simply do not function without you. Thank you so much for all you do. And if you'd allow me a little point of personal privilege here, I'd like to speak about the men and women sitting behind me and I hate that my back is turned to them. When leader Rob entrusted me with this position, it was a great honor and I knew I was lucky and I knew how great our Ways and Means team was But the privilege I had to work so closely with all of you for these more than three months I've been able to see up close firsthand how simply incredible you are, your steadfast commitment and dedication is, your incredible and tireless work ethic, your perseverance, the long hours with little sleep, and you always, always have a smile on your face. When we say thank you, we say we're here to help, and you help. I'm amazed watching you. It's amazing to work with you. Listen, you shine all the time, but you especially shine this time of year. And I hope you never, ever question how much I, how much the leader, how much all of us appreciate you. And the words I'm saying here today does not do the justice to express it. And I will say, in the past, when votes come out, when I'm down negatively on a lot of budget bills, I kind of vote no on the whole package. And many of our members do the same thing, and I understand that, but not this year. Not this year. For this bill, when I see the word legislature up there, I see our incredible staff behind me. I see our incredible staff that we work with. And I just want to say thank you to all of you. God bless all of you. Madam Speaker, I vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Mr. Pretlow, will you yield?

Sponsor yields.

There are absolutely no appropriations for pistol bans. immigrants or anything. This is strictly the legislature or the judiciary.

On the bill.

Thank you. Thank you.

Let me end on a happy note here. Mr. Palmisano just got up, and he spoke, and in true Phil Palmisano fashion, thanked every other person in this room, including his fantastic WAM staff. He thanked Philip. He thanked everybody else. I'd like to thank him. I mean, he stepped into some big shoes at the beginning of this session, and he stepped in and he's performed very admirably. I think that his back and forth with Chair Pretlow has been very respectful, very productive. It's been just a very honest debate and conversation, and I think that's the way it ought to be. And I really want us to all thank Phil. He didn't mention the Congo very much. A little bit. A little bit. But he was great. He was really great. He did a great job. And I just would like from myself and I think from our members and hopefully from some of yours, all of yours, of yours, we could all just say thank you to Phil Pomisano and the entire WAM staff for all the wonderful work that they did.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, Madam Leader, I don't know how advisable it is to talk about judges' salaries being an attorney, but I won't go there. Back in February, the governor gave us a budget, her version of a budget, which was then followed by 30-day amendments. We had 14 public hearings in which leadership changed. I first sat next to Mr. Ra and then was transferred to Mr. Polisano. And I got ...that along perfectly with both of them. And here we are, 56 days past the April 1st deadline, but we are now finalizing a budget, and I think this is a good budget. Since this is a moment of thanks, I have to first thank the Speaker, first for giving me this position, and secondly, trusting me with the debate and defending the Governor's budget. Secondly, I have to thank the Ways and Means staff. As your Ways and Means staff is great, my Ways and Means staff is fantastic. And, you know, we're under the leadership. It's hard when you start calling names, but Phil's name has been called several times. I don't know how he does it, but Phil knows every number. And there's thousands of pages of budget. You ask him a number, he somehow knows the right answer. I don't know how he does it. But him and Marie and Victor and everyone below them, just his team leaders, they're all just fantastic. Everybody did their thing. It's kind of difficult when doing the curly shuffle here. So I would appreciate it more if we stick to one subject at a time. So, you know, and anyway, I think we did. We did great. I think this is a good budget. I'm glad that it's finally done. We have one week and two days of session left and we have to do hundreds, maybe even thousands of bills in the next time. I would appreciate if you guys didn't lay the bills aside so we can get them. Vote yes, vote no, but don't lay them aside. Oh, I didn't think of a program of counseling. Jen Bess and her crew. Where are you, Jen? She's somewhere here. Okay. Oh, there she is. They pick up, they do the other half of this. So I think we did. This is a good team. And I think that we as a group, all of us, the colleagues, have a good camaraderie together. We've all worked together. We don't have any crazies on either side, which I think is a good thing. And if you do, they're not showing you on the floor, so that's okay. I don't know what goes on in your conference, but I do know on the floor everybody is most respectful, and we have to get done. So with that, I guess we can read the last section, or is it time?

Okay. Thank you, sir.

One more time. What an amazing opportunity to be here. I have been watching for the first time in my entire career as an assembly member, the budget being debated virtually. I'm not sure how people watch that on TV. But I watched it obviously because you one want to keep up with the issues and two you want to support and honor your colleagues the way you should be and paying attention to what they saying and doing I certainly at this point want to really honor the speaker for his ability to pull everybody together and make something out of it. This is how the sauces are made. It's not cute. In fact, it's ugly. But it gets done. So congratulations to everybody who had a part in this. But I particularly want to honor this young man right here. Gary is such a cool person. You can't tell if you've upset him or not. He just nicely responds and pretty much shuts down the conversation as he does so. And so I'm really very, very proud of how you've managed to be the chair of Ways and Means. When I got here, Denny Farrell was the man who was standing stellar and tall and making it happen. And to see you follow his footsteps in the way you are is impressive. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Majority Leader. Read the last section.

Party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh.

Thank you, Ms. People-Stokes.

Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Steck to explain his vote.

Mr Stack in the negative Mr B Bend to explain his vote Thank you Madam Speaker To recap I can tell you this is probably the first that I voted for majority of the ten budget bills but

Speaker I vote aye. Mr. Beepin in the affirmative. Thank you. The bill is passed. My colleagues, we have more work to do here. On the main calendar, resolutions, page 3. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1445 rules at the request of Ms. Kay. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim August 7, 2026 as Purple Heart Day in the state of New York. Ms. Kay on the resolution.

Mr. Eacus on the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Bendett, on the resolution.

Thank you. Mr. Angelino on the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Angelina. Mr. Ari Brown on the resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Taig, on the resolution.

On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Thank you. Assembly number 1446 rules at the request of Mr. Sayage. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 25, 2026 as Jordanian American Heritage Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1447 rules at the request of Mr. Gandolfo legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 1, 2026 as Police Dog Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1448, rules at the request of Ms. DeLavine. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 2026 as Urological Health Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1449 rules at the request of Mr. Jensen. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 6, 2026 as Danish-American Heritage Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed No the resolution is adopted Assembly number 1450 rules at the request of Mr Ra Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 8 2026 as sight day in the state of New

On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1451 rules at the request of Mr. Mantello. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 21, 2026 as Pets for Veterans Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1452 rules at the request of Mr. LaMondez. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 31st, 2026 as Hug-A-Sheep Day in the state of New York.

Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1453 rules at the request of Mr. Maher. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 25th through 31st, 2026 as Respiratory Care Week in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1454 rules at the request of Mr. Brabenek. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as German-American Heritage Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1455 rules at the request of Mr. Bendett. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim November 17, 2026 as Young Entrepreneur Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1456 rules at the request of Ms. Rosenthal. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim November 2026 as Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1460 rules at the request of Mr. Ramos. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 27, 2026 as Taiwan Heritage Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1461 rules at the request of Mr. Ekas' legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 27, 2026 as Senior Health and Fitness Day in the state of New York.

Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1462 rules at the request of Ms. Simon. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as Mental Health Awareness Month in the state of New York.

Thank you, Ms. Chandler.