Assembly Live Stream (partial)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Here is how to bound, visit mee ou bite. This is a new method. I feed too much Soros. In your pescection. we will王 as a point of침ess. Once you 1- San Exp ochre is ready to launch. This area will includeworkers forending and Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Mr. Speaker, will you please call the house to order?

Mr. Mourou Nguja. Mr. Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Friday, May 1st, if the same stands approved.

Mr. Mourou Nguja. Thank you Mr Speaker Colleagues and members as well as guests I would like to extend my warm welcome to you all and say happy mock session day And before we commence Mr Speaker with our schedule for the day I would like to take a moment to share the following quote with you all from Grover Cleveland So Grover Cleveland served as the mayor of Buffalo and went on to serve as the governor of New York State in 1883 to 1885. later on served as the two-time U.S. President. And in one of his statements, he says, I quote, Public officers are the servants and agents of the people to execute laws which people have made. Mr. Speaker, these words remind us of the solemn trust placed in us. We are not here for ourselves. We are here as representatives of the people. Our actions and ambitions must rise above personal interest and be guided by a single purpose, to faithfully serve, protect, and uplift the lives of New Yorkers. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will share with the members of our schedule for the afternoon. Members should have the main calendar at their desk. After in-house keeping or introductions, we will take up the main calendar beginning with rules report number one by Assemblymember Bingham, rules report number two by Assemblymember Campbell, rules report number three by Assemblymember Littman, and rules report number four by Assemblymember Granger. The time limits for debate today are as follows. A total of 35 minutes is allotted for consideration of each bill. An explanation of the bill may be requested by any member who chooses to do so. Should their request be recognized, the sponsor will have 15 to 20 minutes to briefly explain their bill. Each member who is recognized will have five minutes to question the sponsor. There will be a maximum of 20 minutes allotted for debate. After this point, the clerk will call the roll and begin to record their vote. While on the roll call, any member who wants to explain their vote, we have up to one minute to do so. After the other ten minutes for explanations and the roll call is finished, the clerk will announce the results. Now with that, Mr. Speaker, if there's in housekeeping or introductions, now would be the appropriate time. There is one item of housekeeping, which is to explain the voting system. For that, I will turn to one of the clerks.

Mr. Mourin Guja. Mr. Speaker, we will not take our bills on debate beginning with A-22500. Page 1, Rules Report 1, Clerk will read.

Assemblyman Birmingham for an explanation.

Does the sponsor yield?

Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. Is it your understanding that this bill applies to all firearms?

So you are stating that rifles and shotguns will not be under this section?

So that would mean that under the United States Constitution and under the Second Amendment, you only have to be 18, have a credit card, pass a background check, and go to a licensed dealer to buy a rifle and a shotgun. So how would not being able to—sorry. That means all shotguns and rifles will not be under this. So how is that actually making anything safer if most guns and most people who have them won't need a license or required to have a safe?

But those requirements would only be for the concealed carry permits and the pistol permits, correct? Because that is what the section of law that you amended does.

And that is the section of law that you amended, which means technically half the guns that we have in New York State would not need to be regulated underneath this law. In subdivision two of this same section of the penal law, it says, going under the types of licenses, It says a license for a gunsmith or dealer in firearms shall be issued to engage in such business A license for a semi rifle other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun shall be issued to purchase or take possession of such a semi rifle when such transfer of ownership occurs And later on it goes, a license for a pistol or revolver, other than assault weapon or a disguised gun.

All right, thank you. Another question I have would be this bill requires all gun owners to have safes. Are you aware under current New York State law, anyone living in a house with children under 18 or prohibited from owning a gun already need a safe? So will you then require them to potentially buy a new safe or upgrade what they already have, even though they already are technically required to have one underneath the law?

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Senator Basile. Senator Basile.

I do.

So it seems to me that this bill misallocates the burden of stopping violent, mentally ill individuals, putting it on those who seek to protect their family in a precarious situation to address an issue that should be addressed by mental health professionals. Why do you believe that this is the route to go down in addressing this issue instead of treating the issue earlier by focusing on counseling and mental illness treatment?

But is it not true that restricting the ability for someone to access their gun in a dangerous scenario, possibly a break-in, that the risk of that happening is always there.

I meant someone who wants to cause harm at a school, or someone who wants to hurt themselves, not the owner of the weapon.

Let me point to a more well-known school shooting. Sandy Hook.

Thank you, sponsor. I know what a safe is. My only issue here is that I fear that, first of all, five to ten seconds, I believe you said, is a lot of time, especially in a break-in scenario, where that time could be used to effectively stop that intruder. In that time, that intruder could cause all sorts of havoc. They could kill your family members. It could be horrible. And the threat of that time frame being open for that intruder to cause harm is, I think, statistically more dangerous than the chance of a person who wants to cause harm not being able to cause harm because there's a safe in the way.

A, those statistics are likely very – lean towards your direction in that they likely assume that if someone cannot access a weapon very quickly, then they won't access a weapon at all. But these people, I imagine they operate on a longer time. Thank you.

Thank you, Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Sponsor yield?

Sponsor yields.

Yes, so we will be testing the veracity of these photos, and it is at the discretion of the state police, because when you are applying for your license, that is within your sheriff. You go to your sheriff, they are the ones who would administer this test and make sure all of your licensing information is correct. Now, yes, with the rise of AI, this can be seen as potentially dangerous, but there are steps in place. And when it comes to AI and any fraud on any governmental paperwork is a crime, and it will be punished and withheld by the Sheriff's Department of the respective county.

Yes. So all the penalties are subject to Section 17530 of the penal law, and that handles specifically falsifying records on your license. So yes, offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree. If you are guilty of this, if you knowingly offer a false instrument when you are – and you offer it to a public office or public servant with knowledge or belief that it will be filed with registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant. And this is a Class A misdemeanor.

There is nothing within that specific portion, as that specific portion is just for all of the If any of these things may happen, you are barred from all of these licenses. This bill just adds another requirement. It is already not allowed and legal to lie or falsify any part of your license. This just adds another part of the license. And if you do falsify the license, again, that will be within the discretion of the county, I believe, because it's not mandated statewide as it's not in the previously listed exceptions as you just listed. But this is within the discretion of the state police, and this just adds another requirement.

Yes, I would be amenable to amending this.

Yeah, this bill does not at all look towards the issues that you just stated, while those are prevalent issues in both New York State and the United States. That is not what this...

Chair recognizes Assemblymember Germain.

Of course.

Thank you. In your sponsor's memo, you mentioned that since 2020, there have been 140 mass shootings. However, how many of these were actually caused by improper storage of firearms? I do not know exactly how many of these mass shootings were caused by lack of safety requirements.

Is it specifically when they're getting their license or at other times?

How would this affect people who may have gotten licenses outside of the state? Like, if they came back, would they have to get this box? Like, how would you regulate that?

Like, for example, if I were to have already had a gun beforehand, I wouldn't need the second this bill gets into law, enacted into law, if it does. This will not require me to now go run to the and go and get the gun safe and do the safety storage requirements.

In the bill text, it states that the photographs would be submitted with their application to get their licenses. So does this mean they have to purchase the box before they even submit their application?

So what if they have their application denied?

Like what if they submit their application and it gets rejected? Like they just have to buy this box and then they can't have a license afterwards?

And the serial numbers on the boxes, are you creating authority that's going to give out these serial numbers or is it like just when you purchase the box, it already has a serial number on it?

How exactly are you tracking these numbers? It's exactly used for, just to make sure that they have it?

Along with that, like, are there specifications that the box has to have, like, maybe like a durability or?

And how are you going to ensure that they meet these specifications?

These serial numbers would be attached to maybe who they are and maybe certain information about them. How would you be collecting these, and how would you protect them? Thank you.

So there are several reasons why I'm in opposition to the current legislation being proposed. The first is that I believe it places an undue burden on New Yorkers' Second Amendment right in terms of the fact that if you're a low-income New Yorker, you may not have the opportunity to be able to afford a firearms safety training course, or you may not be able to actually even spend 18 hours of your week taking that course. So that's one burden. The second is there's privacy concerns associated with submitting a photo of a safe in your house. And also, if you're an individual who already owns a safe and you're attempting to get a firearm or you're attempting to buy a new firearm, you shouldn't have to be required to purchase a new safe or else it would just be an expensive burden on an individual's right to own or right to bear weapons. So for those reasons I in opposition Assemblymember Guglielmucci in the negative Assemblymember Ogunbote to explain their vote Thank you Mr Speaker Gun violence is not abstract It is very much personal It is preventable, and it's been happening way too far in our communities. As a colleague, I appreciate the thoughtful approach this legislation takes towards addressing gun violence through prevention and accountability by strengthening firearm licenses requirements, responsible ownership through proper storage, and prioritizing safety. This bill is about raising standards in a way that protects lives while reinforcing responsible ownership. So I am very proud to support this legislation. Thank you.

I would like to thank the sponsor for putting forward this essential bill. Suicide and gun violence are a public health crisis in America, threatening our community's health and well-being. However, fewer than half the U.S. gun owners report storing their guns safely. By increasing the rate of safe storage, we can prevent countless tragedies every year. Studies find that locking all firearms in the United States could reduce the number of accidental gun deaths among children and teens by one-third. Safe firearm storage practices can reduce the risk of firearm suicide by limiting access to guns when they are not in use and preventing unwanted use. Laws and policies that incentivize and enforce safe storage practices should be part of a comprehensive public health strategy to reduce and prevent suicide by reducing access to a tool meant only for trained, responsible adults. Gun owners have to be part of the solution, not the problem, in preventing gun deaths. And for this reason, I will vote yes on the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, colleagues and speaker. Today I rise to express my support for Assemblymember Birmingham's legislation to strengthen our safety measures to obtain gun license and to protect the citizens of the state, but primarily our youth. Our youth should not have to live with the thought in the back of their mind that they may have maybe an imminent danger from a school shooter who obtained a gun from their parents drawer. Being represented from the Bronx, where youth gun violence remains at a record high, I have recently witnessed through surveillance while being back in my district and adolescent being robbed at gunpoint while arriving at home from school. In fact, as of late 2025, the NYPD tracked 38 shooting victims under the age of 21 in the Bronx, and 64 minors arrested on gun-related charges. As of late May 2025, 108 had been shot in the borough and 23 killed as a result, with two of these victims being teenagers, including 16-year-old Yvette Jeffrey, who was shot and killed in a schoolyard. I urge everyone to vote yes on this piece of legislation. Thank you.

I rise in support of this legislation because it strengthens firearm safety standards while still respecting lawful ownership. This bill ensures that all individuals seek a certain firearm license, and they meet a consistent requirement in including completing safety training and providing proof for proper secure storage, as well as it also indicates a clarity in the system Importantly this legislation is a preventative in nature It focuses on the responsibility of ownership before the issue arises rather than responding from responding after the fact. I also appreciate that this enforcement is built into existing licensing procedures and making this practical and a workable policy for this fulfillment. At this At this bill, the responsibility for it is about safety without limiting lawful access. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take a moment to thank the sponsor of the bill, Assemblymember Birmingham, for his leadership and commitment to advancing legislation that fights gun violence in our communities. At a time where too many families are impacted by preventable tragedies, this work represents not just policy, but protection, prevention, and hope. This common sense piece of legislation sends a clear message to the public that safety is a priority in New York State and that we are willing to take meaningful steps as a legislature to reduce preventable harm. It reflects thoughtful action grounded in the needs of constituents who want safer neighborhoods, for schools and a future free from the fear of gun violence. On behalf of those who will be directly protected by this piece of legislation, thank you for your courage, your advocacy, and your continued service to the people of New York. For these reasons, I'll be voting in the affirmative, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Every year, hundreds of children in the U.S. gain access to loaded firearms and unintentionally shoot themselves or somebody else. In 2026, there were at least 90 unintentional shootings by children, resulting in 29 deaths and 62 injuries nationally. One of the most effective ways to prevent these shootings is to ensure all guns are safe and securely stored. The gold standard for secure gun storage is to keep all guns unloaded, locked up, and separate from ammunition. That is why I'm in favor of this legislation, and I thank Assemblymember Birmingham for sponsoring this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm here today to voice my support for this bill. Unfortunately, gun violence has become far too commonplace in America. At its peak in 2021, 48,000 Americans lost their lives due to guns. We've heard a lot of statistics today, but it's important to remember that these are our fellow Americans, that there is a life behind every one of those numbers. With 48,000 people lost, if you could walk a mile in each of their shoes, you could circle the globe more than twice. This bill will not solve this issue in its entirety, but it is a measure for that effort. and we have a duty as public representatives and servants to make that effort and try and protect those who are not currently protected. This bill does not infringe on rights, but it does make sure that those who are not licensed to possess firearms cannot use them. Thank you.

Thank you, Speaker Kerry. I want to express my strong support for this legislation on behalf of my constituents. This seems to me as a common sense, cost-effective measure, that prioritizes safety while respecting our fundamental rights. From my perspective, this bill is about controlling risks, not taking away firearms themselves. By expanding safety training and requiring photographic proof of secure storage, we are ensuring that the right to bear arms is matched with the responsibility that it takes to own one. And we keep our community safe from preventable tragedies. My constituents want practical solutions to gun violence, and this bill by Assemblyman Birmingham delivers. I want to thank the sponsor for his leadership on the issue, and I strongly urge the passage of this bill. I also want to thank all of my colleagues for the vital legislation we will hear this afternoon. It's been an honor to serve and learn alongside you all. I yield my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation. I think that gun violence over the past while has become a growing issue in the United States. I think that this bill goes a long way towards affecting the proliferation of guns, and especially those getting their hands on them that really oughtn't. I appreciate the sponsor for pushing this legislation, and I thank all of you for voting in the affirmative. I yield back.

This Act amends the tax law by adding a new section, 1916E, imposing a tax of 4% on individuals who make between $1 and $5 million per year, a tax of 6% on individuals who make between $5 and $25 million per year, and a tax of 10% on those who make more than $25 million a year. 99.1% of New York's tax base non-millionaires receive a 0% tax increase. This money will then go to pay the out-of-pocket health care costs for the poorest New Yorkers.

Will the sponsor please yield? Does the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields. First, I wanted to say that I think this bill provides an innovative solution to a very complex problem in our state However I have questions about how and when it will be implemented Just to clarify the legislation applies to taxable years beginning on and after January 2027 correct Yes, indeed. Section 6 of the bill states that the tax surcharge will apply on years after January 1, 2027. So does this mean that the top 1% of earners will not see their taxes raised until this 2027 tax period? Correct. And this is a deliberate decision that we made just so we can give the Department of Taxation as well as the Department of Finance time to update their systems to get ready for the implementation of this program. Yes. So if 470,000 New Yorkers are going to lose their coverage in July 2026 as a result of Trump's big, beautiful bill, and the progressive income tax does not take effect until 2027, what funding mechanism will be used to fill the gap in between then? Thank you. And yes, as written, the bill does not include a bridge appropriation. That is a gap that I will acknowledge. But it is super important to contextualize this conversation that we're having. And that is that within 62 days, almost half a million New Yorkers are going to be kicked off of their insurance because Washington said so. So I am absolutely open to working on a resolution with you to add an amendment to the bill so that we can add an emergency clause so that the state will pay for the continued insurance of the essential plan, and then the state will further be reimbursed by the fund when we have the tax dollars to pay them back. Okay, so just to make sure you're not planning on taxing anyone before that period? Absolutely not, yeah. Okay, all right. So, also, many politicians have proposed uses for a progressive income tax, such as universal child care, free transportation, etc. With all of these competing interests, why should legislators consider this the most urgent or effective use of the revenue raised by the progressive income tax? Well, that is because almost half a million New Yorkers are going to fall off of a financial cliff in, again, 62 days. These are cancer patients. These are workers. These are our nurses. these are the people who defend us every single day. They are the poorest among us, yet the federal government says you are no longer entitled to health care. These are still our constituents at the end of the day. And it is incredibly important that we are doing everything that we can to make sure that they are going to have something to fall back on, because so often in this state they have had nothing to fall back on. And it is on us to make sure that we stand up for them and make sure that we can provide the bare minimum, which is what the essential plan coverage is. It is the bare minimum, yet that's still all we can manage to do. It is absolutely a huge, huge, huge priority to get this done, because if we don't, shame on us. Okay, and you project that $12 to $15 billion will be raised annually by the progressive income tax. You also project that 8 to 9 million New Yorkers, almost half of the state's population, will see their deductibles and other health care fees eliminated. How much of the projected revenue of the $12 to $15 billion is needed to provide this level of coverage to these New Yorkers? So the amount that we need to apply the level of coverage is going to be $11 billion annually. That's going to include the deductibles, the co-pays, the insurance. That is the amount of money that the state is going to have to pay the out-of-pocket costs for people for. And also that leaves us with a $2 billion surplus annually, which we can leave in the bill for future needs, perhaps with an amendment to expand the coverage that we are offering to New Yorkers in this bill. because as I said, we are doing the bare minimum with this piece of legislation. All we are doing is helping people who are fleeing New York State because of an affordability crisis not fall off of a financial cliff. Thank you so much I yield my time Thank you so much Assemblymember Daley why do you rise Thank you Speaker Will the sponsor yield The sponsor yields.

Thank you, Assembly Member. While I'm generally in favour of progressive taxation, I do have some questions in relation to the funding within these bills. Briefly, what would happen if the millionaires and billionaires that do reside in New York currently decide to leave as a result of this Act? So I really want to dispel this myth that the richest New Yorkers will flee New York City. So that has been the narrative that we hear for a very, very long time, in that if you tax them, they are going to leave. Well, I call their bluff. They have been holding the New York state economy hostage by threatening to leave for decades. Yet, who is actually leaving the state? It is working class New Yorkers who are being forced and priced out of this state because they cannot afford to live here anymore. It is the rich people who are staying because they can afford it. You know, if these are the same people like Michael Bloomberg's ilk who were able to almost buy an election last year in New York City and they're threatening to leave New York City right now, then they certainly have the money to fork up for this tax. It is the bare minimum they can do after they try to rob democracy from people last year. What if they don't leave but they disperse their wealth using methods such as real estate and stocks, offshore accounts and supposedly charitable donations? we will lose valuable existing tax revenue or for example we encounter a volatile market in which Wall Street bonuses are not what we expect them to be and we see a significant gap in income tax and or if New Yorkers do relocate to nearby states my question to you is how are we going to subsidize this lost revenue and deliver their health care coverage that we are promising to our constituents I think the really clear and obvious answer to that is that they are not going to leave. This is a way of life for these people. They're not choosing to live in New York City and New York State right now because it's super cheap for them. It's expensive everywhere, but they're staying because they know that they can. And if they try and pull something and they try and sneak away with their money, well then guess what? They're going to have me and this entire legislature to answer to because we are finally going to hold these people accountable instead of letting them run away with what we need to do for this state. Let's stop arrogant billionaires from preventing good, progressive policy that makes New York a state that works for working people again, not just Wall Street goons. I recognise this point that not all of these millionaires and billionaires will leave. However, as you know, the system has been working for them so far. There is offshore accounts, there is realty in stock, and there is supposedly charitable donations. We can't guarantee this income. How can we assure our residents that we are in a position to supply them with the health care coverage that they need, as opposed to putting them in a position where there is a lack of tax revenue? Well, Assemblymember, you said it yourself, and it's incredibly important. The system in this state, in this country, on this planet, has been fundamentally rigged in the top 1%'s favour for decades. They have been using us as their playing ground, as little chess pieces on their chessboard to try and extract the wealth that they need, and they have been doing it. So you're 100% right. The economies have fundamentally rigged in their favour. So it's about time that we stand up and say, it's time to take you on rather than cowering behind what we have been doing. If we do nothing, New Yorkers will suffer. So do we let New Yorkers suffer or do we let billionaires laugh all the way to the bank? I think it's a very simple answer. I recognise this point again. I am in favour of progressive taxation, but how do we secure this funding? Billionaires and millionaires do have all of these options. We are going to be using these inconsistent funds to fund an already broken healthcare system. These taxes will be allocated to the Healthcare Affordability Fund which will in turn stop gaps in Medicare and Medicaid and the Essential Plan correct Correct Okay so we will be taking money from New York millionaires and putting it into the pocket of multinational billionaires. New Yorkers will be funding health insurance companies that have historically mismanaged their money in the past. Is that your question? Apologies. So will we be taking money from New York millionaires and giving it to multinational millionaires who own these health insurance companies? No, what we are doing is we are taxing the richest among us at a very, very small rate. We're getting $7.2 billion from people who make between $1 and $5 million per year. We're getting $3.6 billion for people who make between $5 and $25. And for people who make over $25 million, we're getting $3.5 billion from them. It is pocket change. I recognise the progressive tax. I am in agreement with progressive taxes. But we will be giving this money to fund gaps in Medicare and Medicaid coverage. That means that we will be giving money to multinational billionaires who are operating the health insurance provisions. We will be giving money to these billionaires. And it will be New York millionaires who are giving money to multinational billionaires. Assemblymember, that is the health care system that we currently exist in. We are existing in a health care system where big CEOs and insurance companies are able to rip people off. Yes, absolutely. But if we do nothing, if we do nothing right now, then 470,000 New Yorkers are going to fall off of a cliff. If we do not pass this act by July 1st, they will lose their coverage. I'm open to other suggestions, but Albany has ignored this issue, and with it, half a million New Yorkers. Thank you, Assemblymember.

Does the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields. Sponsor yields. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you, Assemblymember Campbell, for sponsoring this legislation. I would like to commend the Speaker for his efforts to help New Yorkers whose health care plans are being slashed by the federal government. So first, I would like to clarify specifically the timeline of this legislation. To kind of follow the line of questioning by my colleague, Assemblymember Pennington Reyes, I would like to specifically clarify when this will take effect. So the specific language within the bill says that this will be continued coverage as of July 1st. And then within the sponsor's memo, it says it will prevent coverage loss for 470,000 New Yorkers. So is this still expected to start in 2027 when the progressive tax will be put in place? Yes, it is. And I'm going to, so when I addressed the Assembly Member earlier, we noticed there is indeed a gap here that we need to fill. And as I was writing this legislation, you know, the thought was that the money would just go there immediately. So what we need to do, and I'm willing to work with Assembly Members across the aisle to do this, is to make sure that we go back, we write this emergency clause to have the state reimburse, to even continue to pay for the people who are losing their health coverage through the essential plan. And then the state will be reimbursed by the Healthcare Affordability Fund once that we have the finances set up as of 2027. Okay. And so in the year 2027, when the progressive income tax is introduced, What is the timeline that you expect for this revenue to be collected and then subsequently funneled into the healthcare affordability fund? Because if you are basing this on like bi-weekly or monthly paychecks, income tax from that, if you're having taxes withheld, those are based on estimates and usually overestimates, which receive returns. So this would be spent on health care, which is a non-refundable service and a service that costs billions of dollars. But if you are basing this on annual income, then that cannot be accurately calculated until tax day in 2028. Well, the Assemblymember, you do indeed raise a very good point. You know, make no mistake, every single dollar earned in 2027, like over a million dollars, will be subject to the surcharge when they file in 2028. and we are going to use every single cent of what we raise to make sure that we are addressing New Yorkers' concerns. To build off my last question, what is then preventing New York's top 1% from switching their salary to non-taxable income? So, I mean, using Elon Musk as an example, he pays no income tax because he takes his payment for his salary in company stocks and shares. So I believe, as mentioned briefly by Assemblymember Daley, this could run the risk of millionaires and billionaires not only avoiding this progressive tax, but not even continuing their current income tax flow into our economy. so i want to make a very important point and that's that section five of this bill contain it contains a five-year sunset um the tax and this fund automatically expire on december 31st 2032 unless this legislator explicitly votes to extend them and that's because if this program fails if everything you're saying is true and if it doesn't reduce medical debt for new yorkers and if the millionaires manage to get away from paying everything then let it die it has been a failed attempt to try and save new yorkers from falling off of a But if it works, then we will have the data to back it up that it can work. And then we can perhaps use this more in the future. That's why come 2032, we're going to have this debate again. And hopefully we're in a position where we're finally going to be able to hold the richest amongst us accountable. So between now and the suggested sunset clause in 2032, correct? Correct. We will see two midterm elections and two federal elections. If the current party in power happens to flip and repeals the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, what will then happen with the Healthcare Affordability Fund? The money that's in there specifically. Unfortunately, it's kind of counterproductive to think about what's going to happen potentially in the future because half a million New Yorkers are going to lose their health insurance in July. Period. End of sentence. So theorizing about, oh, we could have a very progressive president come 2028 who wants to do new things with health care. That is a great thing that might happen, but those New Yorkers can't rely on that fact and that federal money potentially may be coming. So I think that's a separate issue. Okay. But it is, I believe, estimated $12 to $15 billion. So would the fund still continue? I know that you mentioned in the bill, or the sponsor mentioned, sorry, in the bill that it would then be reallocated to more out-of-pocket costs. Thank you, Assemblymember Hartman.

May the sponsor yield for some questions. Does the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields. Sponsor yields. Thank you, Assemblymember Campbell. My first question for you is this. Your bill is currently adding another 4% income tax on those who make a million dollars. Is that correct? Yes sir, in between $1 million and $5 million per year. Would this also be on top of the 2% proposal that Mayor Mamdani has put forth? This is a separate issue entirely. No, so this does not take into account the Mayor's plans. This is simply just to address the healthcare crisis that is forthcoming in July while also getting the ball rolling on paying out costs for the poorest New Yorkers But wouldn it still be an additional 2 or 4 that the millionaires would have to pay for the taxes? Would it not be another additional 4% on top of the 2% they already have to pay with Mamdani's plan? So I have the numbers here. So if your income bracket is between $1 million to $5 million, your current rate is 9.65% and your new total rate with the out of 4% surcharge will be 13.65. For the people who make five and 25, their new total rate will be 16.3%. And if you make over $25 million, your new total tax rate to pay is 20.9%. Those will be the updated tax numbers for New York's riches. Got it. With New York City being the financial capital in the world, this past year we have seen 8,000 high paying jobs leave New York to cities such as Austin, Texas, and Miami, Florida. We're also one of the top states in the country with internships being funded by big top earners such as Chase Bank and the financial markets and the engineering sectors, as well as the technological sectors. So how will you ensure that a lot of these opportunities that many New Yorkers have in the millions will not be stopped because of your tax proposal? Jobs fleeing the state is a very, very big issue, but we also have to take into account that that's because there's a lot of mobility among working people right now. And this also was not a corporate tax. This isn't gonna make corporations run with their tail between their legs back to whatever, back to Texas or to Florida, where they don't have any corporate tax. This is just on literally 0.99% of New York's tax base. It is the richest of the rich who have gotten away with robbing people blind, robbing New Yorkers blind for so long. And this is about finally coming after them and taking back what's ours. But can't you also counter that with saying that many businesses also do offer the top opportunities for New Yorkers in the state? There's no other state in the world that offers the amount of financial opportunities than New York State. So how will you ensure that those companies are not fleeing and giving those internships to Texas or to Florida, which is happening a lot more than I think that is being said as of right now? Well, I do agree with what you're saying, but unfortunately, we do have a big abundance of economy. We are all very lucky to be sitting here taking part in an amazing program. but the half a million New Yorkers who are about to lose their health insurance don't feel that well taken care of in the current economy. The people who this bill is specifically written for, the poorest among us, people who are at 250% of the poverty line, which is an income roughly of about $80,000 for a family of three, they are not feeling great right now. They are not reaping the benefits of what we are talking about. We have like a two-tiered economy at the moment, and the people at the bottom, they have nothing, and in fact the federal government is making sure they have even less than nothing. Thank you. As for your health care plan, has any of these health care plans worked in any other state in the country? No other state has tried to do something like what we are doing right now. Other states should be trying to do what we are doing because they are also going to have constituents being kicked off of health care this month. But as of right now, we are the only state legislature proposing something of this specific nature. Got it. So you said the 460,000 New Yorkers will be getting these funds. So there's around $10,000 are paid from each person in New York State on health care loan every year. That's around, I think, $5.6 billion in total for the 460,000 people a year. How did you come up with a $10 to $12 to $15 billion if the entire cost for health care for the 460,000 people would be around $5.6 billion? Well, that's because this isn't a universal health care bill. And I very much would love to be able to come before this legislature and be talking about a bill like the New York Health Act where we would be spending 200s of billions of dollars giving health care to every single person in the state It would be an amazing universal system but it not the political reality that we live in at the moment I completely understand, but I just would like to know, how did you come up with the 12 to 15 billion dollar range when the cost of the 460,000 New Yorkers is 5.6 billion dollars a year? That is a $7 billion to $8 billion increase when the budget is actually around $5 billion. So what actually if that money would be used within a fiscal year, and how would you be able to manage that without any kind of fraud? Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you.

Assemblymember Bowman to explain their vote. Thank you Speaker. I rise in strong support of the Make Them Pay Progressive Tax Act. This legislation acts ask those with the greatest ability to pay to contribute more and it directs those funds to the very real and urgent need of the rising cost of health care. As cuts to the essential plan threaten to narrow coverage and limit affordable options, many families will be left searching for care they can actually afford. This This legislation helps fill that gap by making sure that New Yorkers are not left to shoulder of overwhelming out-of-pocket costs on their own. At a time when we are seeing hostility at the federal level, New York is stepping up. This bill ensures that we are not leaving our residents vulnerable, but instead taking responsibility to protect access to care and support working families here at home. Importantly, this bill also includes a sunset clause in 2032 adding a critical safeguard to give the state time to measure outcomes, assess effectiveness, and ensure the program is delivering real results. This legislation is a smart, accountable, and compassionate step forward. I respectfully urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, kudos to the sponsor for this amazing piece of work. A drop of water never hurts the ocean. This bill is the robbing note of legislation. This bill takes from the rich and gives it to the poor. For my colleagues out there, this is simply a bill that is passed in this room. But for these people that are looking up to us, this is a bill that ensures their basic right of life. This is a bill that ensures their livelihood. This is a bill that makes them trust their legal system. They look us, we, I believe that we are by the people, for the people. They look up to us to protect us. And in the assembly, I strongly choose to support life. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to begin by saying I support the intent of the legislation, which is expanding health care affordability. But however, at this moment, New York State faces multiple urgent needs, which require our attention and resources. And as we all recognize we seeing potential federal funding uncertainties that could impact other essential programs such as SNAP that will put food security at risk for many families So at the same time, we also have to invest in our green infrastructure and also CLCPA goals. So why this BAIP proposes a new revenue stream? I believe we must take a broader view of how these revenues should be allocated to meet all these competing and also equally urgent priorities. So again, I support the principle, but I have concerns with this bill in its current form. Thank you.

I'm voting negative, respectfully.

Today I rise to vote in the negative. Though the sponsor has noble intentions, he does not take into consideration the likelihood that this bill will cause capital flight. Currently, 2% of New Yorkers pay 51% of the personal income tax. To quote Governor Hochul, our tax base has been eroded. We are in competition with other states who have less of a tax burden. Wall Street firms are moving to Texas because of their tax rate, end of quote. J.P. Morgan has 24,000 employees in New York City. They have 32,000 employees currently in Texas. If the unintended consequences came to fruition, it is likely that the personal income taxes will increase for the voting middle class. For those reasons, I will be voting in the negative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in today in support of the bill. I rise in support of this bill because at its core this bill is about fairness. For far too long, working families, teachers, nurses, and service workers have carried a disproportionate share of the tax burden, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations have benefited from a tax system that allows them to contribute less than those struggling to make ends meet. This bill seeks to correct that in balance. And I urge everyone to support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I first want to thank sponsor Campbell, Assemblymember Campbell, as well as all of you, my fellow colleagues. I've done extensive research into progressive taxation and revenue generation bills, such as the Fair Share Act. The idea for the bill is a genuine intent to help struggling New Yorkers when it comes to health care services and their access. However, we live in a world where we respond to partisan policy with even more partisan policy, which should not be the proposed action we take. It was mentioned that high-income voters won't leave the state, whether it be due to the lifestyle of the city or the overall state. But what if this is the straw that breaks the camel's back? just because we believe people won't do something doesn't mean it won't happen. The intent behind the bill is praiseworthy, but more bipartisan policy without the risk involved is needed in my eyes. And for that reason, I'll be voting in opposition to the bill. I yield my time.

On the bill, Speaker Lucas and colleagues, I rise today to vote in the negative, not because I disagree with the goal, but because this bill does not go far enough. As my colleagues in the majority are getting at, it is the millionaires and billionaires in New York that pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses. thanks to a tax code that favors from wealth over income from work. The richest among us often end up paying a smaller percentage of income to local, state, and federal governments than working families do. Former New York City mayor and billionaire Mike Bloomberg had a true tax rate of 1.3% between 2014 and 2018. 1.3%. According to ProPublica's investigations, the 25 wealthiest Americans nationally saw their fortunes rise by $401 billion over the past five years, but their troop tax rate is only 3.4%. This bill puts a Band-Aid on a broken system, and under the current tax regime, gains in the value of assets such as stocks are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. That is why I'm voting on the negative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, Assemblymember Campbell. This legislation not only talks about benefiting all New Yorkers, but making sure it's more fair. This isn't about punishment. It's about balance. When every day New Yorkers are struggling with rising costs, it's unfair to think about the 1% and not the whole 99% of New Yorkers. And I believe this is a great start. And for that, I say a stronger, fairer tax code means a stronger New York for everyone, and I'll be voting in the affirmative.

Honorable Speaker, I've heard concerns that this bill will cause rich people to leave New York, but this is simply fear-mongering. New York is the cultural and financial capital of the world. Wealthy New Yorkers have far more to gain from staying in New York and paying a tax increase that they can afford rather than leaving the accessibility and opportunities that this state affords them. Moreover, I've heard arguments that rich folks will find loopholes to avoid these taxes, but they already do not pay them. Not passing this bill will not secure more revenue for this state, but I firmly believe that passing this bill is a rational solution to this problem and has a solid chance at addressing our affordability crisis. For too long, this state has left to low-income New Yorkers' needs on a back burner. People should not be forced to forego basic necessities because of high costs. It is unethical and cruel, and it is our job as a legislative body to support our most vulnerable populations. So with that being said, I applaud my colleague

explain their vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today I rise in strong support and thanks to the sponsor for this bill, not just because it makes sense on paper, but because it reflects the reality people are living in every day. In New York, getting sick can still mean getting stuck with a bill you can't afford. That's not a system, it's a risk. And this legislation should treat health care affordability like the priority it should be. This bill is simple in principle. If you are fortunate enough to earn over a million dollars a year you contribute a little more so that millions of others can afford basic care That not radical That is responsible And what makes this bill stand out is where the money goes, directly into lowering premiums and easing out-of-pocket costs. It's targeted, and it's intentional, and it's overdue. Because at the end of the day, health care should not be a privilege. It should be a system New Yorkers can rely on. I urge your support of this legislation for this bill, and I'll be voting in the affirmative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill would enact the Testosterone Access and Scheduling Reform Act, reforming the prescribing and scheduling requirements surrounding therapeutic testosterone, expanding pharmacy access and refill allowances for patients with a documented medical need, and requiring insurance companies through the state to provide coverage for testosterone therapy when prescribed for a diagnosed medical condition. This ensures that no patient is denied access to a medically necessary hormone through administrative or regulatory barriers.

I yield.

Would the sponsor yield? Absolutely. Sponsor yields.

I just have a couple questions for my own edification about your bill. First off, for the sake of the chamber, could you clarify what some examples of Schedule 3 drugs are? Sure. Schedule 3 drugs include drugs that fall under the stimulant classification, the depressant classification, drugs such as ketamine, and certain narcotics. Thank you very much. Do you know how estrogen is classified as a drug? Estrogen actually carries no scheduled classification at either the state or federal level. How about progesterone? According to the New York State Department of Health, estrogen, progesterins, and corticosteroids are specifically excluded from the definition of anabolic steroids, which therefore means that they fall outside of the Schedule II classification entirely. Thank you. And aside from its ability to be used as an anabolic steroid, could you let this chamber know a couple of the medical uses of testosterone and how it might be used? Sure. So, testosterone was scheduled in 1991 under the Anabolic Steroids Act, but it is prescribed for a range of conditions, including hypogonadism, other endocrine disorders, symptoms of menopause, hormonal imbalances, and, of course, gender-affirming hormone therapy. Thank you very much. And do you know if estrogen and progesterone are also used for similar hormone replacement therapies such as testosterone They are not typically and is high of a frequency but they are The reason testosterone is scheduled though is there is a higher risk for abuse Thank you very much. So in reality, what is it that makes testosterone something that New York State has an issue with scrutinizing under Schedule 2, as opposed to estrogen and progesterone? Sure. Testosterone, again, like I said before, was scheduled in 1991 in response to widespread abuse in athletic and competitive contexts. But other than its history of misuse, testosterone actually does not really carry any distinct androgenic properties that differentiate it chemically from estrogen or progesterone. This contributed to its rationale for scheduling alongside the stigma that testosterone holds around it. Thank you very much. Just a few more questions. Would you be willing to reiterate for this chamber what the federal scheduling is for testosterone and even other anabolic steroids? Sure. Testosterone is federally scheduled at Schedule 3 and has been for 35 years. Thank you very much. So just in conclusion, has the state of New York ever released or made a statement as to why in recent years it has stuck with its classification as opposed to the entirety of the rest of the country? or could you even think of a reason why we're sticking with that classification as we have fallen behind the rest of the nation in its classification? Thank you for your question. There's actually no compelling reason as to why New York maintains a more restrictive scheduling of testosterone than the federal standard or the rest of the country. The legislature is meant to represent its constituents, and we must ask ourselves, is this the barrier that they would choose? This legislation actually does remove an obstacle to care that should never have existed. New York has never given an explanation as to why it is more restricted, and as a body meant to represent the interests of our constituents, we're failing to do so with the scheduling.

It's been a pleasure. Thank you, Chair. I yield my time.

Does the sponsor yield? Does the sponsor yield? Yes, I do.

So what's the greatest difference between moving testosterone from a Schedule II controlled substance to a Schedule III? Schedule II controlled substances result in only one dosage per prescription, meaning that once you've prescribed one dosage of your medication, you have to return to your health care provider to get an entirely new prescription. There are no refills allowed. However, Schedule III is a less restrictive schedule, meaning that for each prescription, you can get up to five refills within a six-month time period. Okay. Okay. So I'm particularly curious in, well, testosterone therapy is used to treat certain diseases such as hypogonadism and what's it called, which requires consistent monitoring and consistent lab work. And according to the Endocrine Society, it's often cited that around 30 to 50 percent of people who are diagnosed with hypogonadism aren't receiving those recommended rechecks. So my question for you would there be if we reduce prescribing touch points How do we ensure that patients remain engaged in regular follow-up care and safe use of this? Testosterone therapy sure thank you for your question. Um the legislation the legislation that I'm Putting out into the floor here does not actually eliminate any follow-up care. It structures it responsibly Refill access under this bill like I said is capped at five refills for every six months But at the conclusion of that six months every single patient must return to their health care provider to get a refill of their prescription Unless the patient of their own volition decides that they would like to stop all testosterone treatments they have to Visit their health care provider that models the frameworks that have already been in place in 49 states for over 30 years under Schedule III designation So you mentioned that other states have adopted this type of what's called reclassification for testosterone. What has been the demand of testosterone in those states pre-classification and post? Has there been a dramatic increase in testosterone use? Do you mean like once it was scheduled in 1991? No, you said other states have reclassified testosterone as a Schedule 3 controlled substance. My question is, in those other states after reclassifying, was there a substantial increase in demand for testosterone? Because you wouldn't have to consistently see a provider in order to get your prescription. I would say yes, but not in such a level that it would be creating an extra administrative burden. A lot of the times people who are trying to access this type of care will go through a roundabout way of doing it or jump through those hurdles It will increase slightly but not enough to create a large administrative burden as the systems have already been put in place I apologize. So for the effective date You said it's 90 days after being signed into law in order to give the Department of Health to Basically get all the eggs order make sure they can meet the what's it called new? reclassification standards and monitoring. My question is, how did you arrive to that 90-day standard and was it considered seen in other states? Sure. Sorry, I have it in my research packet here. The 90 days was to give time for pharmacies, prescribers, and healthcare professionals to adjust their administrative systems to incorporate schedule 3 for testosterone because if there's not really a fiscal implication so the effective date doesn't really affect time to figure out money but more to figure out the administrative systems gotcha and then for sec on the summary of the bill you said in section 6 you direct the Department of Health to monitor prescription fulfillment rates yes after that is it like a report that's sent to the legislator what do they do the information that they've acquired that they get through like with the monitoring prescription fulfillment rates access to testosterone what do they do that information so that information is actually used in tandem with the prescription monitoring program so this prevents patients from jumping to prescriber to prescriber to receive excess amounts of testosterone the data is typically used just as a tracking device to ensure that there is an abuse of the system through abuse of medical providers got you and then lastly we've We've seen on the federal level there's been a series of executive actions that directly impact access to gender-affirming care, including rescinding non-discrimination protections, restricting funding tied to transgender-inclusive services. We already see how in hospitals like NOU Langone, they've removed aspects of pediatric gender-affirming care. And we're seeing a blockade that now hospitals are removing services in fear of federal retaliation, which makes access to hormone therapies like testosterone already harder. bill doesn't take this into consideration, should we should we focus on removing that roadblock prior to implementing the bill to ensure maximum success? I

the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? Yes of course. Sponsor yields. First I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation. You mentioned in your justification that by having testosterone classified as a Schedule II, it poses unnecessary obstacles for people who need the medication. What would you say the cost for these individuals are What barriers do New Yorkers have to face because of this rescheduling? Thank you for your question, Assemblymember. Absolutely. The barriers are both financial and structural on the financial side. Patients face the cost of mandatory in-person appointments for each new prescription. This ranges anywhere from $100 to $300 or more per visit without adequate insurance coverage, as well as the cost of prior authorization requirements, which insurance companies impose for each dosage cycle, adding both out-of-pocket expenses and administrative delay. Beyond direct costs, we must consider the social determinants of health. Patients in rural and underserved communities face significant travel burdens to reach providers who can prescribe under Schedule II restrictions. Those who cannot take time off of work or arrange transportation simply can't go without these appointments either. Those aren't minor inconveniences, but they do pose barriers that cause people to miss their medication. Thank you. Being the only state in the country that currently classifies testosterone as a Schedule II, are patients with critical conditions leaving the state to fulfill their medical needs, their health care needs? And would this reclassification stop the flow of New Yorkers leaving the state to seek care? Yes, they are leaving the state, actually, and it's happening currently. People are crossing over the New York border into New Jersey and other neighboring states in the New England area to access this medication, which should be available to them right here in this state. For those who cannot travel, some are turning to unregulated at-home solutions, which are quite dangerous, and pose serious health risks. Reclassifying testosterone to align with the federal schedule would create a safe, reliable pathway to care, and expanding access to prescription refills means that fewer patients are forced to cross this border to receive the care that they so desperately need. So overall, the prediction is that, yes, they would stop crossing this border and start returning to their local health care providers to receive their treatment. Thank you for that. If patients are unable to refill their prescriptions, what are some of the adverse health effects that they may face? I know you said that testosterone injections are often used to treat thyroid disease and issues with hormonal imbalances. Does this delay in prescription place these patients at risk? It absolutely does. insurance companies do prohibit you from filing for a new dosage unless you have two weeks left of your dosage. And regardless of the condition for which testosterone is being prescribed, any abrupt interruption to the dosaging will place any patient at risk. The effects are of sudden hormonal deficiency include severe fatigue, depression, disrupted sleep, cognitive impairment, muscle loss, bone density reduction, and severe mood instability. Those aren't minor side effects and for patients with underlying endocrine disorders in treatment, an interruption may constitute a genuine medical crisis. No patient should be placed in that position regardless of their illness, and a scheduling classification that the rest of the country addressed decades ago should be also addressed in this state. Thank you. And because it makes it easier to essentially obtain these refills, will New York have to establish further safeguards to prevent the abuse of testosterone injections? The administrative burden respectfully already exists, and it exists on the restrictive side. If anything, this would be lifting administrative burden by adjusting to already existed, baked-in, and settled systems. Pharmacies insurance providers and health care offices currently carry the weight of this scheduled restriction which involves additional documentation stricter protocols and prior authorization requirements all that take a slow time to get through The reclassification would lift those burdens not add to them As for the Department of Health, this agency has administered Schedule 3 substances for over three decades, which means that the framework, the systems, and the protocols are all already in place. Thank you so much. I yield the rest of my time.

Will the sponsor yield? Does the sponsor yield? Yes.

Going back to your bill, it states that reclassifying testosterone is intended to, and I quote, improve access to medically necessary care. And that current Schedule II requirements creates, and I quote, unnecessary administrative burden for providers and significant barriers to access for patients. So I just want to clarify what you mean by access in that language in your bill. Thank you for that question. The term access in my bill is intentionally broad because the barriers that patients face are all entirely interconnected, but I want to be very precise. The primary mechanism of this bill operates at the regulatory level. By reclassifying testosterone from Schedule 2 to a lower schedule, we are eliminating the requirement for a new written prescription at every refill. We're reducing the documentation burden on providers, and we allow for telehealth appointment prescribing with greater flexibility. That's regulatory access. However, regulatory access and real-world access are not mutually exclusive. They are sequential. You cannot address affordability if a patient cannot get a prescription in the first place. The bill removes that first barrier, but it does not claim to remove all barriers. I see that. So just to clarify, when the bill refers to improving access, it is also intended to address financial barriers like cost and insurance coverage for patients. Is that right? The bill recognizes that financial barriers exist, and the findings section acknowledges them as part of the broader landscape that patients face. But the intent of the bill is just to reduce the total burden on patients, and cost is part of that in that context. So yes, overall, improving overall access, including awareness of financial obstacles, informed how the bill was written. I see that. But I do want to mention, in your bill there is no provision that changes the price of testosterone, no change of insurance coverage requirements, and no mechanism that directly reduces out-of-pocket costs for patients, and it's truly important. I feel like here we have talked about the fiscality that it has for us, but that doesn't equate people's financial issues and barriers that they have. So I do want to mention and bring back the conversation to how would you make sure that people also have affordable access to this besides just regulatory access you make a really good point the bill doesn't actually set any drug prices and it doesn't mandate insurance coverage rates and it doesn't create a direct subsidy exit mechanism so those are accurate statements about this and what it is not in the text but I'd push back on the implication that the bill does not solve every problem to solve a problem scope isn't the flaw here but the absence of insurance reform in this bill doesn't mean that this bill fails patients it just means the bill does one thing. This legislation is built specifically to remove the first administrative burden so that we can take the first step towards reducing costs for patients. I see that. Thank you for the clarification. I do think it's important to explicitly address this in the bill through insurance reforms, cost provisions, and I understand that you just want to get started with this, but it's something that it's really important I guess not only for us but also for the people. We're here for them, so it's something that definitely should be amended on the bill if you agree with me on that Yeah the bill identifies financial barriers but not necessarily modifies the financial structures I think that fair to say It doesn't purport to resolve them through this legislation, but what it does is it aims to remove a regulatory layer that compounds those financial barriers. When providers spend less time on Schedule II paperwork, administrative costs go down, and when patients can get refills without an office visit, they also pay fewer co-pays. So the financial relief is indirect, but it's real and it's intentional. All right. I do have one more question just for clarification again. So I do know that you mentioned in Section 7 and the effective date on your sponsors. Will a 90-day implementation period, it's truly standard for regulatory changes? Do you have evidence that pharmacies, insurers, and prescribers will actually be fully operational and aligned within that time frame? That's something that's also important to address. Sure. Just to clarify, you're asking what the burden would be on the prescribers, the pharmacies, and the healthcare professionals through this switch? Yes, to the 90-day after CDA. Sure. Yes, very fair question. The administrative burden, if any, would be very small because New York State has been operating and prescribing Schedule III drugs for a very long time now, and the systems federally have been in place for 35 years. All this would mean would be the simple shifting of this framework over to Schedule III, meaning that we would be just adding testosterone to the system that already exists for Schedule III prescribed drugs. I see that. Thank you for answering my questions. I will only say that I do think it's really important to, again, add the financial barriers that it has, you know, have actual real-world accessibility.

This act shall take effect the 90th day after it shall become law.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. New York prides itself on being a leader, especially when it comes to health care. But that leadership is meaningless because people cannot consistently receive the care they've already been prescribed. This country falls short by not guaranteeing universal access to health care. And those who are lucky enough to see a doctor are faced with unnecessary barriers in their way by forcing them to repeatedly fight to maintain the same treatment. That is not innovation, it's not leadership, and it's not freedom. This bill is a step towards fixing that. It trusts patients, it respects medical professionals, and it removes a barrier that should not exist in the first place. People should not have to navigate unnecessary obstacles just to follow a doctor's orders. If New York truly wants to lead, then we must start acting like it, by making our systems more accessible and more humane for all New Yorkers. I am proud to support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support because this bill is about making it easier for people to get the care that they need. Right now, New York State still states testosterone as Schedule II drug, while federal law has already moved to Schedule III. And that difference creates extra steps for patients and doctors. Because of this, people can face delays and trouble getting their medicines, even when it's already prescribed and that shouldn't happen. This bill simply updates our state laws to match federal rules It allows refills and helps patients to stay on track while still keeping proper safeguards At the end of the day this is about real people including those receiving gender care who should not face barriers because of outdated rules. This is simple and common sense fix that improve access and reduce burden. For those reasons, I vote in affirmative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, staff, and good afternoon, everyone. I rise today in support of this important legislation, which takes a sensible step towards improving access to medically necessary care in New York State. Currently, the mismatch between testosterone's classification as a Schedule II substance under New York State law and the federal government's classification of the drug as a Schedule III substance continues to create unnecessary barriers for patients, requiring a new prescription for every refill and interrupting continuity of care. This bill will simply align New York with the federal government and the work that other states have already done. If we have an opportunity to make care more accessible and more reliable for patients, then we should absolutely take it. This is a thoughtful, targeted reform that removes unnecessary barriers without compromising safety and regulation. This is about ensuring patients can access consistent, uninterrupted care when they need it most, and it should not be complicated by outdated policies. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I vote in the affirmative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this bill. While I appreciate the intent behind this bill to improve access to gender-affirming care, we must be careful not to sacrifice oversight and patient safety. This bill proposes reclassifying testosterone from Schedule 2 to Schedule 3 controlled substance, effectively loosening restrictions on a drug that carries known risks and a potential for misuse. There are also concerns about the precedent that this bill sets. If we begin relaxing classifications for one controlled substance, what comes next? We must be cautious about changes that erode oversight over time. To be clear, access to medically necessary care is important, but access must be balanced with responsibility, oversight, and patient protection. For those reasons, I will be voting in the negative. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Assemblymember Lemmon highlights a simple but important problem. As she noted, patients who rely on long-term hormonal therapy often face delays in care due to strict prescription requirements. Under current law, patients must obtain a new prescription for every refill. For individuals undergoing long-term hormonal therapy, these repeated requirements disrupt their treatment, impacts their health, and adds to their financial burden. This is a practical, evidence-based reform. By reclassifying testosterone, this bill allows for unlimited refills, reduces administrative burden on providers, and improves care while still maintaining proper regulations. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Honourable Speaker and fellow Assembly members. I rise today in support of Bill 3,500. Tessarashville is a widely used medical treatment for hormonal deficiencies, an essential component for gender-affirming care. Under Schedule II, patients face strict refill limits, delays in access, and interruptions. These disruptions can have serious physical mental health consequences. The current regulations have created unnecessary barriers to access. This association represents an important step towards modernizing our approach and ensuring greater equity and efficiency. Thank you, Assemblymember Lettman, for bringing this issue before the assembly. I yield my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This legislation addresses a clear and fixable barrier in our system by reclassifying testosterone from a Schedule 2 to a Schedule 3 substance. Right now, patients who rely on testosterone for legitimate medical needs, whether hormonal conditions, recovery, gender-affirming care, face unnecessary hurdles. Like my colleagues have said, hurdles include frequent doctor visits, strict refill limitations, and delays that interrupt consistent treatment. These aren't just inconveniences. They can negatively impact a person's physical and mental health. This bill does not remove safeguards. Testosterone will remain a controlled substance prescribed and monitored by medical professionals. This legislation is about balance, maintaining oversight while improving access. It ensures that patients can follow their treatment plan safely, consistently, without unnecessary disruption. For these reasons, I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Speaker.

Thank you, Speaker. New York is currently the only state in the country that classifies testosterone as a Schedule II controlled substance. While testosterone does have a potential for abuse, abuse of testosterone does not rise nearly to the same caliber as the abuse of other Schedule II drugs, such as cocaine, methamphetamine, oxycodone, and fentanyl. Tesosterone's current classification in New York State has no basis in the actual harm the hormone may pose, and that must change. I will be voting in the affirmative on this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Speaker. I rise today in the affirmative. Many New Yorkers rely on their medication, not for a short time, but for a long daily stability. Now imagine that every single refill requires you to start over. A new prescription, a new appointment, another delay. For many New Yorkers, that's the reality under the current law. This bill aligns New Yorkers with the federal standards. But beyond policy, this is about what the rules feel like in real life. A delay isn't just paperwork. It can mean misdoses, physical side effects, and an emotional strain. healthcare should not be dependent on how many times someone can navigate a system. It depends on what they medically need. And for this reason, I vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

The clerk will announce the results.

assembly number a three five zero zero zero rules report 4 Assemblymember Granger An act to amend the executive law in relation to requiring all law enforcement officers operating within New York State to report incidents of misconduct by another officer, to require the Division of Criminal Justice Services to establish uniform procedures for managing such reports, and to establish the crime of failure to report misconduct by a law enforcement officer.

Good afternoon. This is an act to amend executive law to require law enforcement agents in New York State to report misconducts of their peers and colleagues.

Will the sponsor yield?

Of course.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Granger. I first want to wish everybody a happy May Day. This is a very powerful and necessary bill, and I want to thank you for bringing it to the floor. It addresses something that really hasn't been addressed adequately. But there are still some outstanding issues that I'd like to ask about related to it. I'm not sure if you've seen the movie Mississippi Burning, have you?

It's a story where three civil rights activists are going down to Mississippi to try to do the right thing and end up paying the ultimate price. It's based on a real story, real events that have happened during the civil rights movement. In this story, a group of white men burned down a black man's house, and they are taken to state court for their crimes. They are charged, convicted, and sentenced accordingly. However, due to the presence of strong racist forces in the state and due to what is referred to as good old boys or presence of the KKK, their sentences are commuted. not to compare New York's modern law enforcement to the KKK, but there is a code of silence that exists among law enforcement officers. And my question is thusly why I bring up this story. Does this code of silence extend to other branches of law enforcement, particularly judges and attorneys? Do they share the same camaraderie with law enforcement officers that they work with so often?

All right, thank you. In extension to these possible realities, would you say, I ask the question, will anyone actually serve a sentence, let alone be convicted for this crime? The crime of not reporting. Crime of non-reporting.

Alright in the bill or essentially in another statute is there a way to limit these potential conflicts of interest that would prevent people from being charged accordingly

So this code of silence that exists that could potentially extend to other branches of law enforcement, is there a way to limit that? Or is it kept at the recusement you've mentioned?

All right. I'll turn back now to the exact contents of the bill. Can you define the parameters around sentencing for Class D felonies?

All right. You said the DCJ will determine the sentencing requirements for most of these cases, though.

Understood. Can you explain exactly how this bill is addressing the issue of non-reporting of this code of silence? Like, what is the mechanism of enforcement that ensures this stops?

Assemblymember, your time has elapsed.

The chair now recognizes Assemblymember Galgano. Why do you rise?

Does the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yields.

So reasonable cause is actually not subjective. Reasonable cause to suspect is a well-established legal standard across criminal and administrative law already.

So let's say that a rumor or informal report is spread around a precinct among officers and only one officer comes forward to report it. Will all other officers that subjectively knew about it or are known to know about it, will they face punishment for that?

Could a threat of punishment cause less transparency between law enforcements and the law? Like retaliation?

I have a recommendation for this bill. Rather than the definition of reasonable cause, what is your, I feel that a more effective way to approach this would have enforceable triggers for reporting If a victim has trauma, injury, some sort of thing that they have reported that would cause the voting rather than relying on the officer themselves to report it. What do you say? How do you feel that reasonable cause for that is better than having something like that?

Let's say this bill does succeed in creating uptick in excessive force reporting. This would mean that there are more cases and more situations for law enforcement and DCJ to look through. So I asked the sponsor, how will we manage a potential case overload and ensure that every instance of excessive force is given a thorough look?

Yes, I agree.

To prevent over-reporting, this bill pairs the standard with structured reporting protocol and documentation requirements, ensuring that reports are grounded in articulable facts. The main issue, though, is not the hypothetical of what about a case overload. It's the reality of under-reporting, where misconduct goes unchecked.

And I do agree with that. But I know in the sponsor's memo, there is no.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

Of course.

In the sponsor's bill, police officers would be mandated to report misconduct to other officers. Teachers and social workers who are already mandated reporters often operate under systems where the safest choice is to report anything remotely questionable to avoid liability, which has led to over-reporting, system strain, and documented disparities in who gets reported. Why should we expect a different outcome when police officers are placed under a similar mandate, especially in a hierarchical environment where incentives and internal dynamics may further encourage defensive or selective reporting?

So this goes along with the case overload, that the main issue is not overreporting. That's not an issue that we have that's a hypothetical. And it could come out that if this bill is passed that we don't even have a case overload.

When a police officer reports another officer for alleged misconduct that occurred while cooperating with ICE, how does this bill function in situations where federal authority may limit state action?

If the conduct were part of a federally directed operation, does New York have the ability to investigate and act on the report, or could federal involvement constrain the state's ability to enforce accountability?

It's a start. It's not going to create a perfect world, but it's a start. Thank you. While the bill clearly strengthens enforcement for failing to report misconduct, how does it ensure that the underlying misconduct is consistently investigated and disciplined, particularly where police disciplinary procedures are governed by collective bargaining agreements?

Thank you. What training or guidance ensures that officers across different departments interpret the reporting requirement consistently?

What training or guidance ensures that officers across different departments interpret the reporting requirement consistently?

So would you require sort of training or how would you inform officers about this new?

We trust the experts. All right, thank you. My next question is, if an officer reports another officer under this bill and the allegation is substantiated, does that finding become part of a permanent record that is required to follow the officer?

Thank you. Those were all my questions. I yield my time.

Mr. Speaker, or Ms. Speaker, would the sponsor yield?

Of course.

Hi. Close. Very close. All right, so, Speaker, yes, or Assemblymember, yes or no, are you aware that your bill and bill text does not include any language regarding discriminatory practices, specifically those among the African American communities?

Can you explain?

Does that have any consideration to the African-American communities in New York State?

But without specificity, how is that implementation going to be made?

Who's holding them accountable?

How? Because if a police officer is engaging in police brutality to anybody, even an African-American, and his colleague sees, his colleague now has to report that.

I do think it would be very beneficial to this bill to also have that same specificity for African-American communities, but we can move on from that question.

Exactly. Yes, exactly. So this will help them as well? The specificity may be beneficial to the bill within its entirety. Would you not agree?

Discriminatory practices or prejudice could be very beneficial.

Okay. All right. Absolutely. We can move on. So you talked very briefly in this bill about considering the blue coat of silenced among police officers and their subculture but how can this bill successfully operate in that police subculture It's already standard practice for any misconduct of a police officer to be reported, yet they're still going unreported. So kind of just how is this bill different from the standards that are already applied informally?

Okay. My last question is, do you think that this bill, in its purpose holistically, can benefit from separating the provisions of ICE or federal agents to that of our local and state police?

So do you think that this bill could benefit from separating the two?

No, absolutely. I'm saying two different bills of two different subsists.

Okay. Absolutely. Thank you very much. I yield my time.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. When I look at this bill, there's two lines. that stick out to me. The first is failure to report misconduct by law enforcement officer is a class D felony, which means as low as one year in prison or up to seven years in prison. The second line that sticks out to me is a law enforcement officer is guilty of failure to report misconduct by a police officer when such officer has a reasonable cause to suspect that a law officers acted in such officers professional or official capacity has used excessive force or otherwise has acted with thin misconduct in relations to use sex force so when I look at this bill I do have somewhat of concerns that maybe a class D felony for not reporting something is too high but overall this would only be in the event someone has a reasonable suspicion that someone else

I will vote in the yes.

explain their vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good afternoon, colleagues. I rise today in support of the Bill 835 This bill sends a pretty simple message Misconduct in law enforcement cannot be ignored and silence should not be protected Officers should not only enforce the law they should also have the duty to report serious wrongdoing by other officers This bill creates that duty, sets a clear reporting process, and makes failure to report punishable offense. That is necessary because we cannot allow cover-ups to take routes in any of our departments. Mutual oversights make our law enforcement more professional. more accountable, and more worthy of public trust. Good officers should be protected when they speak up, and the public should know that Ms. Gonda will not be buried. For those reasons, I urge support of the Bill 835,000. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. We are upholding better standards and changing policing culture by prioritizing safety and accountability. Thank you

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill requiring immediate police reporting at the state level at its core at this legislation is about transparency, accountability, and public trust. When incidents are reported promptly and consistently, we create systems where communities are informed, oversight is possible, and justice is not delayed. We cannot discuss policing today without acknowledging the broader context in which law enforcement operates. Across the country, debates about US Immigration and Customs Enforcement have raised serious concerns about the relationship between local policing and federal enforcement. In some states, proposals have required immediate reporting of ICE during arrest while others have moved to limit cooperation entirely, highlighting deep divisions about safety, civil rights, and the proper role of state actors. This bill addresses ICE, making its emphasis on it clear. Immediate reporting helps draw an important line. State and local police must remain accountable to the communities they serve. Transparency, thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Ramirez

explain their vote. Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd like to rise in support of this bill. In many low-income neighborhoods, interaction with law enforcement are more frequent yet trust in the system is often low. Due to past incidents of unchecked misconduct. When officers fail to report wrongdoing, it allows harmful behavior to continue and these communities are often the ones most affected. This bill directly addresses that problem by making accountability a requirement, not a choice. This legislation can help prevent repeated abuse and create a safer environment for residents who already face economic and social challenges. There's already unchecked misconduct at the federal level with immigration enforcement and we should prevent misconduct on the state level with this bill. I urge my colleagues to support

to be recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is not just a policy, it's a response to a reality that too many communities, including my own, have lived through. This bill directly confronts that silence. It is about ensuring that no officer is above the law and no act of misconduct is buried behind loyalty or fear. Alex Pratt, Renee Nicole Good, George Floyd, Eric Garner, Elijah McClain, Breonna Taylor, These are some of the names of individuals that have encountered misconduct by law enforcement and in exchange their lives was taken and either accountability came too late or not at all. But there are some real concerns about implementation, such as changing the culture within law enforcement, ensuring that officers are reporting misconduct and that accountability is being held. Though I support this bill, this piece of legislation needs a stronger framework to fully address the misconduct of law enforcement to ensure that officers are holding each other accountable to break this continuous cycle of harm and lost lives. I vote in the negative. Thank you.

This bill makes accountability, integrity, and protecting the rights of the public and the officers enforceable. Right now, we acknowledge that misconduct happens, but too often it's unreported, and it gets away because of the culture of silence and fear of retaliation that we built. This legislation changes this by making it clear. If you witness or see serious misconduct or especially excessive force, you have the duty to report it. Protecting those who are reporting injustices does not only encourage their actions to stop, but it promotes a better culture for police and officers in general. And this creation of the standard system across the state creates fewer gray areas and more transparency across the state. In a world where these injustices are happening on a daily basis, cooperation from other officers can help protect the public and other officers from this negative practice. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, Assemblyman Granger, for this legislation. I'm rising up in support of this bill. We are at a turning point here in New York State for trust in law enforcement. New York City police action claims cost New York City over $113 million in settlements in a single year, and that's not just a budget problem, but a trust problem. Erosion of trust has real consequences, not just for the communities being served, but for every good officer who puts on that badge with integrity every single day. Too often, the code of silence protects the few at the expense of many, and it is many who suffer for it. This bill gives officers of integrity a protected platform to speak up without fear of retaliation. It creates real accountability for those who look the other way. Law enforcement isn't at its best if we aren't holding the ones who are supposed to keep us safe accountable. And for this reason, I vote yes on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The law must apply to those who enforce it and this bill takes an important step in that direction However I want us all to be honest about why this problem persists Officers don come forward for multiple reasons. Sometimes it's because of loyalty, because these are people who trust in each other's lives every day when they go out to work on those streets. Sometimes it's fear of retaliation. Sometimes it's about reputation. Nobody wants to be known as the one that ended a colleague's career, even though the intent of this bill is to be anonymous. And sometimes, frankly, no one wants to sit through writing another report. These are human realities, and any legislation that ignores them will struggle to be effective. That is why I believe this bill, while well-intended and necessary in its revision, specifically I will strongly advocate for a pilot program before this becomes a permanent law, as we are dealing with deeply rooted cultural dynamics within law enforcement institutions. I will vote yes on an amended version of this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill, this bill establishes an obligation for officers to report misconduct and sets consequences for failure to comply. These are measures that bring transparency where it is needed. And beyond the specifics, this bill represents something important. It's an opportunity for our system to demonstrate that it is capable of holding itself responsible. It will not solve every challenge, but it is a meaningful first step toward a transparent system. For me, this comes down to people. I want every New Yorker to feel comfortable and assured that responsibility exists at every level of law enforcement. This is that beginning, and I thank my colleague for introducing it. I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to say yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

69 yays, 21 nays.

There are none others at this time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we conclude this session, I would like to extend our gratitude to the Sergeant at Arms, Mr. Wayne Jackson, Director of Legislative Services Deb Miller, Clerk Mary Ann Dandos, Majority Floor Council Mr. John Knight, Majority Floor Council Michelle Pellegui. With that, I would like to leave us with another quote. This is from Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela was a global African icon who served as the South African black president. And this is what he said. I quote, a real leader uses every issue no matter how serious and sensitive to ensure that at the end of the debate we should emerge stronger more united than ever before as we conclude today's deliberations I'm confident that we are emerging stronger and more united than ever before Mr. Speaker applause applause

Mr. Morodi for his closing remarks.

Finally, I would like to thank all of you, my fellow interns. I've had an incredible time being part of this program and it's been wonderful to meet all of you. I place great value on the connections that I have made during my time here and it is large part thanks to all of you that this experience has been so great. I wish all of you great success in whatever it is you choose to do in life going forward. Thank you everyone.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that we adjourn to reconvene at the call of the speaker. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.