Assembly Live Stream

The House will come to order. Good morning, colleagues and guests. In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of silence. Visitors are invited to join members in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Wednesday, May 20th. Ms. Peoples-Sticks.

Without objection, so ordered. Good morning to colleagues and guests that are in the chambers with us today. I'd like to share a quote with you all. This one is coming from Jimi Hendrix. Most of you have heard of him. There's amazing music he used to make with an electric guitar. His words for us today, in order to change the world, you have to get your head together first. Again, these words from the infamous Jimi Hendrix. Madam Speaker, members have on their desk a main calendar. Before any housekeeping and or introductions we going to begin by calling committees to meet ways and means and Rules These committees are going to produce both an A and a B calendar which we are going to take up today In addition, we will also be calling for the following committees to meet as well. Cities, corporations, and labor. There may be a need to announce additional floor activity as we proceed. Madam Speaker, I will be happy to provide that should that be necessary. However, majority members should be aware that there may be a need for a conference after we conclude our work on the floor today. And as always, we'll check with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. So that's the general outline of where we're going. Madam Speaker, if you could let us have us begin by calling the Ways and Means Committee immediately to the Speaker's Conference Room. Thank you. Thank you. Ways and Means Committee members, please make your way quietly to the Speaker's Conference Room. Ways and Means to the Speaker's Conference Room. We do have a piece of housekeeping this morning on a motion by Mr. Levine, page 28, calendar number 237, Bill number A7903B. The amendments are received and adopted. We have several introductions this morning. We will start

it. Thank you. On behalf of Mr. McDonald, the speaker, and all members, we welcome our distinguished guests here today to our Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so much for your advocacy as we're in NF Awareness Month. Please keep amplifying your voice, letting folks know what the issues are and how we can be very, very helpful. So we thank you so very much for joining us today.

for the important work they do. On behalf of Mr. Steck, the Speaker, and all members, welcome Together for Youth to our Assembly chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you for all you're doing to help protect and advocate for our young people, our future. Thank you for doing that and especially for raising awareness for foster care, much needed program. So happy you're here to advocate for that. Thank you so very much for joining us today.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

congratulate AXA, and extend to them the cordialities of the House, please. Of course, on behalf of Mr. Fall, the Speaker, and all members, welcome our distinguished guests from Mr. Fall's district to our Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings. Congratulations for your recent academic success. You have great tutelage from Mr. Fall, so I'm sure that it will be very impressive on your resume. We hope you enjoy your time here today. Thank you so very much for joining us.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

On behalf of Mr. Simpson, the speaker, and all members, we welcome the coach and players of Queensbury High School Nordic Ski Champions. Welcome you to our Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Hoping you enjoy our proceedings today, and congratulations. Congratulations. Being a state champion is nothing to shy away from. So we wish you continued best wishes for continued academic and athletic success. Continue on your great journey. Thank you so very much for joining us here today.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

them all the cordialities of the House. Thank you. On behalf of Mr. Santa Barbara, members Walsh and McDonald, the Capital Region delegation, speaker, and all members, we welcome our very distinguished guests who are here today representing for the Capital Region Military Day. We acknowledge all of the hard work that you are doing, important work in the community, especially the collaboration between all of our communities. We extend to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much for joining us. Thank you for your service, and Godspeed to all of you. Thank you. Thank you.

On Ms. Peoples-Tosis motion, the House stands at ease. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. So Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you

The House will come to order. Thank you. Thank you very much. If you would now call the City's Committee to the Speaker's Conference Room. City Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. City Committee members, Speaker's Conference Room.

Thank you. On a motion by Ms. People-Stokes, the A and B calendar are advanced. We're going to be on debate, folks, so if you're going to be in the chamber, please take your seats. Page 3, Rules Report 171. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1005C, Rules Report 171, Budget Bill. 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. Pratlow.

Mr. Paul Masano.

Chairman yields.

Thank you, Ms. Cruz, for your time.

On the bill.

to do the same. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. People-Stokes. Madam Speaker, if you could please call the Corporations Committee to the Speaker's conference Corporation Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Corpse Committee members, Speaker Conference Room. Mr. Blankenbush.

Mr. Pratlow. Will the Speaker yield?

Okay. In the Governor's recent budget announcements that she's been making, she was talking about, in her final budget, of lowering insurance rates for New Yorkers. Will we see any of these proposals in future budget bills? They should be in the bill we call TED, transportation bill. There is a couple of items in this bill, but the bulk of the fraud bill or fraud reduction bills will be in the transportation bill. Okay, thank you. So let's talk about the two that are specifically in this bill. Will these two reforms that is in this bill, when they go into effect, will they lower premiums? They should help or go toward lowering premiums. I don't know if in themselves they lower premiums, but one of them is to forbid insurance companies from using things like your education and your zip code and things of that nature to set your rates. That will lower rates for some people that are being assessed at a higher premium than others with the same driving qualities. Okay, let's first talk about the flex rating. My understanding with the flex rating is that we are doing away with the 5% for upward rating, but we're not taking away the 5% for lower rating. Is that correct? All right, I think we are, but at a later date. Pardon me? We are, but at a later date. We're taking away the... Well, it says that in this bill. It says that we're taking away the 5% upper window. Am I wrong? No, you are correct. Flexurating increases are repealed after six months. Flexurating decreases are repealed after four years. Okay so with doing away with the increasing premiums for the upper 5 Would it not Would the insurance companies not look at taking a lower rating in an individual year because they think they're going to be frozen into that lower rating because of the fact that we're taking away the ability to raise that for 5%? They still have the ability to raise the raise. They just need a prior authorization. Okay, so if the insurance company wants to raise a rate by 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, they still have to go through the DFS according to this rule. Yes. Okay, now, because of that, does DFS have enough staff and actuaries to handle all of the insurance companies that are going to ask for increases of 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% every single year, do they have enough staff to handle all that? I would assume they do, and if they don't, they will. And so when you're talking about they will, we're talking about do we have any additional funding in this bill to hire more people, to hire more actuaries, to put more staff on? Mr. Blankwich, this is the way rate increases are done now, and it is working. So I don't believe they will need an additional staff. But we're going to increase that workload on DFS if, in fact, an insurance company has to do a filing for a 1% increase, which they do not have to do right now. But I think if any FTEs are required, that will be taken care of in the appropriation bill. Okay. We talk about underwriting and risk, and I understand that some of the proposals in this on occupation and home ownership and all of that other stuff is debatable. We could agree or disagree on whether that affects rates or not, but the one thing that absolutely does affect rates is the zip codes. Now, most of the people, the majority of the people that are sitting in this room have more drivers in their zip codes than my zip code. And I'll give you an example. We have about 115,000 people in my zip code. Not all drivers, but 150,000 populations. If you take a look at where you live or where the majority lives, you're going to see that there's more drivers, more risk, more risk for accidents, more risk for theft, more risk for fraud, more risk all across the border. Now, so what this bill will do by taking away the zip codes, you're going to have to, because they're going to have to spread the risk, my constituents are going to pay more insurance premiums because of the majorities of the population is not with me, not in my district. But here's another example of how upstate New York, well, the North Country, I don't even call me upstate New York, the North Country is going to pay a premium because of the risk factors between New York City for example and Jefferson County It doesn make any sense for me as an underwriter to take away the zip codes Well, first of all, Mr. Blankbush, I have to disagree with the numbers that you used.

Well, when I said I have 115,000, that's not even in one zip code, by the way. We have different zip codes in the county, so I'm using the whole county as an example. Well, they can use a group of contiguous zip codes. Say again?

Okay. All right.

First of all, the 5% upward, restricting the 5% upward increases in premium, And as a one-way street going from going up but not going down. Here's my problem, and what I'm thinking is that if, in fact, an insurance company wants to lower its premiums, they're going to look at it and say, if I lower the premiums by 5% this year, because we're submitting that to DFS, am I going to lock myself in because I'm not going to be able to, if things change, if risks change, if accidents change, if profitability changes, am I going to lock myself in to that lower rate because now every single point, whether it's 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, is going to have to be going through DFS. Now, anyone who has been at all in the insurance industry, like I have, knows that DFS and the bureaucracy doesn't work very fast. So if you're asking for an increase in premiums, you have to prove it to DFS right now. So every insurance company in New York who wants to go up 1% has got to submit all of that paperwork and justification to DFS. You can't tell me that DFS has the capability right now with the people that are sitting over there, the capability to handle that workload. So it's got to increase their budget. It's got to increase the bureaucracy over there because it's a slow bureaucracy right now. I can imagine what's going to happen if every insurance company in the state of New York only wants to... wants a 1% increase. The other thing, too, is with the underwriting. DFS already has regulatory tools and actuarial experience to police the factors by a case-by-case basis. We are passing a statutory ban that completely ignores data-driven risk assessments. I think that when we as a group pass a bill, we're really not looking down the road a year from now or two years from now or three years from now. And I still believe by using, taking away zip codes away, we're going to hurt my constituents. And I therefore really can't accept this as a proposal or a reform in the insurance industry. So I'll be voting no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for questions, please? Will the sponsor yield?

Thank you, Chairman. I'm going to begin, if we can, with the state disaster assistance, which is part of this bill. A proposal to enroll New York in cooperative emergency compacts was omitted from this legislation. Is that accurate? Say again, please. A proposal to enroll New York in a cooperative emergency compact was omitted from this legislation.

It's been done. And that was done, is there a reason that we did that outside the budget, not part of this? That's not fiscal.

We passed the legislation.

Was it passed by the Senate?

And so we were just waiting for the governor to sign it?

Understood. Then I will quickly pivot to the next round of questions regarding the Orange County IDA monitor language.

Yes, we did.

since it was part of one of the extenders that we saw come through?

until the final agreements were made and this budget was produced. So what we have in the budget now is the final decisions as to what's being done with the Orange County IDA.

I so curious as to why this wasn part of the original proposal that we discussed and that we ultimately passed It really wasn a proposal last year when we did the extender

Why does the budget expand the Orange County IDA monitor to include the Orange County Funding Corporation?

Well, you know, here's part of the problem, and I really don't want to bring politics into this, but when you sue yourself and then make a settlement. Well, the IDA and the LNC are the same board of directors.

Is there an appeal process if the monitor disagrees with the board? I believe so. Can you describe what that appeal process is like?

They could always appeal.

And what would that appeal process look like?

just like everyone else in New York, right? What safeguards exist to prevent politically motivated interference in local projects? How do you mean safeguards?

How do you mean safeguards?

I mean, if we want to prevent politically motivated interference in local projects by the monitor. Well, I think we have existing laws that would cover that.

If either entity fails to make payment, any new contract, financial assistance agreement, or project approval entered into thereafter would be deemed legally ineffective until the outstanding costs are paid in fill. Why does failure to pay oversight costs automatically invalidate future contracts and development agreements?

Do we know what the cost owed is?

$50,000? Between $50,000 and $75,000. Understood. And just curious, why are we making local taxpayers and economic development entities being forced to pay not only the monitor's salary but also litigation costs? Well, the litigation that's being brought about is being brought about by the ADA on the monitor.

I understand. Well, thank you for clearing all that up. I'd like to pivot, if we can, to some of the immigration policies that are being proposed. Do you mind if I yield to Ms. Cruz for those questions Not a problem Thank you Ms Cruz I appreciate your explanations here Just some clarifying questions There seems to be in regards to local governments approving a zoning variance or issuing a permit or certificate for the construction or reuse of buildings for immigration detention facilities

Right now it's around 62 days, and it would make it 180 or more.

It would be for applications going forward.

It would be under their official capacity as they would be acting under the color of law.

It could.

Can you clarify your question? Do you have specifics in mind?

Right now, if they're, and this would actually continue, if it's a federally administered program, we wouldn't prevent it from being asked because it's part of the application and the request of information. But if it's short of needed for that determination, there should be no reason why it's being requested.

If they're applying for benefits through OTADA, is that a question that could be asked?

Can you clarify that? Well, there's some benefits that OTDA administers on behalf of the federal government, and there's some benefits that they are carrying out of administering on behalf of our state government. And so the benefits on behalf of the state government, if someone's applying for those,

Thank you Certain disability programs, certain housing programs that are administered by OCDA that are not federally administered, that don't have a genesis in the federal government, and those programs would not be allowed to ask that question.

question to be asked.

Understood.

No, but I can tell you that about 60% of the people that have been detained or kidnapped by federal government in the last year and change did not actually have a criminal record or even a federal warrant.

You'd go in front of a judge and request it, and depending on what it's for, there's going to be certain criteria in the law that would have to be met.

Wait, walk me through a real-life example of what you mean.

You mean without documentation status, yes.

As long as it's not part of an ongoing agreement,

If the communication is for the purposes of the enforcement of federal criminal law, not for the purposes of enforcing immigration law. So we wouldn't change the practice on the first example.

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

On the bill.

Thank you very much. Ms. Peoples-Stokes?

Ms. Forrest. Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the chair on the bill. On the bill. As the chair of the Task Force on New Americans, the only body in the Assembly formally charged with supporting our state's immigration population.

Thank you. Mr. Gandolfo.

Certainly.

Ms. Cruz yields.

Okay.

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

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

There's no involvement of, let's say, local police or anything. It's ICE doing whatever civil enforcement they're doing, whether or not it's a criminal illegal immigrant or someone who is just here who has not committed any further crimes, but they're still electing to make a civil immigration arrest. Now they need a place to detain them.

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

They could not do that. This bill doesn't contemplate that part. It only says that they cannot use local facilities.

I think you'd describe it as slow walking. We would describe it as transparency and making sure that the community is aware.

Give me a second. So it's our understanding in some districts, including Orange County, public has felt like there wasn't enough time for comment and response from the community.

It would also prohibit any other form of intergovernmental agreement. Okay, would this... I think they're called ISGAs.

So there's a case law of the second department right now that says that if the detainer itself is only for the purposes of immigration enforcement, it cannot be honored. And this does not deal with that part. And if there's no valid criminal reasoning for detaining them, they cannot be detained.

In the example, and I'm familiar with the case, but I don't remember specifics, was there a judicial warrant? Do you recall? That I'm not sure of. I went on public reporting. I just know they were not able to set the hell for the individual and the reporting that I've seen from the public statements of the district attorney.

It wouldn't be about a one-off situation or about, and I want to clarify from earlier, it wouldn't be about just simply communicating with us. It would have to look like a pattern. So let's say it's that particular instance plus another instance plus another instance. It's about the behavior beginning to look like there's an actual agreement rather than simply communication.

And it would have to look like, in effect, they were deputizing, the federal government was deputizing the local law enforcement.

streets so who was coordinating with eyes in that particular I'm not sure if

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

If someone's here in an undocumented status and the behavior of the law enforcement agency and that of ICE begins to look like ICE is deputizing the local law enforcement agency, whether it's the district attorneys or the police and that is this, or even the court, it's the deputizing and beginning to look like it's deputizing the local law enforcement that then looks like a 287G and would not be permitted pursuant to this law.

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

I would say harassment is a crime So if someone harasses officers they could be subjected to charges right now And we have plenty of law enforcement agencies throughout the country and other federal entities that engage in law enforcement activities who choose not to wear a mask.

Yes, yes. For someone who needs it medically or a situation that requires it medically.

Yes.

Well, it would be the DA who makes that determination.

The local DA, yes.

On the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Jensen.

Yes, I will. Chair yields.

Is that correct? Yes.

It could be, yes.

Thank you. Mr. Levine.

My apologies for giving you sideways.

between a 287 agreement and general cooperation with ICE. Yes A 287 agreement often comes with signatures from both sides agreements on training agreements on who controls the activities of the local law enforcement and actual deputizing of that local law enforcement to do the job that would otherwise be done by federal law by ICE

No.

No.

Thank you. Mr. Durso.

Would the chair yield? So will.

Thank you, Chairman Pretlow.

Yes. But now I see that in this budget bill, it's going to be collecting funds 0.4% of the total estimated statewide premiums for worker compensation assessments. It's capped at 0.4.

Okay, so it's not going to be zero.

Okay, and now do we have a rough range or idea of how much money that will be? We provide $7 million to it. In this current budget, we're providing $7 million for the workers' compensation fraud unit.

Yeah, plus this $5 million that has it as a Bateman board, this $5 million for New York State. Occupational Health Clinic Network, which comes together a total of $17 million in total that we're providing.

The $7 million.

Do we know how that's going to be distributed? Yes, I just said $5 million goes to hazardous abatement, $5 million goes to New York State Occupational, and $7 million goes to the DAs.

I believe that'll be an RFP to the board.

And then the board is going to decide, essentially, how that money is distributed upon need? Yes.

Yes, we do.

Thank you, Chairman.

That's correct.

I apologize. So it's anyone who works for the state other than law enforcement.

Yeah.

I'm going to read you a list, so give me a second.

This one, right? So it would be using state resources including but not limited to time spent while on duty for immigration enforcement purposes, disclosing personal identifying information, questioning, interrogating, or investigating a person for the purposes of immigration enforcement, questioning around immigration status unless for voter registration purposes, administering a benefit or otherwise required under the law, permitting immigration authorities to access to non-public areas of state and local facilities without a valid court order or a judicial warrant, permitting immigration authorities from engaging in immigration enforcement at poll sites where doing so would violate federal law or prohibit federal troop interferings at poll sites.

Let me read you more. Yes, using immigration authorities as interpreters, collecting information regarding immigration status, and that's it.

Correct.

And I have breaking news.

You and I are not considered state employees, so we would not apply to legislators.

In your example.

I don't make the news, I just break them.

For the purposes of this particular bill, we are not considered employees.

Not for the purposes of this bill.

Hold that thought.

I want to make sure that I'm 100% clear.

Even more breaking news.

And I was right in the beginning. We are in fact employees of the state of New York under the law.

I know.

Please never tell your father that I said you were right.

Are they prohibited from doing that? This would not be in the course of performing the duties as an employee of the state, so it would not apply.

Performing their duties as a, yes, that's correct.

I think it's all.

Double checking, give me one second.

Yes, it is an or. Any of those identifying pieces would work.

That is correct.

So if it's making a call from their office, that's a state or a municipal office, anything like that.

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

Time you're supposed to be at work, knowledge you would have gotten through work and work only.

Because it's during the course of work that-

This would be for immigration enforcement purposes.

So, that's not a crime.

you can pick up the phone, call 911, call federal law enforcement, but if you happen to look at someone, and you're like, oh, this person looks undocumented during your lunch hour. I'm going to call ICE. No, of course. That's a different thing. That I understand. But if there was a crime, God forbid, being committed, you know, an assault, anything like that, and you decide to— Oh, you call the police. Nothing stops them from calling 911 or the police. But you cannot call federal law enforcement, correct? Why would you call the FBI someone being assaulted at a restaurant and not 911? What? So if—okay, so if you want— I mean, if you could call them, I— You could. I understand that. I just like to have everything, you know. I understand. It's just a question. But now, if you do call 911 or the police, and because of that crime being committed at that time, it does lead to federal law enforcement being called, but you are not the one to call them, you're not at risk of anything at all. That's not contemplated in this bill. That's completely separate and apart from it. Because your interaction with law enforcement and calling law enforcement was because you saw a crime and it was for the safety of the community or for whatever was happening. It wasn't because you looked at the person and wanted to enforce immigration law by picking up the phone and calling. Got it. Okay. So it's just essentially, but it's not specific to just ICE. It's any federal law enforcement, correct? It's immigration enforcement. So not just federal enforcement. It's federal immigration enforcement. That's correct. So if I was to call the Federal Department of Labor to complain about a contractor or something like that, I'm okay with doing that. It's just you cannot call— Yes, this law does not contemplate that. There might be other laws that do and that regulate what a state employee can do in those situations. I'm not aware of them, but this particular section of the law in today's budget does not. Okay. Okay, I just wanted to make sure, so if the Department of Labor was out investigating wage theft or anything like that, and they were to work with the Federal Department of Labor, right, in regards to anybody using undocumented workers, not paying proper wages, anything like that, and it leads to a federal investigation or anything like that. That's beyond the scope of this. in the purpose of the particular investigation you're talking about is about the violation of federal labor laws Correct it not to report somebody or call federal immigration to report a person specifically It about an act So the Department of Labor is not precluded from still investigating That's correct. Anything. Thank you, Ms. Cruz. I appreciate it. Thank you.

On the bill. On the bill. I rise today in strong support of key sections of this budget bill before us. I do so as someone who deeply believes in public safety. I do so as someone who believes in the dignity and the humanity of immigrants. And I do so as a representative of one of the most diverse immigrant-rich districts, not only in New York State, but in the entire country. In my district, families speak dozens of languages. They come from every corner of the world. They're working class families, they're mixed status families, immigrant families who came here seeking safety, opportunity, and the simple promise that if you work hard, care for your family, and contribute to your community, you belong. That's why my father came here and countless members of our communities. And what constituents want and every New Yorker wants is the same. They want to feel safe. They want their children safe from gun violence. They want to feel safe sending their kids to school, going to work, going to worship, seeking medical care. They want to know that their constitutional rights and their dignity matter. That is why these sections of the budget bill we are voting on today are so important. One section recognizes a growing threat to public safety that we cannot ignore, the proliferation of ghost guns, machine gun conversion devices, and 3D printed firearms. Communities across our state are already grappling with the devastating consequences of gun violence. Law enforcement officials and advocates alike have raised alarm bells about unserialized firearms and conversion devices that can turn a handgun into a weapon capable of mass harm in seconds. Public safety requires us to evolve alongside technology. We cannot allow dangerous loopholes to undermine the gun safety laws New York has worked so hard to enact. This legislation takes responsible action to address emerging threats before they become even more widespread and deadly. Because protecting public safety means preventing violence before tragedy strikes. And public safety is not only about what we prevent. It's also about whether people feel safe enough to participate in public life. That is why another section of this bill is so deeply important. It says something simple and fundamental. Our schools, our hospitals, our houses of worship, our libraries, domestic violence shelters, and institutions of higher education must remain places of care, learning, healing, and refuge, not fear. When immigrant families are afraid to take their child to school, to seek medical care, to report abuse, or attend religious services because they fear civil immigration enforcement, all of us are less safe. Fear isolates communities. Fear drives people underground. Fear weakens trust. And trust is essential for public safety Communities are safer when people feel secure enough to seek health care report crimes cooperate with institutions and fully participate in civic life. I also strongly support the provisions in this legislation that prohibit state and local agencies from entering into or renewing so-called 287G agreements that deputize local law enforcement to carry out federal civil immigration enforcement. And let me be clear, local law enforcement should be focused on local public safety. Our schools, hospitals, and public institutions should be places of service and of trust, not extensions of federal immigration enforcement. Because when immigrant families fear that any interactions with public institutions could put them at risk, communities become less safe, not more safe. And as someone who represents immigrant communities every single day, I've heard directly from students and families living with an extraordinary anxiety and uncertainty. Young people wondering whether enrolling in college will put their families at risk. Parents afraid to engage with institutions that should support them. And that's why I'm especially thrilled that in this legislation includes language from one of my bills to protect immigrant students in our public university systems. Specifically, the legislation will make it unlawful for any employee or officer of our city and state university systems to request the specific details of students' immigration status, except when required by a judicial warrant. And let me be clear, students should come to our colleges to learn, not to live in fear. A young person pursuing an education should never have to wonder whether asking for academic help, financial aid, advising, or campus resources will expose them or their family to immigration consequences. We should be opening doors to opportunity, not building systems of surveillance and fear. And finally, another important section of this budget bill affirms a basic democratic principle. Constitutional rights mean little if the people have no meaningful way to enforce them. Because rights are not just words on paper. They are promises. Promises that people are treated fairly. Promises that people will have due process. Promises that no one is above accountability. And when those promises are violated, people deserve recourse. that strengthens public trust. Because true public safety is rooted in accountability. It's rooted in fairness. It's rooted in communities knowing that institutions exist to protect them, not harm them. The truth is this. We do not have to choose between public safety and immigrant dignity. We do not have to choose between constitutional rights and community safety. We can and we must do both. We can keep communities safe from gun violence while also protecting the dignity of immigrant families. We can strengthen public trust while also ensuring accountability. These sections of the budget bill will move us forward towards a New York where families are safer from gun violence, where immigrants can live with dignity and less fear, and where our constitutional rights remain meaningful and enforceable. We can build a New York where people are safer, freer, and treated with dignity. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield in regards to immigration? Mr. Pallo? In regards to immigration. Immigration. Ms. Cruz, will you yield? Ms. Cruz yields. Thank you. Ms. Cruz, I just want to clarify some things. A few minutes ago, when you were asked by one of my colleagues, they asked you in regards to the communication between state employees and federal immigration officers. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you said that this legislation would not necessarily affect one-off contacts, but it would affect a pattern of contacts. Is that correct? That's only for law enforcement. Correct. Yes. Because you said state employees, so it's only for law enforcement. We're treating state employees and law enforcement separately in this one. Okay, so can you give me an example then where a law enforcement state employee would necessarily only contact federal immigration once and not build a pattern? Okay, we need to separate them first. There's state employees and then there's what's deemed law enforcement officers under this law. Which one do you want to go through the pattern with? I want to talk about police, meaning state police, and of course this bill also affects municipality police, correct? Hold on, hold on. I know that you keep saying state employee law enforcement, but for the sake of making sure that we have a clear legislative record, let's refer to them as state employees or law enforcement, regardless of whether the law enforcement is municipal, state troopers, or local. Would that be okay? Sure, let's just make it about police. Let's just make it about police. Okay, so in your example, you're asking me, I just wanna verify that I understood the question correctly, under what instances would the 287g provision of this bill be violated? Or are you asking me what would constitute a pattern of deputizing the local enforcement? Right. What I'm asking you is an example of where it would be one-off contact with federal immigration officers as opposed to a pattern of conduct which would violate this potential law. He's asking for an example. So what would be the effect? So while I don't love this example, I'm going to give you what is permitted under the law. It's a county in somewhere in the state of New York that never before had a 287G agreement. And an instance happens where they arrest someone and they call ICE to notify them that they have someone under their custody that happens to be undocumented. First time they've ever done it. Never do it afterwards. This is the only communication. that would not constitute a pattern of deputizing Now I turn that example a little bit different So a particular county that happens to currently have a 287G after the legislation takes effect the 287G agreement has now ended, and they continue to behave in the same way, where it is clear that their local officers have been deputized and are doing the job that generally would otherwise be done by an ICE agent. And they do so in the same way that they would do it now, in spite of the law now changing and in spite of no longer having a 287G in effect. Okay, so what you're saying is that every county or in this state basically gets one freebie, right? Is that what you're telling us? I mean, it's kind of a crude way to put it, but, you know, it's not just one. but okay, let's say they do one in January and another one in July and sometime in November and that's it, yeah? So just to put it in context so the people out there understand what we're talking about here, there are- And it's also not just about the communication. I wanna make sure that I'm clear on that because one thing is picking up the phone and saying, oh, we have someone here detained. A completely different thing is add to that example, They are also engaging in other behavior that is only generally done by ICE. They create traffic stops simply to determine who might be undocumented. They are checking immigration status. There's other behavior that would go into that. It's not just about, oh, they picked up the phone and communicated, that's not just the only reason. Right, but that does affect that communication, does it not, Ms. Cruz? Coupled with everything, yeah. What's the purpose of the communication? The communication might just be to inform ICE that we have somebody in custody. The communication might be to say, we happen to do a traffic stop to check for immigration status and now we have this one person and then this other person. That begins to look more like the behavior of a 287G. So just to be clear, someone that, for example, maybe potentially was charged with a crime and potentially was sentenced on that crime, and did jail time or prison time, for example, once they were to leave that system, state employees, whether they be corrections officers or anyone working on the state level, would be prohibited from contacting immigration officials if that person is undocumented, correct? So I want to make sure that we have it clear that corrections officers are carved out from state employees. Okay, what about- So it would not apply here. Okay. But in your particular instance, if I, and it actually happens now and we're not changing that pattern, someone has done their time, they happen to be undocumented, usually there's going to be a deportation order that fallows, they can pick them up in the same way that they would now. We are not stopping that process. We are not telling the federal government how to do their part of the job. We're saying we as a state are no longer going to be doing the job for you. But that's not even doing the job for them. That is basically prohibiting them from contacting the federal government. Correct? Hold on. Everybody can talk at the same time. Go ahead. Go ahead. So right now there are sections of the correctional law that we are not touching and not repealing and there are already often procedures that allow the communication to happen between the correction facility and ICE at the end of the person's sentence. I'm sorry, I'm a little bit confused here. I just want to clarify everything, okay? Absolutely. All right. The bill before us today prevents cooperation between state employees, including law enforcement, and federal immigration officials, correct? Yes, except that, as I mentioned earlier, it also excludes law enforcement and correctional facilities officers. It excludes it. So are you saying to us today that police officers do not, there's no any type of restraint on police officers? As I mentioned earlier, when I tried to separate the two examples, you keep using interchangeably state employees and police officers. We are treating the requirements for police officers and the type of cooperation, communication, etc. in one way, and we are treating state employees differently. It's why I don't want to use those two interchangeably. I want to use law enforcement officers or police officers and state employees or county employees separate. Okay, but either way, this bill affects the way that whether you want to say police officers or state employees, it affects their relationship or the ability to work with federal immigration officials, right? Isn't that the point of this legislation? I mean, the answer is yes, but it treats them differently how each other can do it. Yes, but it treats – hold on. You asked me the question. I'm going to answer it. Yes, but I want to make sure that we're clear and that it treats each of them differently for different purposes. What kind of communication can happen? At the end of the day, we don't want anyone stepping into the shoes of federal law enforcement for the purposes of immigration enforcement. But the way in which we've carved out the pattern of deputizing under 287G that would be not permitted under the law anymore, and the pattern of utilizing state resources, if you are a state or local employee, are treated differently for, actually for the purpose of the example you gave, because there are instances under the law that we're not touching where communication can still happen. Okay, thank you. But I just, it was very, very simply, it affects that relationship. It certainly does not make it easier for law enforcement or for state employees or whoever to actually work with ICE, correct? We're not trying to make it easier. We're trying to make it harder, right? We're trying to make sure that we protect people's constitutional rights. Okay, perfect. And that, this will take effect no matter what type of crime any defendant potentially was convicted of, right? Well, let's actually touch it because if I remember correctly, you are a former prosecutor, right? Correct, in the Bronx. No, what, I as a survivor of a crime and you as a prosecutor, wouldn't you want that whoever committed a crime against me actually pay the time? And, you know, because it isn't just about, oh, they got arrested, they got charged. Let's, yes, run them through the system, making sure that the Constitution is actually followed, and that their rights are protected, and that the rights and what the victim needs actually is taken into account. Because why would you want someone deported in that facing court You know it funny you bring that up Ms Cruz because in my time at the Bronx District Attorney Office what I saw a pattern of were people defendants many times that were undocumented And what would happen was they would commit the crime. They would come before us. They would either plead guilty or they were found guilty. They would be sentenced. They would be released eventually after serving their sentence. and then three, four months later they'd be back again with a new victim that they created, new charges that they're facing, and that would continuously happen in a pattern. So it's not really about— Are you with the bill or are you asking me a question? I'm sorry. Well, I'm responding to your question, which is what I would like to have seen as a prosecutor. That's why, don't you agree that having the same individual come back every time because they have committed a new crime and they weren't necessarily rehabilitated during their time. Can I ask you a clarifying question? Because I'm not understanding. Let me just finish the question. Sure. I can ask you if it's okay. Sure. Wouldn't you agree that it wouldn't benefit society if a criminal defendant who continuously committed crimes was sentenced, did their time, would come out again, committed a new crime with new victims and continuously did that in a revolving door? Don't you agree? that these laws would not benefit society because they would not actually help municipalities, contact federal authorities to have these people deported? So I want to make sure a couple of things. One, this bill does not touch the ability of docs to let eyes know once a defendant has completed their sentence. We are not touching that. Two, I'm not sure how that's different from a regular U.S.-born person committing a crime and getting out and coming back in. I'm not sure what the person's immigration status has anything to do with the example you're giving me. So I want to make sure that that's the question that I was trying to clarify. It's... But I do want to make sure... I know where you're going with this, and so that's why I want to put on the table the clarification point that in an instance like that, Doc still has the ability today and will continue to have the ability. We are not touching that. That at the end of the person's sentence, if they are inclined to work with IAS the way that they do now, continue to do so. Okay, just to go back on what you said, Ms. Cruz, I just want to clarify something, okay? As you know, I'm the son of immigrants, right? You as well, correct, Ms. Cruz? I'm an immigrant myself. Oh, you're an immigrant yourself. Even better, okay? So it's not about their immigration status. It is about their actions, and it is about the public. So when there is a situation where someone that does not have the right to be here, but instead of contributing to society, is committing crimes against the people here, then yes, I think there should be, and I believe most New York State residents would agree, that there should be accountability, not just in terms of rehabilitation or in terms of sentencing, but also accountability in terms of immigration authorities. Don't you agree, Ms. Cruz? So I want to clarify yet again that this legislation does not touch the ability of docs to work with us. Thank you, Ms. Cruz. If they want to, again.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a few questions on the immigration aspect of this bill. Ms. Cruz, will you yield? Yes. Ms. Cruz yields. Under subpart F regarding law enforcement wearing masks, will undercover officers be forced to identify themselves? No. What about personal protective equipment if there is another outbreak, say the hantavirus or another pandemic? They'd be allowed to use it. Would violations of the ban on wearing face coverings by law enforcement be a desk appearance ticket or bail eligible? The first instance would be a violation, and the second one could be bail eligible. Thank you. How does requiring officers to show their faces and identification strengthen public trust and accountability in law enforcement interaction? You know, right now I represent a community that's terrified of talking to the police because of everything that we're seeing. It isn't just about the interactions with that one particular law enforcement agency here being ICE. It is also about what these actions are doing to a community's relationship with law enforcement in general. When there's no transparency, when you feel like it's a vigilante situation and you can't tell who's coming after you, you can't tell if it's someone trying to kidnap you off the street or if it's an actual law enforcement agency at times. That does something to the trust in law enforcement in general. What we're doing is holding people accountable, we're creating transparency, and we're making sure, frankly, that we're protecting the trust that people in New York should have in law enforcement. Thank you. How would this bill help prevent confusion, misconduct, or impersonation by ensuring the public can identify who is exercising state authority? You know, there's been unfortunate situations. There's several stories of immigrant women who have been kidnapped by people portraying to be ICE and actually kidnapped, raped. raped and we don't want to imagine what could continue to happen if people feel like they have free reign to impersonate law enforcement. What this will do, and it's happening right now, there's local law in New York that requires officers to identify themselves when interacting with the public. All we're saying is that any law enforcement agency that is operating in our state should have that same transparency. You and I, when interacting with them, should know who they are and what agency they represent. Thank you. How does this legislation balance legitimate officer safety concerns while reaffirming that public officials exercising government power should remain accountable to the community they serve? So, you know, the transparency piece here, knowing who's in front of me and what agency they represent, will in turn create trust. And our carve-outs of allowing certain face coverings during certain situations and actually excluding officers who are in undercover operations actually keeps them safe as well. Thank you. On the overall immigration legislative package, how will it help ensure immigrant families can safely access schools, hospitals, courts, and places of worship without fear of immigration enforcement? There been over the last year several instances throughout the state of ICE detaining and kidnapping people on their way to church people who did not have a criminal record and who were on their way to church. There's been instances of people right in front of, right here, as I mentioned earlier, in Albany, right in front of one of the local mosques, 10 people were taken. There's been instances of folks trying to comply with the law and having non-permanent status. Some of them have had asylum. Some of them have had juvenile special status who were detained in spite of actually having immigration status were detained. And on or near these locations, right in my community, there is a corner that became unfortunately very popular for ICE. And it's right down the block from a school where they were parking themselves and actually picking up people as they went down the block to work. No judicial warrant, only literally pointing at people and tackling them right down the block from a school. What this bill is going to do is to make sure that when our kids are going to school, when their parents are taking them, when they're going to church, when they're going to a hospital, they have the assurance that there are policies in place to keep them safe so that they can continue to go to church, they can continue to live the life that they should be allowed to live in dignity. Thank you. How would creating an Immigrant Trust Office within the Department of Law help immigrant New Yorkers navigate fraud, exploitation, and legal concerns? You know, this office, I think, has been sorely needed for a long time, and I'm very glad to see that it's happening. The section of the law that includes all of the immigration provisions right now is going to need someone to actually be able to enforce it. because what's a law requiring these kinds of things that we're discussing today if there is no teeth? And this is the office that will be able to investigate and enforce when necessary. What this will tell the public, what this will tell New Yorkers is that we are not just passing legislation to get a headline. We're passing legislation to actually create real change and to hold people accountable when they're bad actors. Thank you. What are the economic benefits of ensuring immigrant New Yorkers can fully participate in civic and economic life without fear? Can you repeat that? What are the economic benefits of ensuring immigrant New Yorkers can fully participate in civic and economic life without fear? I have numbers for you. So, there are about 4.5 million immigrants in New York, with about 650,000 of them being undocumented. Simply by looking at them, you can't tell who's who. Add to that the millions of U.S.-born or naturalized citizens who are in fear because of everything that's happening. The economic benefits are people can go to work. can have purchasing power, people are able to contribute to our tax coffers. I remember when we did the Green Light Bill, if my memory serves me correctly, the contributions and taxes to New York State were in the billions by undocumented New Yorkers. And these are people who contribute to our coffers but cannot in turn receive the money And if we are putting in place protections so that they feel safe when they go to work so that they feel safe when they're going to shop, then that's a much better situation for the economic state of New York. Thank you. In what ways could these policies help reduce fear among mixed status families and prevent children from avoiding school or services? So one of the things we saw locally in my community, and I think this is something that can be said about a lot of communities, was that at certain points there was a decline in the number of kids going to school. Many of these kids are U.S. born kids with undocumented parents or parents in a non-permanent status. That could be TPS recipients, that could be asylum seekers. If a parent is seen on TikTok, because we've seen them on the news, because we've seen them, that in their neighborhood there's ice raids or vans or the presence of ice. They're not gonna wanna go to work. They're not gonna wanna take their kids to school. And placing these protections in place will let them know that we as a state are doing everything that we can to make sure that when they go to school, when they go to work, they're safe and protected. Or as much as we can, in short. Thank you, I have no further questions, Madame Speaker, on the bell?

We should be proud of today, though it is so sad what our country has become. Nowhere in America should masked agents have our citizens alike and immigrants, the majority who have not committed crimes, even though that is a talking point from one side. The majority are good fellow Americans. They are people like my cousins and me mama. I am a son of an immigrant. The immigration aspects of this bill are about transparency and public trust. I am proud that the legislation to ban law enforcement, including ICE, from wearing masks, is included in this package. Right now, mothers are afraid to send their kids to school. Workers are afraid to go to their shops and construction sites. Communities can't tell the difference between ICE officers and imposters. If you're not breaking the law or abusing your power, why do you have to wear a mask? Communities must tell the difference and trust their law enforcement, why this bill applies to all law enforcement. Government power should never operate in the shadows. And we're doing this for people like Jorge Retes, a U.S. Army veteran of the Iraq War, who was driving to work, and they blocked his vehicle through tear gas canisters, shattered his car window. He was detained for several weeks, missing his daughter's third birthday, and his family did not know where he was. A citizen of the United States was apprehended because of the color of his skin and where his family came from. We're passing this for Nural Amen Shah Aloum, a legally resettled refugee living in Buffalo, New York, nearly blind, elderly and medically vulnerable. He was reportedly detained by Border Patrol, later released out in the middle of the snow and cold, and left to die. And he died. We also doing it for Kevin Gonzalez an 18 citizen born in Chicago diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer living in Mexico Kevin's undocumented parents, who were following every rule, attempted to cross the border to see him during his terminal illness, but were detained. We're doing this for folks who were sent to gulags in other countries without due process. This is not against public safety. It increases public safety and trust and transparency and accountability. We all know why they're doing it. The man in the White House is doing it to spread fear and cause pain, not to enforce the law, not to go after criminals. Because as my colleague had said, the vast majority of immigrants who are being detained without due process have committed no crime. Oversaying your visa is a civil offense. So I am proud and humbled and moved that we are passing this immigration bill, which will make us safer. You're going to hear in the coming weeks that it won't make you safer, and we stand up for you-know-who and you-know-that. But we know if the criminal in the White House really wanted to stop, really wanted to solve the immigration issue... Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, point of order.

Thank you.

I'll keep my remarks to the bill, but I was stating a fact.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a few questions on the immigration issues? Ms. Cruz, will you yield?

Ms. Cruz yields. Thank you, Ms. Cruz. So I want to first start off with asking a question of how does Section 34I of the Municipal Home Rule Law Amendment comply with Article 9 Home Rule Protections?

Okay.

So how does Section 34i of the Municipal Home Rule Law Amendment comply with Article 9 Home Rule Protections?

Has there been any thought of the encroachment on municipal home rule law? Could this expand further where there would be an encroachment on home rule authority? And would it violate the state constitution?

On home rule.

So just in comparison, state law and the state constitution has a flaw in allowing citizens to vote. Home rule has been taken into account where municipalities have moved to allow those who are non-citizens to vote. Is there an opportunity now where the home rule aspect could now be limited?

I understand that, but it could be set in precedent. That's why I'm asking it.

Okay. What objective standards define immigration enforcement purposes for employees subject to penalties?

Say that again?

Okay. So for instance, someone who's a state employee that works for HIDA... For who?

You've never heard of HIDA? I've never heard of it. So if you can tell me the actual... Okay. Well, they're regional offices that work in identifying high trafficking drug locations.

Yes.

So in that instance, you're asking if those particular entities are considered law enforcement or state employees for the purposes of this bill? Correct.

They're employees.

No.

Say again? I'm sorry.

So then they wouldn't be able to work in cooperation with any federal task force that involved immigration? Is this one of the entities that generally would work in a task force or in cooperation Because I don think I have enough information about how this particular agency does what it does in order to determine who's on it.

Is the FBI on it? Is it a part of a federal task force or connected to?

So, you know, I think that example is so unique that I think we'd have to look at the actual behavior and the work that they're doing. And I mentioned earlier, if it looks like a 287G, if it smells like a 287G, then it's a 287G. This is similar that if they behave like law enforcement and they're working like law enforcement, then it's probably law enforcement.

I'm going to see if a team member here can find it.

So without that being clearly defined, the analyst could still be violating this law, correct?

Well, let's say it involves where it escalates to notifying for civil immigration.

So if in your example, let's say we go back and look and they're, oh, look at that.

And so in that instance, in the example you gave, it's the kind of behavior that we are

Does that work? Okay. So...

Okay Fair enough So one question that has to do with the liability piece that mentioned Why does the legislation retroactively create liability back to January 1st 2025

Hmm. Interesting. Okay. Thank you for that answer. I guess my next question is, so are there any safeguards to prevent arbitrary enforcement of terms such as facilitate access or sole purpose of immigration enforcement?

So what constitutes facilitating access to federal immigration enforcement agents? So what is the clearly defined...

Well, it would be someone who's violating this legislation.

Let's go with state employee, because that's what this law is doing, right?

Well, can you give me an example?

So what would be an example of the person who is doing their workup?

to make sure I have the answer that I think is correct? So what term, how do we determine what specifically facilitate access means?

Yep.

Importantly, there's training. We want to make sure that people know.

I have one last question. Was there any consultation with the Attorney General's office to see about whether this would violate the Supremacy Clause, this whole entire legislation?

Well do we think it going to potentially impact federal financial aspects for the state In other words money that going to come from the federal government That not for us to determine or decide That for the federal government

If there's a financial implication, yes. Well, since this is a budget bill, I would assume that there is going to be financial impact, correct?

Well, it says it right up there.

I understand that.

If I may, before you go on the bill, Supervisor?

So we're talking about a budget bill, and we're asking for specific financial inquiries about how we're spending money, and yet we're moving forward with policy without that money being delineated and without us knowing a financial spending plan. Some of the questions and some of the comments and some of the things raised specifically tie into funding, which is what we're talking about right here. It's on the board. Budget. A, 1-0-0-0-5. There's C. It's a budget bill. We are specifically going to impact New York State's finances with policy that has been put in to budget bills. You can't get more fiscally irresponsible than that. And that's what we're talking about. And we're talking about home rule for our local governments, is what I started with. we need to really think about things that we put forward and I hope that people will open up their eyes and their ears and start listening and maybe working together where we can actually get things across the line that won't have such a significant impact and maybe have some open dialogue where we can come to an agreement and make it work best because the words on paper don't transition to the street or to the courtroom the way we always say it will or the way we think it will. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to ask some questions regarding Part C, Sub A, which deals with convertible pistols and 3D printing. Would the chair yield?

Mr. Dinowitz, did you have to answer these questions?

I'll answer his questions and then some.

I and this is a pretty lengthy portion of this budget bill and my as I was reading it I got three electronic devices here so my questions might be a little disjointed and I'll go from one to the other don't worry I expect that okay thank you I appreciate it so we'll start with the convertible pistols and So that deals with the cruciform is the word they use. And for those in the room, there's a piece inside a pistol that's sort of shaped like a cross. I think it looks like an X. But anyway, I think they take cruciforms. out of crucifix, but that basically is used in almost any striker-fired pistol. And that means it doesn't have a hammer, it has a spring and a mechanism. And there's one type of pistol that uses that pretty regularly, and that's the Glock handguns. Was there any engineering consultation done about this particular cruciform trigger bar? that you're aware of? Was there anything done about it, you said? No. Did anybody speak to any engineers about this particular part before crafting this bill? I wouldn't know. Neither would I. But I know we're attacking the most popular handgun in the United States. There's millions of them. Every law enforcement agency in New York except one uses it. I don't know if I would call it attacking, but okay. How is an ordinary citizen supposed to know if they're buying a lawful product? Well, if somebody's purchasing a product which could kill somebody, I would hope that they would make it their business to find out if they're purchasing a lawful product. Oh, okay. And dealers can't sell those. Okay. Right now you can purchase many of them. So I know there's going to be some sort of clause in here that after a certain date you can't transfer or purchase this type of handgun. I believe it's May, sometime in May of 2027. So what happens then? Anything with that cruciform-style trigger bar can't be sold in New York State? Yes. What the bill does is it creates a crime when a dealer in firearms sells on or after May 31, 2027, convertible pistol, one that can be easily converted to a machine gun. Okay. And it's not just Glocks that do that. Glocks are the most popular. That would be the most common. That's right. So are we just doing this by popularity of the type of handgun, or is it actually some sort of – did any engineering advice go into which ones should be prevented? I mean, if you would like to recommend some additional ones, I'm sure we can include it in future legislation. Oh, there are others. And this, in reading this, again, it's pretty voluminous, and also it deals with 3D printers and this, and that's why it's a little disjointed. But there's a great deal of latitude given to the superintendent of the state police. Are you familiar with that part of this? Well, I mean, I don't know that I would characterize it as latitude. I think the superintendent would be given, it would be part of that person's job to address this, and there would be certain decisions that the superintendent could make. And, again, disjointed, I understand there's like a study group, SUNY, DCJS, superintendent, and others, And that's to see if the 3D printing aspect is even feasible. Is that correct? Yes Okay so some of my questions are going to presuppose that this law does go into effect regarding 3D printers But getting back to the superintendent of the state police is there any limiting language on the superintendent that constrains his decisions on which handguns would fit this criteria? Checking. I mean, I think it gives certain guidance. Can you clarify that? What specifically are you... No, I was asking. It gives great latitude. Is there anything that the superintendent can't just add any pistol he wants in there? If it fits this criteria... I think it would have to be enumerated in the legislation. So is the legislature delegating? It seems like the legislature is delegating the superintendent of state police can decide A, B, and C, bad, E, F, and G, good. Do you want us to decide that? Yes. Okay. Well, let me just read you what the bill says, and then you can decide. the superintendent of state police is authorized to promulgate rules, regulations, and policies necessary to effectuate the provisions of this act. Such superintendent shall, prior to the effective date of this act and annually thereafter, publish a list of pistols that the superintendent has determined to be convertible to pistols as defined in the penal law. So it does charge the superintendent with promulgating the rules and determining which types of guns are the ones that we're talking about here. Thank you.

Why does that make sense? Because I think we, all of us collectively, I'm sure, have confidence that both police and retired police are able to deal with that better than the average citizen.

Is that a question?

No, I was just standing there, like, waiting for you to put the question on.

Well, I think we've already decided that.

Well, I would have to check, but off the top of my head, I would guess maybe it's spouse, parent, children. Okay, but it refers us back to 898,

and I'll maybe eventually find it.

Ms. Walsh?

Yes, I will.

Correct. Correct.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Yes.

Well, you know, as the name implies, controllers like to control things, and Mr. Znappoli didn't want to give too much authority to the governor's departments, so we compromised.

Yes.

I'm not sure.

But he doesn't have the authority to veto this, so if it happens, it happens.

Yes, that's not in this part of the budget.

Yes. Maybe not.

We didn't change your authority. We just changed the dollar threshold.

Yes.

That is correct.

Yes.

Do you know?

Okay.

They're not state employees, and we had some issues about people on some commissions that were looking for salaries, which we're not trying to do here. But basically, they're not state employees, and they're not considered state employees.

To that respect, yes.

This just came up in negotiations and this is what we settled on Did they request that change I not sure Okay Believe it or not I like to talk to you next about Part D unlawful drone operation

Yes.

No, it doesn't limit that. The bill stipulates that a drone of 0.55 pounds and less is a toy, and there are really no restrictions on that. And drones that are larger than that, there are restrictions on as to where they can operate, how they can operate, who can operate them.

Absolutely.

And they'll still be able to.

Well, we're not putting them out of business. They're more recreational.

Madam Speaker, would you please ask Ms. Cruz to yield for some additional questions?

Certainly.

That's correct.

Thank you. It for the benefit of the student you can ask for preferred language

Yeah, and I think asking for preferred language is, you're not, in order to determine a child's preferred language and ensure that they're learning and, as you say, that the educator is able to do their job, you don't need to ask the other questions. But preferred language is absolutely permissible.

will look like? there's already existing guidance that has been provided by the Department of Education the State Department of Education as well as the Attorney General that's been in place I want to say almost a year and a half since its publication and so that will probably be the basis for the policies that will come forward and it deals from everything with related to the kind of information you can and should request sharing of that information what to do if ISA show up etc etc etc okay so is it anticipated then based on your answer

about a year and a half ago? I'm going from memory here, if I remember the model policy, it was pretty well-rounded. There may be a few things here and there, but I don't suspect that it's going to be too different from what's already in policy and now will be in law.

That's correct.

I mean, to me, I think that, no, I absolutely don't. That's why I'm almost feeling like this section, I'm wondering why it's there. Well, because I think the purpose is to make sure that we're, and I'm going based on what I know from New York City. New York City, schools and many daycares will have the blue card. And in the blue card you have the emergency contacts and anybody else who's authorized to pick up the child. What we're trying to make sure is that we're not separating families and inflicting more pain than necessary. If a parent is picked up by ICE while the child is at school, it would be the same if a parent had an accident and the child was at school. We would want to make sure that we go through the emergency contacts and anyone else who's authorized before we go to the last resort, which would be child services. And I would think that that's already being done, in my opinion, maybe not universally. I think you are correct.

In practice it is, we wanna now make sure that it's in law so that it's very crystal clear.

Madam Speaker, on the bill.

Thank you.

Ms. Cruz, will you yield? Certainly.

Yes.

Is that correct?

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

Yes.

It's going to make sure that the people who, over the last year and a half or so, who have been targeted by our own government and have had their rights violated, can actually seek remedy in court. Thank you for that.

What impacts, Ms. Cruz, do you believe this will have on law enforcement and community relations? I think taking the entire package as a whole from ensuring that there's transparency and that the law enforcement agents interacting with our community are not wearing masks, but for the few exceptions that we've delineated, as well as indicating that there should be no law enforcement officer acting as a nice agent, is going to make sure that our community feels safer. I remember being a young law graduate, working at a domestic violence shelter providing legal services for domestic violence survivors. And I remember this case, I remember it like it was yesterday, Ms. Jaramillo, who was fleeing an abusive spouse. And the first time she called the police, the police asked her for papers. The first time she tried had been now 20, 30 years before. And it began to change how she saw police. And she stopped seeking help. And when she was finally able to flee and she told us that story, time had changed. But her perception of the relationship with the police department and her ability to come forward was still the same. I never want to go back to a time where we have any more Ms. Jaramillos who are afraid to say, this person hurt me and I want to seek justice because they might end up deported. as it happened in upstate New York just a couple of months ago.

Madam Speaker, on the bill?

Thank you, Ms. Bailey.

I will. All right.

So real quick in reading the language I specifically on page six We heading down line 42 over to page seven There are exceptions as far as when we are looking at the disposition of a convertible pistol or the transport or shipment as merchandise of a convertible pistol for disposition to persons. We have the military, we have law enforcement, we have police. And then on page seven, we go over and we put some time frames in place. And, you know, it goes back to a conversation you were having a bit ago with my colleague. One has to do with immediate family members, which would be spouse, child, stepchild, and the such, domestic partner. Within that, if you're looking at it, it indicates that the sale, transfer, disposal, transportation, or shipment of a convertible pistol to a duly licensed dealer and firearms. Oh, I'm sorry, wrong one. Let me get to the family-owned one. The sale, transfer, disposal, transportation, or shipment of a convertible pistol between members of an immediate family, as such term is defined in the Section 898 of the General Business Law, provided that such convertible pistol was lawfully owned and possessed by such seller, transfer, or member of the immediate family of such seller or transfer prior to that May 31, 2027 date. There are also pieces in there that you could transfer it, and the dealer could then do a private sale from person to person, as long as the individual who is initiating that transfer lawfully owned and possessed such convertible pistol prior to May 31, 2027. So if I have my Gen 3 pistol on my pistol permit legally right now in June, I decide to legally transfer that to my son. Based on the language in this legislation, that indicates I would be able to do such. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Now my son wishes to transfer that pistol two years later. Is he able to do that? No. No. To whom would he be transferring it to? Maybe he wants to transfer it to his brother. Well, first, relative is too wide a term. He can through a firearms dealer. He'd have to go through a firearms dealer. I completely understand that when I read this language, the sale, transfer, disposal, transportation, or shipment of a convertible pistol between members of an immediate family, as such term As such, term is defined in Section 898 of the General Business Law would allow me to transfer it to my son. Then my son wants to transfer it to his brother, so we're going to go up on page 7 to line 8. A private party to private party transaction conducted through a duly licensed dealer in firearms. The sale, transfer, disposal, transportation, or shipment of a convertible pistol to a duly licensed dealer in firearms or licensed gunsmith by private party who lawfully owned such convertible pistol prior to May 31, 2027. So, Would my son be able to transfer it to his brother in 2028? I don't see where brother is included in spouse, domestic partner, children or stepchildren, number one. And number two, my notes indicate that he can go through a dealer if the private party owned the firearm before May 31st, 2027. Correct. I transferred it to him as immediate family. Now, because he does not fall into the definition of immediate family with his brother, then that would then fall into a private party transfer. Right. He obtained that pistol in July of 2027 because I was able to transfer it to him legally. Now, he wants to transfer it to his brother. Can he do that legally in 2028? I don't see any restriction for private party to private party if it's through a dealer. So you want him to kind of have succession rights, something which you all oppose when it comes to tenants, I might add, but separate issue. So I guess my question would be, in reading the language of this bill, any pistols that fall under this criteria that are legally registered on law-abiding citizens' pistol permits currently today, they can follow the same rules and regulations until 2030, right on through, unless something else comes down from the state that tells them differently. if they go to a dealer to conduct their private sale? It would, if we're talking about transfers before private party to dealer, you're talking about that now, right? If the private party owned the firearm before May 31st of next year. Okay. So my son got it in July of 27. So what does he do with that pistol? Well, that's after May 31st of 27. I understand. So what happens to that pistol? He owns it? He owns it. What if he decides he doesn't want to own it any longer? Well, why would he want to do that? I'm not sure. He would like to transfer it to his brother is what he would like to do. I've said probably more than once he can transfer to another private party, but he has to do it through a legitimate dealer. Correct. But he didn't lawfully own it before May 31st of 2027. So are you indicating that after May 31st, 2027, if anyone wants to transfer one of these pistols to someone else to have them put it on their legal pistol permit, then they're able to do that through a dealer? That's what I'm saying. So the transfers can continue on. After that date, again, private party to private party through a dealer. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. So then on line seven page seven still we staying right up in that top section there Maybe you can help me understand the language in that The sale, transfer, disposable transportation, or shipment of a convertible pistol by a duly licensed dealer and firearms or licensed gunsmith to a private person or another federal firearms license. So are we contradicting ourselves between number 5 and number 7? No. We're not. Okay, let me continue. So it indicates or a federal firearms licensee or licensed gunsmith where such convertible pistols immediately preceding owner and possessor prior to the licensed dealer or licensed gunsmith was a private party who lawfully owned and possessed such convertible pistol prior to the May 31st, 2027. So what does that line, what is that telling me? I'm still trying to find where you're reading from. Page 7, line 14. My page is different? Page 7, line 14. Is this where you're reading from? Digital Firewall Manufacturing? I'm under Part C, Subpart A. My page numbers seem to be different. Oh, I'm not sure. I have no idea why, by the way. Yeah, I don't know. I printed mine off before I came over. So if you look right under subpart A, it appears to be page 4, 5, 6, and I'm on page number 7. What's the complete subdivision numbers? the number, the letter, the Roman numeral. Subpart A. And I'm under, or I'm under, I'm sorry, I'm on part C, subpart A. My apology. Part C, I can't. Well, I'm sorry, but we seem to have some different. Okay, so let me see if we go to, yep, it's still page 7, line 14. Hold on a second. I'm going to try to find one. All right. Can we come back to that answer? He has something different. Let's get this done now. All right, I'm running out of time. Page 7, what line number? Page 7, I've got to get my glasses, line 14. Okay, the sale, transfer, disposal, etc.? Yep. What's the question? My question was, so you're telling me under number five there on line eight, a private party to private party transaction conducted through a dual license dealer and firearms. So my son could transfer it to his brother after May 31st, 2027, under that part. When I read number seven, it indicates that the licensed gunsmith to a private person or another federal firearms, a duly licensed dealer and firearms licensed gunsmith or a private person which kind of is the same of what number five is saying But it has that the individual who initiated it had to lawfully possess it prior to May 31st 2027 So my question was, are we contradicting ourselves in that section of the law? If he wants to get it into the hands of his brother, he would sell it to the private dealer, and the private dealer would sell it to his brother. Okay. They won't do it. It would have to go through the private dealer, as I've mentioned. Completely get that. They have to legally right now do that. Yeah. But number seven indicates, it brings up the day of the May 31st. So I guess I need, what does number seven, who does that pertain to? I'm sorry, say it again. Number seven, line 14, who, can you give me an example of who that would be then? The sale, transfer, disposal, transportation, or shipment of a convertible pistol by a duly licensed dealer in firearms or licensed gunsmith to a private person. A private person will be a person other than the gun dealer. The gun dealer can sell it to somebody else or transfer it to somebody else. So that would be different than a private party to a private party transaction conducted through a duly licensed dealer? Yes. Yes. It is. OK. Thank you very much.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry, you said Part LL?

Subpart C.

It's actually Article 15-AA.

Okay, go ahead.

Yes, except, and I made this caveat earlier, if the information that you came into was obtained during your official hours in your official capacity. You can't just learn that Jane Doe, and I keep using that name, was undocumented at two o'clock in the afternoon while at work and then it's 5.55 and you say I'm gonna support that.

Well, since I'm standing, thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill. On the bill. It's 4 a.m. in Queens, New York. You fast asleep with your small children in your apartment All of a sudden in the dead of night you hear a knocking Hearing nothing else you go back to sleep assuming that it the wrong apartment In a moment a battering ram plows in through your front door and the screaming begins and doesn't stop. Guns are pointed in the faces of your babies and in your face. All you can see is the light of one of the flashlights blinding you from recognizing who has just invaded your home. You're directed to move, to not allow your children to, excuse me, you are directed not to move, to not allow your children to move, or everyone will be shot on sight. You can now see it's men with vests, but you cannot distinguish which agency. And you can see some of their faces because others are covered with masks. Fear and terror occupy your mind and your heart, and you think the absolute worst for you and your child. They then ask you to identify someone, a cousin who has not lived there for at least two years and to your knowledge lives out of state. You're dragged into the light with your two-year-old in your arms, a gun in your face, and you're threatened with your life to produce your family member by the end of the week or they will come back to find you and your children. Welcome to the new reality that many of our colleagues have to live through in our communities every day. My constituents, our constituents, are subject to this type of terror on a daily basis. Threats of violence and brutality at the levels we've never seen before. Breastfeeding mothers ripped from their babies, working fathers without a criminal record, detained or imprisoned on their way to work, excuse me, kidnapped, on their way to work. Families at immigration court trying to comply with the law we tell them they should comply with. Detained without due process. Families separated on their way to church. Women seeking protection from local law enforcement for an abusive husband now detained and deported. Toddlers and children separated from their parents and deprived of basic care for themselves. Businesses raided, blocks targeted, random community members grabbed from the street and without a warrant, simply because they look like immigrants. Without as much as the semblance of constitutionality or illegal justification whatsoever. Run and they will catch you. Attempt to reason with them and they might shoot you. And protest and they might kill you. This battle of regimes, unprecedented violence, lawlessness, and failure to abide and respect our country's constitution have brought us to this critical moment. We cannot turn away, we cannot deny the way that immigrants have been treated in our community, and that anyone that looks like an immigrant or dares to defend an immigrant is now a target of this administration. This is no longer just a project, a campaign promise, or something that will never happen in our country. While we call this an immigration package, these protections go beyond immigrants. They will protect the rest of us who may have status, who may be United States citizens, but who may also look black or brown or like an immigrant. They will protect those who fight every single day and stand with us. This historic change of our state laws is a gigantic step to protect the constitutional rights of every single New Yorker. The package today includes various portions of legislation championed by many of us here. From New York for All, to the right to a to the New York Civil Rights Act, to the MELT Act, and much more. All of this legislation tells New Yorkers that we, as a state, are not going to remain silent and not act in the face of our federal government turning on its people. That we as a legislature are on the right side of history. It will not leave them unprotected while rogue agencies and federal officials turn their back on the Constitution toward a wannabe king. New York is home to 4.5 million immigrants with almost 650,000 of them being undocumented. Since January 2025, they have been living in fear of being ripped apart from their families, often in inhumane ways, by an agency that behaves like a lawless militia and often lacks actual legal authority to carry out these atrocities. During the election we were told that there would be mass raids focused on immigrants with criminal records. But the statistics tell a very different story. Under the current administration, 60% of the New Yorkers who have been picked up do not have a criminal record. We have seen people arrested while complying with law. We tell them go to court and then we'll arrest them while they're in court. going to see their asylum officer for a case they might actually win. Few are the stories we actually hear of people detained with actual criminal records and with actual warrants. These are our New Yorkers, the folks who work in our community, the families next door to you and I. Their kids play at our schools, they shop at our supermarkets, they go to the same churches into the same hospitals. But unlike you and I, they fear leaving their home to be kidnapped right off the street by our government. There are outrageous instances of racial profiling leading to the arrest of United States citizens, to the kidnapping and detention. Because what happens is they ask questions later, and when they figure out that this is in fact a United citizen, they get released. But I want to walk through a couple of things that were said earlier to give you examples and to make sure that our legislative record is crystal clear. We don't want our law enforcement officers acting like ICE. We're not saying you can't communicate with ICE. We're saying that we don't want to deputize them into being ICE. They're saying that they cannot engage in behavior that looks like enforcement of immigration law. For example, creating random traffic stops just so that you can stop people and see if they have papers. Visiting worksites to make a determination if they're authorized workers. And then detaining them and handing them over ties for the enforcement of immigration law. That is deputizing. That is what we're doing today, ending 287Gs and anything that looks like it and is deputizing law enforcement officers because they should be focused on local issues. I want to tell the story of a young man from Port Chester, New York. We'll call him JR. And his wife. They were stopped in Port Chester for having tinted windows. Initially, the couple was told that their card would be towed and they just needed to pay a fine. But instead of joining fellow worshipers at church later that day, J was taken away in handcuffs and brought to the police station where police held him all day waiting for Ive to arrive That afternoon still inside the precinct he was transferred into the custody of federal immigration agents. And despite the fact that JR had status, special immigrant juvenile status, and absolutely no criminal record, he was whisked away to Texas and then Louisiana. Port Chester does not have a formal 287G agreement, but even without that, local officials can do and assist ICE with immigration enforcement. These informal forms of collusion are hurting our community, are hurting people like JR. And after suffering inhumane conditions while he was detained, being denied medical care, He made the desperate decision to self-deport back to Perú. I also want to talk about a case that happened right here in Albany. And I mentioned it earlier. I'm a firm believer in God and whatever God you believe in, you should be able to practice your religion without the fear of being disappeared from your community while trying to worship. We talk about God bless America and God bless our country and God this and God that. and when someone is trying to worship, they were kidnapped. Ten people, right here in Albany. Simply because perhaps they were the wrong religion according to our federal government. Or perhaps because they look like immigrants. But nevertheless, they were trying to exercise their right to believe in the God that they believed in. And they should have been allowed to do so. And right in my community, down the block from my office, and right down the corner from a school, ICE kidnapped several of my community members while they were walking to work. We know because we've seen the videos, we've heard from the community members that there were people literally being told, do not walk over there because ICE is there and ICE turning around seeing the person and tackling them. You cannot tell me they had a judicial warrant. You can't tell me that they saw an immigrant and decided to attack. We've heard from many members about the importance of their bills and their gratitude to everyone. But as you know, our sponsor, our main sponsor, Karineza, just could not be here today. So she's asked me to read a statement into the record. These policies did not just happen in response to the erosion of human and civil rights. We have all witnessed as of late, but rather the product of decades of lived experiences by myself and many of my constituents. We've been working towards a more humane immigration system for years, one that recognizes the humanity of immigrant New Yorkers and all who endeavor in it, including law enforcement, one that recognizes the undeniable economic contributions of immigrants in our state. I would like to thank Make the Road, the New York Immigration Coalition, the NYCLU Immigrant Defense Fund, and the countless clergy, youth, community organizations and labor unions, even those who don't stand directly to benefit from this, that have poured their faith and efforts into this work because they believe that targeting innocent people is morally wrong and fundamentally un-American. I want to thank the speaker for his moral clarity and leadership on this issue, and I'd also like to thank the staff for the hours they've committed to this work, especially Assembly Counsel Alana Sivan, and my Chief of Staff, Justin Westbrook-Lowry. Lastly, I want to thank my colleagues who are unwavering in their support of immigrants, and I want to thank Assemblymember Cruz for graciously agreeing to defend this in my stead We celebrate this win today and we remain clear eyed that there is more that remains to be done I personally want to thank the thousands of immigrant New Yorkers that many of you got to meet who made their journey every single week to Albany to tell us that all they wanted was to be treated with dignity and for us to protect them. On a personal level, I want to thank Assemblymember Reyes and the Speaker for giving me an opportunity of a lifetime to debate today and for never giving up on those immigrants. I want to thank the Assembly team that got us here today. Jen Best, Alana Sivan, Jen Ashley, Miguelina Camilo, Michelle Milot, Patrick Deterro, Janice Nieves, Armand Alpar, Hannah Dominguez, Aubrey Olivia, and everyone else past and present because this has been in the make for years. And everyone who spent endless hours writing, rewriting, prepping, and listening. I also want to thank the governor's team for their feedback and working with ours to make sure today happened. And I want to thank her in advance for signing this into law. And I want to give a huge thank you and recognition to my own team, especially Robin, Evelyn, Jesse, Laura, Xavier, Jennifer, Kevin, Enrique, Kimberly, Alex, and Jamie, for helping us fight on the ground to protect the very people who will be impacted by this legislation. They are the ones who respond to the dozens of kidnappings that have been happening in my community since January 2025. They are also the ones who have helped me with legislation, two pieces that ended up in this package today. Bills that will enshrine the right to education for our children and ensure that they are protected in our schools. I want to also thank my colleagues today. Today we are voting to protect those who cannot vote for us. The ones who worked so hard for the chance of the American dream but have now become the target of hate and vitriol. The ones who, like my mother, who came here to this country with a small child in her hand, who packed everything and left the career behind, a home, the family she knew, from a country riddled with civil war and narco-terrorism, in fear for our lives. For a foreign country where she did not know the language, did not possess the right papers, simply for a chance to survive and to have me grow up to be somebody. The ones like my mother who simply want to send their kids to school, go to work, go to church and raise that family without having to have an emergency plan of what I was to do if I ever picked her up. Today we stand on the right side of history for them. Lastly, as I do sometimes, I want to say a few words in Spanish, especially for my constituents. to all the people who had to leave their country for lack of work or fear of guerrillas or corrupt governments that were persecuted for their beliefs or for their sexual orientation, that left their parents, their grandparents, their lives, their lives, they met, that left with a blanket full of hope, crossing borders, a foot or risking their lives,

Thank you.

Okay. That was really beautiful. I'm very emotional from that. Are you on the bill? No, I have some questions for the sponsor. Question. Does this law change the existing...

Oh, sorry.

Does this law change the existing requirements on qualified immunity?

And does this legislation create any new substantive rights as it relates to the Constitution?

Great. And can you please finish your statement as it relates to your Spanish statement?

Madam Speaker, this is clearly circumventing our House rules. You can't yield a time to another member.

She didn't yield it.

I don't know. I'm waiting for the rules.

Sure.

A stain like that. Yeah. Yeah. Yep, yep, yep. Yeah. Two minutes. One minute, please. I think it was a little bit. I'll go on the bill. Yes. Ms. Romero, please ask your next question or go on the bill. Sorry. Please ask your next question or go on the bill. Puede continuar en español? No. It's OK. You can ask the question. You can ask the question. Okay, okay, on the bill, on the bill. Madam Ramirez. On the bill. On the bill, on the bill. I keep trying to usurp the rules. You have to follow along with the rules. Do you have a question you would like? On the bill. Please proceed in order. Thank you. On the bill. On the bill. Right now, there's an imbalance in how state, local, and federal officials are held accountable to the U.S. Constitution. While a federal law allows people to sue state and local officials for constitutional violations no fruitful, substantive equivalent exists for federal officials. People injured by federal officials have to rely on a Bivens cause of action. The Supreme Court has limited the scope of this more and more over the years, with some judges on the Supreme Court even calling for the complete elimination of the ability to sue under Bivens and its prodigy. Through this, a dangerous gap has actually emerged. Federal officials cannot be sued even for willful violations of constitutional rights. I am so, so, so proud of this language, of the person, the assembly member that was able to debate this, of my colleagues. By providing a clear statutory right to sue any government official, state, local, federal, it ensures that no one is above the law. The act that we pass today will cover First Amendment violations, retaliating against a person for their protected speech, interfering with the free exercise of religion, or using excessive force to bring up a peaceful protest. We actually recently saw a secret memo that went out to ICE agents encouraging unlawful searches of people's homes without a warrant. I find that to be egregious. That's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment that would actually be covered by this act now for many different reasons because we're designating homes as protected spaces, but also now you can sue ICE if they violate your constitutional rights. If ICE enters your home without a warrant after this passes, we will have substantive relief. We're also protecting New Yorkers against Fifth Amendment slash equal protection violations. Specifically, we're empowering New Yorkers with the ability to sue when the government unlawfully targets them for enforcement actions or things like tax audits on the basis of their race, national origin, or political ideology. Without this ability to enforce the Constitution and our civil rights, we are rendered meaningless. and without kind of substantive ability to actually protect ourselves. By passing this law today, we're ensuring that every single New Yorker's rights are, in fact, protected, and they have an avenue to sue in our most accessible court, New York State Courts. I'm also proud that we're taking further measures to keep all New Yorkers safe. For too long, our neighbors have lived in fear of masked ICE agents snatching them off the streets. ICE has entered unwontedly into hospitals, child care centers, and homes. homes. We know that this is not public safety, including language from the melt dock to unmask ice and designate safe spaces where ice will need judicial warrants to enter them is how we move forward with creating true public safety in our communities. Today is a really historic moment in the history of New York State and I am so proud to be a part of it, to be a member of this body, and to be doing something really, really beautiful in New York. So thank you. Thank you. Ms. Glick? On the bill? On the bill. First, let me just say that I'm very proud of our debate today, and I want to say that it's important for us to deal with ghost guns. Gun violence is rampant in too many communities, and the ability to print undetectable guns makes all of us unsafe and was never contemplated at, if somebody is an originalist, ghost guns were never anticipated. But on the matters referring to the immigration sections of the bill, police officers across this country every day affect arrests without needing to wear a mask. Not only that, they have their name or a badge proudly displayed. There is no excuse, no excuse for federal agents to wear masks like bandits as they affect, in many instances, illegal assaults on Americans and have not only arrested citizens who they've disappeared and left their families wondering what has happened. none of this makes us safer. I know that there have been instances of people who are undocumented committing crimes They are highlighted and publicized but are much much fewer than the crimes that are committed by our very own citizens So many Americans who heard our president say we're going to go after the worst of the worst, thought, yeah, that would be a good thing. But you know what? It is hard sometimes to find criminals because they are not showing up at their appointed court interviews. They're not necessarily showing up at church or going to school. So I have 26 Federal Plaza in my district, and that's where people have for years lined up dutifully to show up for their immigration court dates, to check in. So this is where our poorly trained but very well compensated ICE agents show up, because it's easy. It's not making anybody safer. but more importantly, this climate of fear, the normalization of extra-legal activities, breaking into people's homes without a warrant, frequently mistakenly, because they don't do careful work, is setting up a climate of fear that to me is reminiscent of 1930s in Germany and parts of Eastern Europe, where my antecedents came from. This undermines our sense of being one people. the people who have come here at great risk and danger to make sure their kids have a better life than they had, that has gone on since the beginning of this country. And as we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of this country, we should remember that, yes, the doors were open, And we invited people until we didn't like the Italians. Until we didn't like the Irish. Until we didn't like the Chinese. Then we didn't like the Jews. So the door is open when we feel like it. And the door is open today if you're a white South African. Why? I have nothing against South Africans, but it is a very clear message and a really poisonous message. And we're not going after people who are a danger. I was in central New York last fall, taking a little trip. And there was a raid on a factory in the Oswego area. And the woman who was the server at the hotel just casually it was not a very crowded evening it was during the week and we got to talking And she was very upset. She said, I thought they were going to go after criminals. These are people who had a job. What's going to happen to that company? They lost several of their people. Who's going to do the work? What's going to happen to that? Are the other people going to lose their jobs because the company's going to go under? There are farmers who have had people disappeared. Not just here, but all over the country. And in many places around the country, people are pretty disturbed because they see their neighbors, the parents of their kids' schoolmates, the person who's been working at a local store. In New Jersey, there was an older couple. I believe they were Turkish. They ran, the family ran a restaurant. And the kids who were the American citizens were still there, but the mother and father, who about 30 or 40 years ago overstayed a visa. The whole bloody town showed up and said, where are they? Bring them back. Because it goes to the fabric of our communities. People who are here hardworking. Sheriff in Florida said, what are we doing? We're picking up people who are hardworking folks who never did anything wrong. The excuse of a broken taillight, we know where that comes from. That's the old Deep South. The parking ticket, oh, you're a big lawbreaker. I wish they'd pull over everybody who has a plastic cover on the back of their license plate in their nice fancy cars that I see on the throughway. Okay, this, these arrests, these disappearances are painful, they're disgraceful, they're un-American. they are a danger to the future of this country because once they decide, we're through over here, they could start somewhere else. And maybe that would be the LGBTQ community. All of a sudden they don't like us. Well, they clearly don't like us because they've been attacking us too. Maybe. Madam Speaker, I believe the member is speaking on the bill and this doesn't seem to be confined to any of the text in the bill. Rather, it's more story time. And considering we are very limited on the time. Excuse me. Colleagues, we will speak and keep our comments confined to the proposal before this House, not in another state or impacts on another state. Your comments will be respectful and they will be on this bill in this state, the proposal in front of us right now. Thank you. Your point is sustained. Thank you. Ms. Glitt, you have a few minutes more. I believe that this bill is important to protect the constitutional rights of all New Yorkers because we have seen the way in which people who have been citizens in this state have found themselves whisked away This hopefully will prevent that and send a message that we are not going to allow New Yorkers to be disappeared, that our constitutional rights will be protected, that you have to operate in a fashion that is in keeping with the general purposes of law enforcement and that we will not spend any of our money on federal activities. They've taken enough of our money. This is about ensuring that our communities and the law enforcement officers in our communities are doing law enforcement, not civil federal activities. So I applaud people. I'm amazed that there is the rhetoric that has denigrated immigrants. this is here to protect immigrants because we are I look around we're all immigrants or come from immigrants and that's the proud tradition of New York where there is still standing the Statue of Liberty so I applaud the sponsor of the various measures that are contained within this bill and believe that it is important for us to stand up for constitutional rights. And sometimes, sometimes you have to illustrate those rights by referencing stories. That has been the proud tradition in this House. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Ramos. Madam Speaker, on the bill? On the bill. I want to commend the sponsor and my colleague, Carolina Cruz, for your eloquent explanation of this bill. And for bringing this forward. And it's sad that we have to do such a bill like this. And the reason why we have to do it is because ICE has become an unlawful agency of our government. It's become an agency that does kidnappings, that shoots women in the face, that has killed people, that has ripped children out of the arms of their mothers. And that is why we're here today passing this bill. And we hear, you know, all the rhetoric around it. And we know, we know that this is not about lawfulness or unlawfulness. It's not about people who commit crimes. It's about the browning of the United States. That is what this is about. You know, and we hear the argument about this. You know, we constantly hear the people who are against such a bill, they'll say things like, you know, we're not against immigration, we're just against illegal immigration. Why can't immigrants just go by the same rules as everybody else? And they fail to recognize that the rules have never been the same for people of color in this country. They have never since the founding of this country a constitution that allowed the owning of human beings. The rules were different. Don't tell us about the same rules. Normally, if somebody's born in this country, you're American, right? Everyone agrees to that. But what about the Asian Exclusion Act? If you were Asian and born here, you could not be American. What about Operation Wetback, where they went into, remember, 30% of the United States was Hispanic. was Mexico before the English-speaking settlers got here. And they deported Mexicans, thousands of Mexicans who were born in the United States. Don't tell us about the same rules. Mr. Ramos, can you please confine your comments to the bill in front of us today? Madam Speaker, I'm talking about the historical context that has led us to this bill right here, and I believe that it is germane. As a law enforcement officer, I served for 20 years as a police officer. Literally thousands, several thousand arrests I made over those 20 years. Never once did I feel a need to have to wear a mask because I conducted myself within the law. Today we have police departments that are town, county, city. We have correction officers. We have all sorts of police departments here. None of them wear masks. What is so different about ICE that somehow they need to wear masks? And we know what the difference is. The difference is that they are violating the law and they don't want to be identified. They don't want people to find any way to identify what they're doing and how they are doing it. And in the context of criminals here, because we know this is not about criminals, because only a small percentage of the people who are being deported and arrested by ICE are criminals. It's not about that. And the impression is always given that somehow immigrants, you know, this immigrant initiative is about criminals. And they think that somehow it was different from before. before. You know, do you remember the mafia from the 40s, 50s, 60s? Do we remember the gangs? West Side Story is a snapshot of the gangs that were on our street, of Caucasian gangs, of immigrants that were here. There is no difference. The issue is not race. The issue is not the type of immigrant that we have now. Whenever we have poverty in a community, there is more crime because of that poverty. And the solution is not blaming one segment in the community because throughout history we have seen that when one segment of the community gets demonized atrocities follow and that exactly is exactly what we're seeing here. So I urge all my colleagues of good faith all of you to please search your conscience and while one percent of our country owns more wealth than 99 percent that it's unfair to say that the person who wants to to mow your lawn is taking something from the average citizen. So I ask you to search your conscience, and please vote yes on this bill. Ms. Kassay, you're up next. We are approaching our four-hour maximum, so you have two minutes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Will the sponsor yield? Ms. Cruz, will you yield? Thank you. May I please clarify that Part LL Subpart B is modeled after the Westfall Act which places liability on an agency and not the individual officer Can you repeat that question May I please clarify that Part LL Subpart B is modeled after the Westfall Act which places liability on an agency and not the individual officer? First, I apologize for giving you my back. The individual officer can also be sued if they are acting outside the scope of their employment. And if they're acting within the scope of their employment? They can be sued in their official capacity. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Pfeffer-Amato, you can continue on debate for two minutes and thereafter. Everyone gets two minutes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will my colleague from Queens, allow me to clarify something, please? Ms. Cruz, will you yield? Absolutely. Thank you. Ms. Cruz yields. Ms. Cruz, there's been just a little conversation. So does this bill, part LL, or any part of this budget bill, impact, harm, or diminish qualified immunity? Meaning, no police officer in New York State would lose any of their rights, privileges, or defenses that was established under the federal law that this law is mirroring. Correct? So I want to make sure that the record is clear, just like you. this is just like 1983. And the principle is if the behavior that the officer is being sued is behavior that is being carried out at the request of the agency, on behalf of the agency, then they can be sued on their professional capacity and the agency can be sued. And they can then turn around and, as a defense, claim qualified immunity. If their behavior happens to to be outside of that scope of their work, like you and I, or regular people could be sued in their regular individual capacity. So as I said, it's not changing anything. It's mirroring the federal law. It's mirroring what is the practice of today. That's correct. So there's no impact, harm, diminishment of that qualified immunity. It's the same practices that are occurring right now. That is correct. If the behavior is one at the behest of an agency during their work, nothing has changed. Thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bendett, two minutes. Thank you. Will the sponsor yield for a question, Ms. Cruz? Yes Ms Cruz will you yield County jails right now house federal inmates Would that be impacted by this bill Can you say that again County jails house federal inmates Would that be impacted by this bill Could jails still work with the federal government Right now we have 160 inmates in Albany County Jail. If a county jail currently has incarcerated individuals on behalf of the federal government, and it's part of a 287G or looks like a 287G, they would not be able to do it. I'm sorry, IGSA. I forget that there's two. The IGSA is the agreement with which individuals are held on behalf of the federal government. So would there be any compensation for the counties that would lose that income? No. Okay, so that would be a fiscal impact on the bill. Do you know when the 287G program came into effect? At least more than 10 years ago. Madam Speaker, on the bill, please. On the bill. 287G came into effect 30 years ago. It was actually put into law by President Bill Clinton. There are three parts to the 287G law. There's the jail enforcement mode, the war and service mode, and the task force mode. In the jail enforcement mode, that's the one that our jail in Rensselaer County participates in. When an incarcerated individual is in the jail, they're run through an ICE database, and in doing so, the community then knows whether or not that individual is wanted for a crime outside of our state, county, or throughout a different country. and in doing so they contact ICE. I know that my county, Rensselaer County, will be against this. Thank you, Mr. Bendett. Mr. Rivera. I have a question for the sponsor. Ms. Cruz, will you yield? Ms. Cruz yields. Quick question. I know it's affecting folks in your neighborhood, but certainly affecting folks in mine. Can you sort of clarify exactly how this is going to potentially protect schools? So it's going to protect the school's ability to teach our kids and protect our kids while they're in our schools. It's going to make sure there's two pieces. One, how we are treating the information that schools come into contact and how we are treating the children that are in our schools. The information, there's going to be a prohibition on inquiring about certain information, as mentioned earlier, but for ensuring that we know what the preferred language would be. So no asking of immigration status, country of origin, et cetera, et cetera. And no sharing of that information, of course. Also making sure that if there is an attempt to enter the school by ICE or another federal law enforcement agency seeking to enforce immigration law, that there are policies in place to prevent that from happening unless there is a judicial warrant. Making sure that if, for example, a parent is detained during the school hours, that officers don't just show up, ICE officers seeking to also detain the child. and making sure that if a parent happens to be undocumented, they're not prevented from attending school functions or in any other way discouraged from doing so. That a summary per se Thank you very much On the bill On the bill Thank you very much You know I have the good fortune of representing an incredible high school You know in New York State we have a handful of designated international schools, and my high school, Lafayette High School, is the only one in Buffalo. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Gray, two minutes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will Ms. Cruz yield for a quick question? Yes, but I'm also going to ask you to speak a little louder. Sure. Ms. Cruz yields. This desk is not built for somebody 6'4". So let me just ask real quick on people who have been previously deported and have reentered illegally again and they've committed a local crime, they're in the county jail. Does this permit law enforcement from working with immigration officials on a previous deported because it's a federal crime. It doesn't speak to that. Okay. Thank you very much. That's what I need to know. And can I ask Chair Pratlow? Mr. Pratlow, will you yield? Absolutely. Mr. Pratlow, will you yield? A little creaky getting back up, aren't you? So, real quick. I'm concerned about the workers' comp and what we're placing on the district attorneys. So do we know what the statewide premium is total and what the .4% is going to represent? This is the $17 million that was reduced to $10 million? Pardon? Are you referring to the original request by the governor for $17 million? Yeah, and it's .4% right now, right? That's the maximum. That is the cap. That is the cap. Okay. Okay, so we're asking for Workers' Compensation Board to prepare a report that will talk about new positions. One of the deliverables is new positions and persons hired for these units. Do we know how much each county is going to get? Are they mandated to form these units? No, we don't know what the amount is going to be. That will be determined by the board. Okay, so they have to hire these people before they know what kind of funding they're going to receive. No, they will know what they have to do and then hire the people and base their salaries on the experiences of the people that they hire. Thank you, Ms. Bichaud. Her malinti minutes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill? On the bill. This bill protects immigrants from being wrongfully targeted in sensitive locations where immigrant communities, survivors of violence, and families seek essential services, including schools and educational institutions, health care facilities, places of worship, social science providers, domestic violence shelters, homeless shelters, courthouses, with exceptions, locations where children or vulnerable populations are served. As a daughter of Haitian immigrants and a resident of a community with many immigrants, green card holders, and New Americans, I have seen firsthand how ICE officers have harmed our community by wrongfully detaining residents, placing them in custody without due process, tearing many families apart, causing harm, and in some instances, killing them. This bill would place needed limits on ICE to prevent overreach and abuse of power when still allowing the agency to carry out its lawful duties. I thank the Speaker and the Governor and especially the sponsor for including this much-needed language in this budget bill. Merci, merci, merci. And I will be voting in the affirmative Thank you Mr Chang Two minutes Thank you Madam Speaker On the bill On the bill Thank you Today bill should be about the budget Once again, we include many non-budget policy issues. And most controversial issues, of course, right now is immigration. That should be debated not here, but in Washington, D.C. But why are we creating this tension in our community? Let me say clearly two things. Sanctuary laws and the weakened law enforcement policies have contributed this tension here. I sympathize many immigrants who came to this country seeking a better life. Some came here illegally on temporary visas. Some are overstayed. Others came here on the borders illegally. Those were the choices. They made the choices at all. Just like opening a business, not necessarily guarantee your business will succeed or not. but many undocumented immigrants who try to work hard, stay quiet, blend into our societies, but there are individuals who are here with criminal intent. That's the reality we must acknowledge and face. At the same time, without a weakened criminal justice system, too often our criminals, even the U.S. citizens, are catch and release. They're released out in the streets. And with this law, to weaken or eliminate the 287G created a barrier. that we can end up protecting criminals rather than protecting the public. I believe the immigration officers should have access and cooperation with our local law enforcement and to catch these criminals and deport them. Immigration policy should be in Washington, not here. For that reason, I will vote no. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Absolutely. Two minutes it will be. It's impossible. I'm going to do my best. There's too much fear mongering going on. First of all, I think this is late in coming and I applaud it 1000 percent. I want to thank the sponsor, thank the governor, thank the speaker, thank all of those that have stood up and spoke on both sides of the aisle. If we don't get this together, look at us. We're kind of like in different spaces, different places. this is a molecule of what the state and our country is starting to look like and we can do better. But I have something because I don't want to go off road and somebody say it's not germane to the conversation. But because someone is an immigrant, it's not necessarily they are a criminal. And just because they are of one ethnicity or another or have money or don't have money or live in a certain zip code, they're not an immigrant, they're not a criminal. And I think we have to stop criminalizing people. What are you talking about the budget in this bill? I'm glad you asked that. I want to share this just as before I take my seat because we got to get this together. We are the sum total of what we were created to do. And we have to put some forgiveness in there while I'm looking for something. I just want to give you, if we don't do it together, it doesn't get done. If we can't do it together, but there's somebody, and I'm just going to try to look for it. But there's a lady standing in the aisle and she says, give me your tired. Give me your poor. Give me your homeless. Let's huddle together in masses. And now we're saying if you're doing that, you're a criminal. And we're saying if you want to serve and protect us, do it. Take the masks off. We don't mind coming along. But just so we're clear, before I take my seat, somebody say, that's not your man. Cheney, Goodman, and Sherwin. Let's talk about what happened in Mississippi. Law enforcement in collusion with the KKK were taking people off and setting them up to die. We've not gotten far removed from that. Except for they've taken the sheets off and they're doing it a different way. I support this legislation 1000%. In America and New York, we need to wake up, smell the car, and do the right things. I voted for him.

This bill is an egregious violation of home rule. Preventing sheriffs from doing their jobs is wrong. Sheriffs are elected to serve their people. They are not agents of the state under political command. This bill is clearly unconstitutional and will be challenged. Policy in the budget is always wrong. This bill is on a message of necessity, but it is not an emergency. We are simply hiding bad policy in this bill. Why are there no public hearings other than this one debate we are having? Why can't I question the Attorney General in public on behalf of my people? Public safety is our number one obligation as a state. This bill harms that concept. I vote no.

I support the concept of protecting the immigrants, but as a retired judge and his attorney, we always look at definitions. And I'm troubled with the fact that there's no definition of what their reference to an immigrant is. My family came over by boat. They went through Ellis Island. They went through all of the processes. They are immigrants. almost everyone in this body that came over from a different country came in, came through the front door, and they followed all the rules. So what I'm dismayed at is there is no definition that a judge or the individuals or the people can assess as to what is the immigrant they're referring to. Are they referring to those that are legal waiting for status? Are they referring to those who have come in with visas or those who've come over in the dead of night over the border in violation of the law? It's not against what the concept is. It's not against protecting, but it's against there is no definition. So we cannot identify. And if we have to go to court how do we talk about this bill without talking about what immigrants what individuals are and which ones they referring to Thank you very much

Thank you. First, I want to say I'm the very proud granddaughter and daughter of Jewish immigrants who were forced to flee Hitler's Germany. The only reason I'm not standing here is because of the incredible kindness shown to my family by random strangers and very brave rabbis of Bnei Jeshrin, a synagogue in my assembly district. That generational history, a dread that lives within my bones, is why I feel utterly compelled to forcefully stand up for the many immigrants who are being attacked and targeted by the federal government. We, as legislators, have a moral obligation to shield them from the deadly hands of ICE agents, masked ICE agents. We have a moral obligation to safeguard the hope that fuels New Yorkers as they take to the streets to defend themselves and their neighbors from a tyrannical federal government. With today's vote, we're telling the federal government we will not obey in advance. With today's vote, we in New York are speaking up and defending all that is worthy and just knowing we are on the right side of history. I'm also proud my legislation banning the manufacture of ghost guns in New York was included in the state budget. The support of D.A. Bragg, law enforcement, gun safety advocates will ensure that people can no longer print weapons of war from their homes. This common sense measure builds on our collective progress and my previous law that banned the possession of ghost guns. Thank you.

In the name of public safety and the rule of law, a rogue federal agency has been given free reign to attack immigrant New Yorkers, rip mothers from their babies, violate our rights to due process, and terrorize our communities. But Trump's ICE and DHS have zero regard for public safety or the rule of law. Just two days ago, ICE agents descended upon 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan in defiance of a court order that said they could no longer conduct arrest there If these agents show no respect for our courts we cannot expect for them to respect the rights of our constituents I am proud that this bill begins to do something meaningful to protect New Yorkers and hold ICE agents accountable for their abuses. It contains important provisions like banning ICE agents from hiding behind masks, getting New York State out of the business of immigration detention, and ending formal agreements between ICE and law enforcement. Law enforcement has routinely colluded with ICE, turning traffic stops into abductions. Immigrants attempting to report crimes have ended up in detention, destroying the trust needed for victims to come forward. And in the cruelest of cases, a Buffalo father, refugee, a disabled elderly man, Nurul Amin Shah Alam, was arrested by local police, handed over to Border Patrol agents and abandoned miles from his home, leaving him to freeze to death on a cold February night, just three months ago. This bill is an important step to end the collusion, but we must do more. As an immigrant New Yorker, as a mother, I call on my colleagues to pass the New York for All Act during this legislative session and end all collusion between ICE and law enforcement, protect our immigrant communities, and restore our trust in the legal and criminal justice system. Because this bill is a step in the right direction...

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, Madam Speaker. The majority of Congress is generally going to be in favor of this piece of legislation. However, there may be some that would desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their desk. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to talk a little bit about the constitutional rights that we talked about here on the floor today. As I look at part C, and we've debated that part several times here, I'm thinking about an immigrant that came here many years ago from my district. He came here. I don't know if he was called an immigrant, an illegal, an illegal alien, undocumented, but I do know some of the things he was called. And they were not very nice words, and I will never say them on this floor. But I do know this. that immigrant's grandson today, because the bills that we passed here, like we're going to pass in Part C, does not have the freedom to go purchase guns like that individual could 12, 15 years ago. Because we constantly take that right away from an individual who's done everything right, never been arrested. And I ask you not to support Part C. If we want to talk about constitutional rights, that individual has a right to buy a gun when and where he wants. And I hope I make that crystal clear. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will vote in the negative.

Thank you, Madam Chair. After listening to the debate I thought it appropriate to read the famous quote by the German Protestant minister Martin Niem First they came for the socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. Scapegoating immigrants is wrong. I vote in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Actually, I find it a bit ironic. So last year during budget, we passed another mask bill. That mask bill was designed to be able to hold people accountable that are protesting or causing havoc either in the streets or educational institutions. That bill created a charge of a violation that could only be charged if the person who committed the act was actually facing more serious charges, specifically in a misdemeanor or higher. So in essence, and I said it at that time, that mask charge did nothing to hold anyone accountable because that person was already facing more serious charges to begin with. Here today, we have a mask bill that was burnt forth which would charge a federal law enforcement officer with a violation at first and then if done again, continuously with a misdemeanor. So we are basically punishing the law enforcement officer in the scope of his employment more severely than we would the individual wreaking havoc on the streets and educational institutions, and that also was in the process of committing more serious crimes. I vote no on this bill. I also want to express my concern for immunity in regards to qualified immunity for law enforcement personnel that protect our community and do everything it can to make sure the public is safe. And I really am worried that this piece of legislation will put them at risk. I vote no.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are disgusted by the brutal and heavy-handed tactics employed by ICE. We were told it would be the worst of the worst who would be taken, and we all support that. That was a lie. Shocked. I'm shocked that that was a lie. The overwhelming majority of those who are taken have not committed any crimes. Now, I live in a diverse community, and I live in that community because I want to live in that community. I have friends and people I know who have been taken. These are good people who contributed, contributed substantially to our economy. On Tuesday morning, an armed, masked paramilitary force conducted a sweep directly across the street from my granddaughter's elementary school. She's going to ask me about that. I don't know what I'm going to be able to tell her, but it angers me that that occurred and it was not supposed to. ...to occur. So, I am going to be voting for this bill. I will not stand idly by while children are terrorized. That is un-American. I will not stand idly by while my community is intimidated. That is un-American. And I would suggest that those of us who want to maintain American values ought to look at this and not lie to yourselves. Do not lie to yourselves. And you better stand up. We all better stand up for America. And that's why I'm voting in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support and I want to speak to what this bill is really about for my district. It is about safety. The safety of our children and the safety of our streets. I remember the raids. I remember the afternoons when the calls came and the children just kept sitting there in our schools and in our programs. programs, waiting for parents who were never coming through the door. The little ones who didn't understand, but the older ones who did understand. We held those babies together because somebody had to, and there was no one else. I have not forgotten a single one of their faces. In my district, a mother leaves for work in the morning and cannot tell her children for certain that she will be home for dinner. A father drops his kids off to and wonders if he'll be there to pick them up. That is the fear too many of my neighbors carry every single day, not over something they did wrong, but over simply being an immigrant trying to work and raise their children. No family in New York should have to wonder whether an ordinary day will be the day they're torn apart. I stood with those families then, and I stand with them now. And while we keep our children safe inside the schoolhouse, this bill keeps them safe outside of it. It goes after the pistol converters that turn an ordinary handgun into a machine gun on our streets. And after the 3D printed, untraceable guns built to slip past every law we have. It keeps drones out of our airspace, over our schools and our neighborhoods. It strengthens orders of protection so survivors are covered the moment they need it. These are the real dangers our families face. And this bill meets them head on. That's the through line for me. A child who is safe can learn and a community that is safe can thrive. This bill protects both. For those reasons, I vote aye.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to be voting against this bill for a lot of different reasons. But obviously, the most controversial we'll discuss is the immigration situation. Obviously, with my last name, you can tell that I'm a descendant of immigrants. I have nothing but great sympathy for folks who follow the rules and want to come to the United States of America. But I'm confused because what this bill does is it takes local law enforcement out of the equation as far as participating in immigration enforcement. This disproportionately affects my district, where we have a lot of local agencies that have these agreements. and having local people involved would make enforcement more efficient, would make enforcement safer would prevent tragedies would make sure it easier to go after the worst of the worst So this is going to have the exact opposite effect as what people claim it will And the idea that comes from the governor and people have said today that we want local folks focused on local issues. Well, if that was the case, you would say you want them out of all federal issues. But there was just one that was picked. And where my constituents get confused and get concerned and get angry is it seems that just there are certain people, there are certain elements that simply don't want immigration law to be enforced. And that goes against the rule of law. And there's been so much conflation between immigration and people who are here legally and people who are here illegally. My constituents want people to be able to come here legally, but they want immigration law to be enforced on those who have not followed it. And they want to be enforced fairly and efficiently. And having local people involved leads to that. So because of the immigration provisions of the bill and a variety of others which I do not have time to get into, I will be voting no.

claros entre nuestros gobiernos estatales y locales y las autoridades federales de inmigración porque ningún familia debería temer que una parada de tráfico una llamada de auxilio o una interacción con el gobierno local pueda convertirse en una vía directa hacia detención o la deportación las familias inmigrantes no son temas de conversación abstractos son nuestros vecinos, propietarios de pequeños negocios, nuestros compañeros de trabajo, nuestros padres y nuestros hijos. Esta fue una lucha larga. Hubo idas y vueltas, negociaciones difíciles y momentos de frustración. Momentos en los que muchos de nosotros nos preguntamos hasta dónde podríamos hacer avanzar la conversación en un clima en el que el miedo con demasiada frecuencia rige las decisiones políticas. Estoy aquí sabiendo lo que significa entrar en una institución que no fueron construidas pensando en personas que se parecen a mí, para servir en una legislatura donde muchos neoyorquinos, inmigrantes y la clase obrera todavía no se ven lo suficientemente representados, y es precisamente por eso que no podemos dejar de seguir luchando. ¿Ganamos todos lo que luchamos? No. Pero tras meses de organizar, negociar, aborgar y negar a permitir que este asunto desapareciera, logramos el mejor resultado posible bajo circunstancias increíblemente difíciles. Y eso sucedió porque la comunidad inmigrante de todo el Estado no se negó a quedar en silencio.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today I vote for my neighbors that were kidnapped off the streets in Corona, Queens. For the moms who put their lives on the risk crossing El Darien to give their kids a chance. Hoy voto por todas las personas que un d tuvieron que salir de su pa por falta de trabajo por miedo a las guerrillas o a gobiernos corruptos que los persegu por sus creencias o por su orientaci sexual Que dejaron a sus padres a sus abuelos a la vida que conoc que salieron con una maleta llena de esperanzas cruzando fronteras a pie y arriesgando su vida por ellos Hoy voto por los niños de nuestras comunidades indocumentadas como Norman C. de Nassau County, que fueron separados de sus padres por un sistema inhumano de inmigración. Today I vote for my immigrant community.

I rise to explain my vote. We should be proud of this vote. This is about public safety. I want to first thank the speaker and Alana and all the staff that worked on this, and we'll keep going to protect all immigrants. But as my colleague said, I vote today proudly for my immigrant neighbors, Barami Mama. for my cousins that have been in hiding, for my neighbors, for real Americans that do the work many other Americans won't do. I vote today for the mothers separated from their children. I vote for the veterans who served our wars and for those who feed us. Many who do work other Americans just won't do. But I also vote for public safety. And while I won't get personal this time, the people who are trying to convince you this is about crime are full of it. This is about public safety. There is a directive from on high in the White House to spread fear and anger and division. Immigrants are not the cause of our problems. We have those solutions. If you had the real solutions, you wouldn't be spreading fear and hate and division. It's been throughout our history that we like to blame the other. So I am proud of this vote today. It will increase public safety. It does not endanger police officers. I've had a conversation with my nephew, my godson, and so many who are in law enforcement. They don't want to be working with federal police who are masked. If you are masked, what are you trying to hide? If you did nothing wrong and you followed the law and due process and enforced real immigration enforcement, you shouldn't fear a badge or being masked. And we have exceptions for law enforcement in certain cases for being masked. So this is a fair bill. And that's why I vote aye in the affirmative.

Madam Speaker, I rise to explain my vote. No bill is perfect, and certainly it is very frustrating to see any policy shoehorned into this budget. The perspective that I have over these last several months is I've held six town halls in my district. I've traveled 14,000 miles connecting with my constituents, listening to their concerns. One of the elements that we've talked about is the auto insurance. I've listened to farmers and families and veterans of my district concerned about the affordability crisis that is crushing them When we talk about a budget that will make auto insurance more affordable by capping rates and cracking down on auto insurance fraud, that is something that connects with my constituents. When you talk about establishing safeguards that prevents companies from raising rates, that connects with my constituents. When we talk about the crackdowns of auto insurance fraud, that connects with my constituents. And because of that, because of the needs and what I've heard directly from the farmers and the seniors and the veterans and the small business owners, I vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my vote. The portions of this bill pertaining to our immigrant community are to advance law enforcement, public safety, and peace. Law enforcement because it supports the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution of the United States, protecting the rights of due process. Public safety because it provides for the safety of the immigrant community from lawless and violent actions of federal ICE agents. Such lawlessness does not represent who we are as New Yorkers. They do not represent who we are as Americans. The provisions are for the safety of those in the immigrant community who've done everything right and simply want to raise their families, be productive members of the community, and pursue the American dream without fear for their children and themselves. The preamble of the Constitution explicitly states that one of the primary purposes for establishing the Constitution is to ensure domestic tranquility, which this will help to promote. I applaud the work of the sponsors of New York for All and thank the tremendous efforts of the Speaker and his terrific team in bringing this to fruition. I vote in the affirmative.

So during debate, I raised the issues about the home rule and how this will be a slippery slope moving forward, home rule. Now I'd like to discuss another piece of this. You know, we heard a little bit about immunity, right, for law enforcement. And I think there is a little gray area here where we are encroaching on qualified immunity. Specifically, there is no declaration in this legislation that maintains qualified immunity. But there are important legal clues here. Notice what the bill does include. It includes damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and retroactive date where it starts, January 1st, 2025. Now, the issue about whether those federal law enforcement officers themselves will be targeted by lawsuits, this raises a very, very troubling issue. Because once we open that doorway, we are bringing it down to the state and local level as well. And the partnerships that we talked about when it comes to immigration enforcement, where will those lawsuits delineate between state officers and federal officers? It does not. And I would assume there will be some legal challenges to this legislation. For those reasons, I will be in a negative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am speaking as somebody who became a citizen in 2019 of this country, and also as somebody who represents Ulster County, whose district attorney and sheriff both support the immigration policies that we are passing today. I want to note that the ICE activities that we have seen in our communities is enabled by an unprecedented funding that the federal administration enacted at the cost of cutting Medicaid, at the cost of cutting SNAP, things that people actually depend on. And as of June 2025, of the over 204,000 individuals detained since the start of fiscal year 2025, 65% had no criminal convictions and over 93% had no history of violent offenses. This is not an entity designed for public safety. It is designed to wreak havoc and violence in our communities. And for that reason, I call on our federal reps in Washington to abolish ICE. I vote in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, just about every week now, I get a phone call in my office about somebody that's been taken. They're a family that's been separated, children that are worried about where they're going to be, parents that are disconnected, where a husband is now in a holding center and a wife doesn't know what to do. That's been my reality for the last few weeks, every week for the last few years. and I know that the work that we do in Albany often can be confusing and challenging and slow and inefficient or whatever other word you want to use, but I feel as though today the difference we're making is tangible. I feel like what we're doing today is making a clear position on where we stand, not for ourselves, not for the people in this room, but for the people that cannot support us, for the people that don't have a voice, for the people that are worried about not just where their next meal is going to be, but whether they're even able to leave their home. Today, I'm thinking about the family of Nurul Amin. I'm thinking about the high school kid that lost his folks. I'm thinking about my own friend that, while not committing a crime ever, was apprehended by ICE on his way to work and is now back home in Colombia. I think about the farm worker who was taken when she simply showed up to her hearing. Those are the realities that we're seeing every day in our communities and truthfully if what we do today can bring a bit more safety to people who really live in fear then it's an absolutely right thing to do every day of the week so thank you very much and I support oh yes mr.

thank you madam speaker for the opportunity to explain my vote really quickly. I, much like many people in this room, really think this is a topic that we could have had a longer and much better conversation and discussion outside of the budget process because it's not a budgetary issue. But it is an issue that we are facing today as a society and some people can, you know, say it's about public safety because that probably makes them feel better But honestly in my opinion it all about money There are literally three companies that control all of the federal prisons where these people are ending up going Three And one of them just signed a brand new contract for the next five years Now, if in fact it had been that everybody was being arrested and detained were actually criminals, actually had did some things wrong, harmed some people in our society, then they should be incarcerated. But we know for a fact, the data is in. Most of the people who are being contacted here have not committed a crime. No one has showed them due process that they've committed anything. And until that happens, we should not allow it in New York State, nor should it be allowed in America. I certainly do vote in support of this bill, and I hope that we can, in the future, separate policy issues from fiscal issues. It's critically important that we begin that process as soon as we can, because the only thing that it's allowing us to do, one, is to delay the process for many good things that should be happening. And two is to probably, you know, add in unnecessary resources where we should be focusing on resources. We should be focusing on our fiscal ability to remain a little bit constrained. We talk about affordability for our people, but we need to be an affordable government as well. So thank you, Madam Speaker, and I certainly will be voting in the affirmative on this one.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Bible tells us, whether it's the New or the Old Testament, that we should welcome the stranger. And that means we should have compassion and we should have understanding and we should have equity. And we know that this public safety debate has been circling around this idea of criminality when over 90% of the people that have been taken by ICE have committed no crime whatsoever, and there have been American citizens who have been taken by ICE and detained. That is simply unjust. It is un-American, and it must stop, and it certainly should not be happening in the state of New York. My vote is for public safety, And that includes making sure that in New York State, nobody has the ability to create or manufacture or use a gun that can become a machine gun with the insertion of a small item. Now, that item might be very small, but, you know, I see people trying to regulate a very small item, like a pill. That shouldn't be happening either. I am voting in the affirmative because I believe in the safety of all New Yorkers. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Sometimes the best law is the one we repeal. During the Red Scare, New York passed a provision that allowed the governor to require non-citizens to register with her office with 24 hours notice. and required anyone who owns a hotel or an apartment to tell the governor about any non-citizen who lived there within 24 hours, and failure to do so was punishable by up to a year in jail. Now, when we have a federal administration that is using AI to go through old statutes to find new powers, we have to be proactive to take these bad laws off the books. I'm proud to have found this law, to propose the bill to rescind it, and now today to vote and make it law to rescind this vestige of the Red Scare And I proud to join in so many of my colleagues in fighting for bills that are helping our immigrant neighbors I want to in particular congratulate my colleague from the west side of Manhattan on the MELT bill so that from now on, ICE will no longer be massed vigilantes in our streets, and all those who have fought for New York for All and so many important provisions as part of this budget bill. It is a first step. There is more work to do. But it is a massive first step, and I'm very proud to vote yes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, the subject of immigration is always a very difficult situation for some people because they don't want to understand the topic. Back in 1900, my great-grandparents, Anunciata and Joseph Mara, moved to the city of Cohoes. At that time, Italians weren't always welcome in a city like that. They had 11 children, and throughout that community, one became a dentist, one an undertaker, and one, my grandfather, opened a pharmacy in 1931, which is still standing there today. And my point is, they came through an immigration system that was there that worked. Sadly, 40, 50 years ago, for whatever reason, we decided to have a broken system. And since that time, we have struggled as a community, because many people have come here for the same reasons Anansiata and Joe did back in 1900, to start a new life and to be an integral part of the community as our family pharmacy is today. And I see that day in and day out with many of the members in our community that are not here under legal status, but are contributing greatly. So yes, there are people who are probably not going to like this for a variety of different reasons. I support this legislation. I think it's the right thing to do because of the fact that we have a federal government that two years ago, Senator Schumer and Senator Langford were on the precipice of fixing the problem but said no don't worry about it we're going to take care of it and here we are today where we have people here in the city of Albany going to the mosque and being taken away because they were going to worship their God. There are many other parts of this bill outside of the immigration component that I support as well but let's remember something this state has always worked to fix the problems so everyone is welcome here. Thank you.

As this conversation has been going on, one of the things that it was reminding me of was a testimony by Ryan Schwenk, who is an attorney and instructor at ICE. And one of the things he said of why he felt he had to resign from his duty to be an instructor was because of what was being cut from the instruction of ICE agents. He said, without reform, ICE will graduate thousands of new officers who do not know their constitutional duty, do not know the limits of their authority, and who do not have the training to recognize an unlawful order or to carry out an unlawful order. And I think that that is what has brought us here today, because we are seeing that play out in our streets. And it is reducing the public safety of everyone who lives in the United States. I stand here for all of the people in my communities who are afraid to leave their homes to say that we are passing legislation and putting legislation into law that says that school resources cannot be used to support ICE activities, that children cannot be kept from school and from education because of their immigration status, that we will not use our resources to support ICE activity because we believe in creating a safe environment from unlawful activity. And too often we have been seeing over and over and over again exactly that, unlawful activity by what appears to so many as vigilantes. And there's no one who lives in the United States who should be afraid to go to work. should be afraid to take their children to child care, who should be afraid to go shopping for food for their family. That is why we're here today, not as why I stand in support of this legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. we are living in a moment when people who are most at risk are being told to stay home, to stay silent, to keep your heads down, because ICE is here. People, our neighbors, our friends, our family members, are afraid to go to the hospital, to send their children to school. and it's a moment when anyone could not be blamed for doing exactly that, for staying quiet. But immigrant New Yorkers organized, and they have been for years. For years they have stood together, shoulder to shoulder, against incredible odds and incredible violence. And we stand here today passing legislation that shows definitively which side we are on. We are on the side of our immigrant neighbors. This legislation goes a long way to make sure that people can continue to go to school, can seek medical care, can be protected. There's much more to be done. And when this federal administration has spun up a deportation machine, spending billions and billions of our taxpayer dollars to rip families from their communities, I'm proud that in New York we will not stay silent and we will not contribute to that violence. More has to be done. And I joined my colleague in saying that our congressional representatives must abolish ICE. Collusion will continue until this agency exists. But in the meantime, I'm proud that New York will stand with our immigrant neighbors, and I'm proud to vote in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know a lot of people in here are passionate about the issue. A lot of people have opinions on the federal immigration system, and that's fine. But what we're doing today is not fixing the federal immigration issue. If you want to do that, run for Congress, and a lot of our colleagues are doing just that, and I think former members of this House do make great members of Congress. What we're doing here today, though, and we make the public safety argument not because it makes us feel better, but because it's a real issue in our communities. Just recently, in both Nassau and Suffolk counties, There have been arrests made of individuals here illegally for arson, for criminal possession of weapons, for alleged child rape and kidnapping. That was in my district. And because of our bail laws, they are able to be set free and walk our streets. And it exemplifies the need for local cooperation with our partners in the federal government. Now, I know that is not reflective of the immigrant community at large. No one is alleging that. But there are bad apples in our communities, whether you're here legally or illegally. And sometimes you need to use every tool at your disposal to get dangerous people off the streets. And what we're doing here today is taking away another tool. So I will be in the negative, Madam Speaker, and I thank you for your time.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is not a perfect legislation, but it's a start. It's not New York for all, but it represents the dignity and the respect of our people. As an immigrant, I have to admit that I'm proud to speak on the legislation, but I know that as a state, we can do a lot more. I know that our brothers and sisters that fear under attack, and that are waiting, that are patiently waiting for us to do the right thing, this is what we do today here, to stop the abuse, to stop the injustice, and everything that has happened throughout the last few months. But as immigrants, I want to admit that it is not simply and the security of our brothers and sisters. It is about respect and dignity of our people. As a state, we can do more. We can build a New York and a state for all of us. But today I'm proud that we can start doing the right thing in the state of New York, and that's why I'm supporting this project and proud of it, always when it represents the best interest of our people. I vote by affirming that it can happen successfully. Madam Speaker, I vote in the affirmative.

Yes, Madam Speaker. Many of you have heard me say my strong belief on which I live and I make policy decisions, and that is no matter who you are, what you look like, where you come from, who you love, how you identify, we all have dignity. dignity. With that dignity, we deserve equity. We deserve justice. We deserve opportunities. I support this measure as it relates to our immigrant neighbors. And I'm going to quote someone I looked up to, Harvey Milk. On the Statute of Liberty, it says, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. In the Declaration of Independence, it says, all men are created equal. We now see that as all people are created equal. In our national anthem, it says, oh say does the star banner yet wave over the land of the free In the pledge which we take every session day to the flag it says for liberty and justice for all Not for some, for all. That is what America is. And to the bigots who want to deny those principles, I say you cannot erase the Declaration of Independence. You cannot chip away at the Statue of Liberty. And you cannot sing that Star-Spangled Banner without those words. And you cannot say the pledge without acknowledging for liberty and justice for all. And that includes our immigrant neighbors. Madam Speaker, I proudly, proudly vote in the affirmative.

Proud to sponsor this resolution. Today I would like to speak about the importance of Poppy Day, and I realize it's been a long session day. But this Friday, before Memorial Day, annually is designated National Poppy Day to expand awareness and provide support everywhere for all of those who have served and sacrificed in the armed forces. The poppy is more than just a flower. It is a symbol of remembrance, respect, and gratitude for soldiers who have sacrificed their lives during the wars and conflicts so that we can live in peace and freedom. The symbol became famous after the First World War and inspired by the poem In Flanders Field. Written by Canadian physician and soldier John McRae, which described the sight of the bright red poppies growing between the cross-marking of the graves of Canadians and the Allied nations, fallen soldiers on the battlefield. On Poppy Day, people wear the poppies in honor of those that serve their nation with courage and bravery. It is also a reminder of the pain and loss caused by war and why peace is so important for future generations. By observing Poppy Day, we show that we remember the sacrifices made by millions of people, including soldiers, nurses, and families affected by war. Even a small act like wearing a poppy tomorrow and observing a minute of silence helps keep their memory alive. So let's take a moment of appreciation for our freedoms and remember as we enter Memorial Day weekend that freedom isn't free. Thank you.

Ms. People Stokes.

Yes, ma'am. A piece of housekeeping on a motion by Mr. Otis, page 19, calendar number 95, bill number A2611. The amendments are received and adopted. A resolution by Mr. Morinello. Clerk will read.

Mr. Morinello on the resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The United States is celebrating 250 years but I here to speak about a piece of history that is celebrating its 300th anniversary This year marks the 300th anniversary of Old Fort Niagara one of the most historic landmarks in New York State and our nation. For three centuries, Old Fort Niagara has stood as a symbol of courage, resilience, and the rich history of western New York. The fort played a critical role in the French and Indian War, the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Second World War, helping shape the course of North American history. Today, Old Fort Niagara continues to educate future generations and preserve the stories of those who came before us. The fort is not only a historic treasure, but also an important part of a local identity, tourism, economy, and community pride. Reaching 300 years is a remarkable milestone and a testament to the dedication of historians, volunteers, and preservationists who worked tirelessly to protect this landmark. This anniversary is the opportunity to reflect on our shared history, while enduring this important site is preserved for generations to come. I'm proud to recognize the 300th anniversary of Old Fort Niagara, a historic landmark that has stood in the crossroads of American history for three centuries, from its role in major conflicts that helped shape our nation, to its continued importance as an educational and central designation. Old Fort Niagara remains a source of pride for Western New York and all of New York State. As we celebrate this remarkable milestone, we honor the generations who preserved this history and cite and reaffirm our commitment to enduring its legacy, endures for future generations

resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to applaud the sponsor of this resolution for acknowledging a piece of Western New York's history that I've known since I was probably in the third grade, because these are the kind of trips that you always took where you were in school back in those days. For some reason, history is not as important to Americans as it was when I was growing up, but I am appreciating the fact that our colleague would bring this up. It's 300 years old that old Fort Niagara has been in place, providing people with an opportunity to reenact history, in fact, on the premises there. And so I will just send Kofa Bird on a regular basis because I think it speaks volumes to who we are as a people and what we need to be practicing as a people. We need to know where we came from in order to know where we're going. And so we must always be in a space where we're going to honor history, whether we like the results of it or not. The fact is that it is history and we should know it and we should be honored by it. So again, I thank my colleague for introducing this and I certainly do support this resolution. Thank you.

Ms. Peoples-Stokes. I now move that the assembly stand adjourned until Friday, May the 22nd, tomorrow being a legislative day, and that we reconvene on May the 26th, Tuesday, May the 26th, at the call of the speaker. Thank you.