Senate Floor Session — Regular Session

Guruji Dileepkumar Thankappan, of Staten Island, New York, will deliver today's invocation. GURU DILEEPJI: Honorable President, Senators, and public servants, Namaste. The divine within me bows to the same divine within you. It is a great honor and privilege to offer an invocation at this esteemed Senate of the New York State Legislature. I extend my gratitude to the Honorable President of the Senate for permitting me to chant ancient Vedic prayers. I also wish to express my sincere thanks to Senator Honorable Jessica Spanton for her kind invitation to deliver this invocation today. I will begin with blowing the conch shell, followed by Vedic prayers in Sanskrit and their contents' English translation. (Blowing conch shell.) (Chanting prayers.) GURU DILEEPJI: Om! I connect with the Earth's energy and the divine light of the Sun. May this light awaken our spiritual awareness. We thank Tryambaka for prosperity. Like a cucumber grows away from its stem, I claim my freedom from death. May everyone have well-being, peace, and good fortune. May all be happy, healthy, and may no one suffer. Lead me from untruth to truth, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. The infinite universe comes from the infinite. Om! May everyone be happy. In closing, O Lord of the Universe, guide our New York State Senators and honorable public servants. Grant them wisdom and compassion of all New Yorkers. Help us remember that we all deserve respect and dignity regardless of our backgrounds. May we listen and learn from one another to promote understanding and collaborations. Begin the day with love, spend the day with love, fill the day with love, and end the day with love. This is the way how we connect with the divine essence of the universe. May we always be blessed by the divine. In unison we affirm: Love all, serve all. Thank you, and Namaste.

In Senate, Tuesday, May 26, 2026, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Monday, May 25, 2026, was read and approved. On motion, the Senate adjourned.

Good afternoon, Mr. President.

On behalf of Senator May, I wish to call up Senate Print 5598A, recalled from the Assembly, which is now at the desk.

Calendar Number 543, Senate Print 5598A, by Senator May, an act to amend the General Business Law.

Call the roll on reconsideration. (The Secretary called the roll.)

The bill is restored to its place on the Third Reading Calendar.

The amendments are received.

The amendments on those bills are received, and they will retain their places on the Third Reading Calendar. Senator Gianaris.

There will be an immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in Room 332. We will call up resolutions as well. Senator Gianaris.

All those in favor of adopting the Resolution Calendar, with the exception of resolutions 2106 and 2143, please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")

The Resolution Calendar is adopted. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Senator Brisport on the resolution.

Thank you, Senator Brisport. To Ms. Vaughn, we thank you for your resilience for your strength. We welcome you on behalf of the Senate and extend to you all of the privileges and courtesies of this house. Please rise and be recognized. (Standing ovation.)

Opposed, nay. (Response of "Nay.")

At this time please call on Senator Tedisco for an introduction.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and my colleagues, I'm proud and honored today to present you with an introduction of some outstanding individuals who have joined us in the Senate chambers. They're up in the balcony up there. We are joined by Arthur "Artie" Hunsinger, a highly decorated, long-serving volunteer firefighter and former chief of the Clifton Park Volunteer Fire Department, which serves both the town of Clifton Park and the Town of Halfmoon in the 44th Senate District. Artie's dedication to public safety for over 45 years is certainly laudable, but today he joins us in a different capacity. Art Hunsinger serves as a Miss New York Volunteer State Director, and he is accompanied by Miss New York Volunteer, Shannon Kelly, and Miss New York Teen Volunteer, Eliza Leszczynski. Eliza's mom is with her, and also Elliot Ismail is also with them. Shannon is the founder and president of the Self Care Promise Company, a 501(c)(3) which provides education about the mental health aspects of practicing self-care and helps make self-care accessible to everyone through donations. She is an American College Theatre Festival nominee, has been employed by New Circle Theatre Company, the Actor's Studio, Museum of Modern Art, Nightmare Vermont. She's also been a Walt Disney World cast member and aspires to be an actor and director. She probably knows Mickey Mouse and all those -- Pluto, all those other guys over there. Fantastic. Eliza is a constituent of my colleague Senator Fahy and a student at Schalmont High School. She is a six-time Presidential Volunteer Service Award Gold recipient, a recipient of the Lions Club Community Service Recognition Award; a National Honor Society member, a Science, English and Spanish Honor Society member, along with being a class president and a cheer captain. Her dream is to major in pre-dental biology, and she ultimately aspires to be a pediatric dentist. Mr. President, I would ask you to welcome them, offer them all the cordialities of this august body. We're very proud of all of them being here today and all their accomplishments.

Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Senator Sepúlveda on the resolution. SENATOR SEPÚLVEDA: Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to speak on this resolution. To our distinguished leaders of the Taiwanese community, fellow legislators, honored guests, and our dear friends, it's a privilege to join you today in Albany to celebrate Taiwanese Heritage Day and recognize the tremendous contributions the Taiwanese community has made to the cultural, economic, and civic life of New York State. The Taiwanese community embodies the values that define New York: Hard work, innovation, perseverance, and a strong commitment to education and public service. Across our state, Taiwanese Americans have strengthened our neighborhoods through business, technology, the arts, and community leadership, enriching the diversity and vitality of New York State. Taiwan itself stands as a model of resilience and democratic values, and those same principles are reflected in the Taiwanese community here in New York through civic engagement, unity, and service to others. Today's celebration reminds us of the importance of honoring and supporting the communities that help shape our state. From my position as a New York State Senator, I reaffirm my commitment to recognizing and promoting the cultural heritage of all communities that make our state and our country a mosaic of stories, voices, and hopes. As we commemorate Taiwan Heritage Day, I'm proud to recognize Ambassador Tom Chih-Chiang Lee, who's the director-general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in New York, known as TECO. Mr. Eric Ng, president of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of New York. Mr. Chun-Hwai Su -- also known as Tom -- and Mr. Jen Ching Wang, the president and vice president of the Taiwan Center of New York. Mr. Wei-Ren Huang, political division director of the TECO. Mr. Jie Fan Hsieh, political officer of TECO. Ms. Peggy Huang, director of the Culture Center of TECO. And Ms. Sylvia Tsai, secretary general of the Taiwanese Chamber of Commerce of New York, and Mrs. Mei Tien, board member of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of New York. Thank you all for being here today. Thank you for being here today and celebrating Heritage Day with us. Happy Taiwanese Heritage Day. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to Senator Sepúlveda for organizing this annual trip to Albany. And thank you to your predecessor, Senator Sepúlveda, who originally established a special relationship -- even though they may not live in the Bronx, nevertheless Senator Díaz was certainly responsible for starting this exchange. I am proud to represent so many people from Taiwan. I previously represented Flushing, which had a major, major effect on the City of New York. The fact that people from Taiwan came to Queens County in the late 1970s, early 1980s, and established such a remarkable presence, both helping the economy but also the cultural areas of our city. They are an important part of our city. They make amazing contributions. I'm proud to say they are my friends. And in fact I notice that the group from the Taiwan Center, among other groups, was here. My district office was literally around the corner from the Taiwan Center. So I thank them for coming. And I certainly want to make sure that everybody here understands the remarkable work that people from Taiwan have accomplished. Particularly I know how proud they are of their State Senator, John Liu, and I know that they sense the same pride we have in accomplishments. And to Senator Liu, we thank you for what you have done -- such a wonderful representative of the City of New York. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President -- (mic off; inaudible). But I am proud to become an American, and I want to thank Senator Sepúlveda for carrying this for 14 years -- he's been doing this 14 years, the last eight being while I was a State Senator -- and really always greeting our delegation of Taiwan American leaders. As has been said already, the Taiwanese American community is very proud. We are very resourceful, bringing a lot of contributions to the State of New York, not the least of which is one of the biggest economic development projects that is happening in the State of New York, where there's a huge investment from Taiwan coming into Central New York as part of the semiconductor and AI initiatives. But, you know, I think a lot's been said. You know, what's probably not been said -- I was in the Finance Committee -- is that Taiwan faces a great deal of challenge and outright peril in these times. And so I do want to recognize that and ask my colleagues to, you know, stand with the people of Taiwan. Because it's a rough time all around the world, and certainly in the Strait of Taiwan. And with that, I want to take this opportunity to say that every year we've been joined by an incredible community leader when they come up to the State Capitol to advocate for the Taiwanese community. This year she did not come because unfortunately we lost her at the beginning of this year. Patsy Fang Chen was an incredible leader in the community. We lost her too early. But her memory lives on, and her legacy will continue to carry us through. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, the sponsors of today's resolutions would like to open them for cosponsorship.

There's a report of the Finance Committee at the desk. Let's take that up, please.

Senator Krueger, from the Committee on Finance, reports the following bills: Senate Print 9003D, an act making appropriations for the support of government (Aid to Localities Budget); Senate Print 9004D, an act making appropriations for the support of government (Capital Projects Budget); Senate Print 9007C, enacts into law major components of legislation necessary to implement the State Health and Mental Hygiene Budget for the 2026-2027 fiscal year; Senate Print 9009C, enacts into law major components of legislation which are necessary to implement the state fiscal plan for the 2026-2027 state fiscal year. All bills reported direct to third reading.

I move to accept the report of the Finance Committee.

Opposed, nay. (No response.)

Please take up the supplemental calendar.

Calendar Number 1331, Senate Print 9003D, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for the support of government.

There is a message of necessity at the desk.

All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")

The message is accepted, and the bill is before the house.

The bill is laid aside. The Secretary will read.

Is there a message of necessity at the desk?

Move to accept the message of necessity.

Opposed, nay. (Response of "Nay.")

Lay it aside.

Senator Krueger moves to discharge, from the Committee on Finance, Assembly Bill Number 10007C and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill Number 9007C, Third Reading Calendar 1333.

Calendar Number 1333, Assembly Bill Number 10007C, Budget Bill, an act to amend Part H of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2011.

There is a message of necessity at the desk.

All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")

The message is accepted, and the bill is before the house.

The bill is laid aside.

Is there a message of necessity at the desk?

Move to accept the message.

Opposed, nay. (Response of "Nay.")

Lay it aside.

Let's get to the controversial calendar, please.

Calendar Number 1334, please, Mr. President.

Calendar Number 1334, Senate Print 9009C, Budget Bill, an act to amend the Tax Law.

Mr. President, I believe there's an amendment at the desk. I waive the reading of that amendment and ask that you recognize Senator Rhoads.

Accordingly, Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the chair and ask that Senator Rhoads be heard on that appeal.

Thank you, Mr. President. We believe that this bill is germane to the issue at hand, as the issue at hand is the revenue for the State of New York, part of which has been termed in Part FF as the "Protecting Our Wallets." In that spirit, I am offering the following amendment, which is contained in Bill S9110, which would provide the largest personal income tax cut in the history of the State of New York. New York is the highest-taxed state in the country. We are number one in tax unaffordability. We have the fourth-highest cost of living among all 50 states. And that is what is driving people leaving the State of New York to the tune of a million people in just the last six years since 2020. And that trend continues. And while the Majority has offered in this particular legislation crumbs to try and actually mollify the fleeing of people in the State of New York to other states like Texas and Florida and North Carolina that have dramatically lower tax burdens, S9110 offers the opportunity to provide real and sustainable annual relief to the taxpayers of the State of New York. Over a 10-year phase-in, this bill would actually lower -- exempt the first $50,000 of income for single filers from New York State income taxes. For single head of households, it would exempt the first $75,000 of income. For families, it would exempt the first $100,000 in income. And given that the median family income in the State of New York is $87,000, that means for the average New York State family -- if this were adopted, the average family in the State of New York would pay zero state personal income tax. That equates not to a $150 utility rebate making up for the extraordinary charges that the state puts on every utility bill -- this is talking about $5,000, on average, per family per year that you have a chance to put into the pockets of every New York State family by simply not taking it out of their pockets in the first place. I can think, when we are talking about affordability, of nothing more germane, Mr. President, than talking about putting money into the pockets -- real, sustainable money that will help sustain families in the State of New York and will help mollify the increased costs of living that we continue to impose upon them through the policies that come out of this chamber. So I would encourage the members of this body to vote to overrule the ruling of the chair and incorporate this amendment into the bill-in-chief. Thank you, Mr. President.

Show of hands.

Ayes, 22.

I was hoping that the sponsor might yield to a few questions with respect to Part FF.

Yes. For the most part, these parts will be defended by Senator Gounardes. So let's just assume that, and if it's anyone else I will stand up and redirect that way.

I do.

Thank you, Senator Goud -- Senator Gounardes. There's going to be so much speaking today, I've got to get the mouth moving. Senator Gounardes -- through you, Mr. President -- Part FF is termed the Protecting Our Wallets Energy Rebate. And my understanding is this would provide a one-time $150 rebate to taxpayers with incomes between $150,000 and $300,000, and would provide a rebate to single, married filing a separate return, or heads of household with income up to $150,000, of $100. Is that correct?

Thank you for that correction. Will the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

So I'm correct in my understanding that the ultimate rebate that would be offered, the maximum rebate that would be offered is a $200 rebate, correct?

And will the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

And this isn't a monthly rebate -- through you, Mr. President, this isn't a monthly rebate, this is a one-time rebate check that would be received by ratepayers?

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

I certainly do.

IPPNY has recently put out a study indicating that over 70 percent of ratepayers' utility bills are actually not related to the production of energy but are the result of taxes, fees, surcharges and mandates that are imposed upon ratepayers by the State of New York. Are you familiar with that study?

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

Through you, Mr. President. What is a merchant function charge, or MCF charge? (Pause.)

And in the meantime, will the sponsor yield to another question.

I will.

What is a delivery adjustment?

What is a delivery adjustment?

Thank you for that explanation, Senator Gounardes. And I guess we'll wait for the answer on that other one. In the meantime, will you yield to another question?

Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, my previous answer to that question still stands. We're waiting for staff to come with more precise definitions so that the Senator can understand his utility bill. But I'm happy to take other questions in the interim.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, my previous answer still stands. While we wait for answers from staff for the Senator's questions so that he can understand his bill, as well as the nearly 600,000 taxpayers in his home county who will benefit from this rebate check, I'm happy to take an additional question.

I will.

I'll yield.

How about the temporary New York State surcharge?

And will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

In the case of National Grid, any idea what a National Grid ESRM hedging charge is? (Pause.)

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Would that be the same for SBC and RPS surcharges, for RDM surcharges, for incremental state assessments as well as for sales taxes that New York State imposes on utility bills?

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. As I answered to my colleague previously, one of the largest drivers of those costs are local property taxes, which of course as my colleague knows is not set by this Legislature but is set by local municipalities. And so the biggest costs that you're referring to oftentimes are driven by local governments, the taxes they assess on the power companies. But again, we are trying to provide some measure of relief to taxpayers who are bearing the brunt of high energy costs across the board, whether it is from their gas bill, their electric bill, their bill at the pump or whatever their energy needs may be. The purpose of this program and of this rebate check is to help provide some measure of relief to New York State residents, including 578,410 households in the County of Nassau.

Will the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President, just to correct my colleague, this is not about ratepayers. As I said previously, it's about taxpayers. So this check will be sent to taxpayers in the State of New York. It's not tied to someone's individual status as a ratepayer. And yes, it will be in the form of a check.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Mr. President, through you. We estimate that this proposal will reach nearly 8.2 million taxpayers in the State of New York, the income threshold for eligibility depending on your filing status -- single, married, jointly, et cetera. But 8.28 million taxpayers will benefit from this POWER rebate program.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. If they meet the income eligibility, yes.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Our understanding is that these checks will be sent out sometime in the fall, September through October or November. Just like the rebate checks we did in previous budgets were.

Senator Rhoads on the bill.

Senator Gianaris, Parts E, F and G are still Senator Gounardes. Senator Gounardes, do you yield?

The sponsor yields. (Laughter.)

Yes, I will.

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I am not.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. I'm not sure if my colleague is aware, but corporate taxes in New York are assessed on companies whether they are based here or not. It is based on the income derived within the state. Meaning that if a company is not headquartered or based or has employees in the state but they do business and derive business income in the State of New York, they are subject to New York State's corporate tax requirements.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, we don't differentiate between businesses that are located in the State of New York and businesses that are located outside the State of New York. In fact, that would be violative of constitutional law.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, corporations do.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I think that's how corporations make a lot of money, by passing their costs on to consumers.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Nothing in this proposal raises taxes on corporations. They are -- the same tax rate they were paying yesterday is the same tax they're going to be paying tomorrow. There's no change or increase in their tax liability from yesterday to today or whenever this bill is ultimately signed by the Governor.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. I'm so glad my colleague is asking that question, because the answer is absolutely yes. Through the provisions of H.R.1 that was passed by Congress and signed by President Trump last year, corporations -- and the biggest corporations on the planet -- received such a massive suite of tax benefits, so much so that hundreds of companies are now going to have zero federal tax liability because of the sweetheart deal they got in H.R.1. And because New York's tax code has something called rolling conformity, which means that our tax provisions automatically conform to the federal tax code unless we proactively change that, the changes that were done at the federal level, 200 miles away from -- or 500 miles away from where we are right now, would have an immediate fiscal impact to the State of New York. Those are tax policy decisions that none of us had the chance to weigh in on, debate, contemplate, discuss or figure or determine if it's in the best interests of New Yorkers. And so what we are doing here, by decoupling from the most egregious of these corporate tax giveaways -- again, the very same corporate tax giveaways that are going to let the largest companies on this planet pay zero federal income tax, at a time when we're all talking about affordability and we're all talking about making sure we can help families get by -- we feel, this side feels that the cost to the state of several billion dollars, we estimate just shy of $2 billion this year alone, is too important to have that income, that revenue be forgone because of policy decisions that were made down in Washington, D.C., policy decisions that we don't agree with and that don't benefit our constituents, but serve solely to benefit big corporations.

Senator Rhoads on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Rhoads. Senator Martins, why do you rise?

Senator Martins on the bill.

I do.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. President. So this was part of the last presidential campaign. Obviously there were proposals made with regard to tipped wages. Is that where the inspiration came for including this in this budget this year?

Appreciate that. Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Gladly.

But I notice that there isn't the corresponding elimination of income taxes on overtime. Was there a reason why that piece was not carried forward, either by the Governor or, frankly, by, you know, the Majority in their one-house?

Thank you. Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Sure.

I have questions on Part J. I'm hoping, Senator, that that's also you?

Thank you. This has to do with enhancing the New York City Musical and Theatrical Production Tax Credit. So from what I understand, there's an additional $150 million tax credit that is going to be added to previously funded tax credits. Senator, do you know how much money is in the fund currently? (Pause.)

-- the previous program was allocated $400 million. It's my understanding that that -- that that program has expired, or that the money has run out from that program. Hence the expansion we're here discussing today.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, yes.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. This is a tax credit, which means that it is reimbursable upon expenses paid by the claiming entity.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. I mean, the whole point of this program is to continue to support the arts on Broadway. And productions can't take place without anyone there to produce them, to act, do the stage work, to do ticket sales and concession stands and all of the other jobs associated with the Broadway industry. So yes, broadly speaking, jobs are created as a result of these programs.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. As my colleague may remember, several years ago we did commission a study about many of these economic development programs, and including the Broadway tax credit. And the economic impact that they provide, the immediate impact, the secondary impact, the tertiary impact. And so on the basis of that study that was done, the answer is yes, we have done an analysis.

Senator Martins on the bill.

Senator Gounardes, do you yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President. It is not my understanding that we are trying to undo the chapter that the Senator referred to. Though in the course of chapter amendment negotiations, the Department of Taxation and Finance asked for some clarifying language to make sure that the benefit actually went to the students who need it and not create any additional benefit for the schools or other entities. And that is the sole purpose of these technical amendments here in Part CC.

Senator Martins on the bill.

Part FF would also be Senator Gounardes. Senator Gounardes, do you yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President, that is correct. Because this is the POWER rebate check, not the utility rebate check. And this relates to the fact that people across the state are having to pay higher power costs, energy costs, not just exclusively related just to their utility bills. So that is correct.

Senator Martins on the bill.

Part HH would also be Senator Gounardes. Senator Gounardes, do you yield?

Mr. President, I apologize. I'm going to go on the bill first. I'll come back for some questions.

Thank you. So for those who were wondering, Part HH has to do with a new tax that is being discussed, and I guess is now being advanced by this body, which would impose a tax on property owners in New York City. Mr. President, when my parents immigrated to the country, we first lived in Jamaica, Queens, Mr. President. And that's where my brothers and sisters and I were born. And eventually they saved up enough money and they bought a house in the suburbs and they moved to Mineola, and that's where we were raised. They bought that house after scrounging for years. And then over time, Mr. President -- and I know this is not a story that is particular to me, it's the story of everyone in this room. All of our families, I would think, we all have examples of this, and it's our communities at large -- eventually that house started earning or accruing value. The house that they had paid X for after a few years was worth a little more than that. And they worked hard and they paid off their mortgage. And they had that value there. So what this does is it says that value, your house that you bought for X, if it increased in value over time, that increase in value, we're going to tax you on that. Now, we're now asking whether or not they are still earning income. We're not asking whether or not they can afford to pay it. We can't ask whether or not they are retirees on a fixed income. We're not asking that. We're just saying that because your value of your property happens to be X, whatever it happened to be when you bought it, whatever it is now, we think we have the right to tax it, Mr. President. So we don't care whether or not somebody has an apartment in New York City that they may have bought once upon a time when they had the means to do so. We don't care if they're older now and they still have that apartment and maybe they're on a fixed income. We're going to tax it, and we're going to tax that just because. Because we don't like the fact that people may happen to have an apartment somewhere outside of New York City or live somewhere outside of New York City and yet have a place in New York City that they may have lived in their entire life until recently. But if they're no longer living there, we're going to tax them and we're going to tax them at a higher rate. We're going to tax them at a rate that is going to force them to sell that property. Without respect for homeownership, for investments, or for their ability to pay, because this has nothing to do with income. This has everything to do with value. So with that, Mr. President, I'd ask the sponsor to yield for a couple of questions.

I do, Mr. President.

So, Senator, how many tax classifications are there in New York City for residential property? (Pause.)

Mr. President, on the bill.

No, this is what it's about, right there. You heard it. "The vociferous defense of the 1 percent." The 1 percent could be the person who worked their entire life as a carpenter, with their hands, or as a mason or as a laborer, worked their entire life and saved to build a house. That house can be in Manhattan. It could also be in Brooklyn. It could also be in Queens. And that house that once upon a time they bought for $20,000 or $25,000 today may be worth a lot more than that. And you know and everyone else in this room knows what that value is. Defense of the 1 percent. How about defense of the working person and the right for them to have the benefit of their investment, their hard work, and what they actually spent it on? They saved, they sacrificed, they raised their families -- and you want to call it the 1 percent. That's what you're doing. A million dollars. What did that person put into that house? How much did they pay for it? And can they pay that tax? Because they happened to move from Queens to Nassau County or moved from the Bronx to Westchester County, all of a sudden they're going to be taxed -- they can't even hold on to it because they don't live there full-time anymore? Mr. President, there are several classes of residential real property assessment in New York City. Some of them have to do with single home ownership; others have to do with condos and co-ops. And there's a differentiation between property classes. And this is clearly a tax on those people who happen to own residential properties. They own those properties. You know what's missing from this calculation? What's missing from this calculation is the person who owns -- or has, sorry, they don't own it -- has an apartment on the West Side of Manhattan. I don't know, you tell me. I'm not talking about those areas of the city where people live in poverty. I'm talking about those areas in the city where we still have rent-stabilized housing. And they live in those apartments making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Those apartments are rentals, so we don't count them as ownership. But we pass them on from parent to son or daughter, to relatives. We don't value those apartments. Those apartments are worth millions of dollars, but they're rentals, so they're excluded. So, sure, you have somebody living in the Hudson Valley, you have somebody living out on Long Island, they have their rent-stabilized unit in New York City. But it's not owned, so we're not going to value it and we're not going to force anyone to pay a tax. But they are not living in New York City, and they do not list that house or that apartment as their primary residence. But that's okay, because they're renters. No, we're going to go after the owners who actually put their blood, sweat and tears into those units, into those purchases, maintained them, paid for them, and we're going to require them to prove that that's their primary residence. So this is all about, Mr. President, all about punishing ownership while ignoring the reality that are 1.2 million rent-stabilized units in New York City. And we call them affordable, Mr. President, because for the people who live in them, they're affordable. But that doesn't mean that they are all means-tested, as we've discussed on this floor before. So you've got people who live in rent-stabilized apartments on Central Park West, you've got people who live in rent-stabilized apartments in some pretty affluent areas in New York City. But they can have those apartments and still have their primary residence somewhere else. They can vote somewhere else. They can have their driver's license somewhere else. They can pay their property taxes and their income taxes from another address, but we're not questioning that. No, we're going after ownership. And why is that, Mr. President? Why are we -- why are we going after ownership? Because we have an administration in New York City that is incapable of balancing its own budget. And rather -- even though it's got a $125 billion budget, or more. Talk about the 1 percent, Mr. President. A $125 billion budget for a city. Almost half the entire budget of the State of New York. Probably larger than the vast majority of states in this country -- $125 billion. But ask them to tighten their belt and pay for their own expenses and you know what they do? They say, No, we're going to go up to Albany and we're going to ask you to tax people and ask you to tax their ownership of their property. Mr. President, I was wondering if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.

Same part.

I do.

Senator, I was wondering if you could tell us how much money is projected to be raised from this tax on middle-income homeowners in the City of New York.

Thank you. Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

I do.

So I understand why you would want to go to the $5 million figure, but this really affects people who own homes worth a million dollars or more, doesn't it?

Mr. President, on the bill.

So just to clarify, for Class 1 properties, it runs from $5 million to $25 million on a sliding scale running from 0.8 percent to 1.3 percent. For Class 2 properties, which includes condos and co-ops, it runs from $1 million to $5 million, or over $5 million, with the sliding scale being 4 percent, 5.25 percent, 6.5 percent. And so the properties that this impacts, depending on whether you're looking at Class 1 or Class 2 properties, Mr. President, a million dollars is the threshold. Now, a million dollars is a lot of money, there is no question about it. None. But this talks about value -- market value, assessed value. It doesn't speak to whether or not a property has a million-dollar value and has an $800,000 mortgage. It doesn't mean it's paid off. It doesn't talk about what the net value is to the person who owns it. It's just the value of the property. So we're going to tax the value -- or you're going to tax the value without concern for whether or not somebody piled together their money, decided they wanted an apartment in the city, laid it down, maybe a few years ago, Mr. President, maybe they got it at a time -- maybe they got a good deal. And the city decides now, over time, the property is worth more and now we're going to impose another tax on that. We're going to increase the tax rate for Class 2 properties or Class 1 properties to account for that, but only those for those people who happen not to live in New York City as their primary residence. And I ask, Mr. President -- although I'm not asking the sponsor at this point -- I ask, how are we going to know where they live? What are we going to do? How are we going to reassess all of the properties in the city and track down every owner in the city to determine who is or is not a primary property owner in New York City? How do I know that when they go out and spend part of their year in the Hudson Valley but then they come back and spend part of their year in New York City, how are we going to know where they are or aren't along that spectrum -- unless we're going to now begin to dive into investigating each and every property owner that we have, condo and co-op owner. So, Mr. President, this is a mistake. It's wrong. I'm fairly certain it's illegal. So at some point you'll all be fighting legal fees and legal bills when it comes to challenges, where you are -- if you're 990,000 or you're over a million. And the question is, for what? Because the City of New York and its leadership, this Governor, this body, cares more about taxing people out of their hard-earned money to support programs in a city that won't tighten its own belt and pay for its own bills. It's immoral. I'll be voting no.

I'm wondering if somebody can answer some questions on Part GG.

One second, Senator Borrello. Senator Gounardes on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Gounardes. Senator Borrello, you were asking the sponsor to yield on what part?

Part GG, would that also be -- Senator Gianaris, excuse me.

Senator Addabbo, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

So through you, Mr. President. There's an initial fee of $540,000, which will be the equipment used for the testing. And then subsequent to that, as far as the implementation of the testing, it would be split fifty-fifty between the owners and the track itself.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

That is correct, Senator Borrello.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, this is unique to the standardbred. Thoroughbred has its own.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Standardbred has its different, unique testing. This is basically what we call a milkshake for the standardbred, and do a blood test. So it will be unique for the standardbred.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Mr. President, to be clear, it is about the horse taking the milkshake.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. To my knowledge, this is unique to New York. I don't know if we do this in other states. But let's put it this way. In horse racing, the equine care is paramount. It's probably the number-one issue that actually plagues the horse-racing industry. And here we are addressing it. We have had no opposition to this proposal in this budget from any owners, from any trainers, to our knowledge. So to me, it's a step in the right direction, Senator Borrello.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. No opposition to our knowledge at this point.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I understand all standardbred owners throughout the state were consulted.

Thank you, Senator Borrello. Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?

Senator Gianaris.

So through you, Mr. President. So there was a proposal to have a $600 tax credit for volunteer firefighters and ambulance workers. It doubled that credit for married couples, allowed volunteers to also get credit even if their municipality had offered them a property tax exemption locally. But I didn't see that in any part here. That wasn't included in the final budget?

I can. So there was a $600 tax credit for volunteer firefighters and for EMS workers. It also had a provision that would allow them to get that credit or the existing level of credit even if they had a local property tax exemption. But I didn't see that in the final budget. Is that omitted?

Thank you. And through you, Mr. President, would someone yield on Part J?

I do yield.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. President. And I know earlier it was explained this section expands the New York City Musical and Theater Tax Credit from $400 million to $550 million. A theatrical production in New York City can now get up to $3 million per production, is that correct?

Thank you. And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

Last year -- in last year's budget this program was already expanded from $300 million in total to $400 million. This year we're taking it from $400 million to $550 million. What's the return on investment when we're putting that much tax money into this credit?

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

I do.

Do you have any kind of figure for the return on investment that we get for this? (Pause.)

Thank you. And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

Yeah, understanding that it may be hard to pin down, and without any but-for, you know, the $550 million investment in Broadway, whether they would survive or at what level, fine. Leaving that aside, this also includes off-Broadway productions and smaller theatrical productions as well, doesn't it?

Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill.

Pizzazz and sizzle indeed. Twenty-three cents on the dollar is the return on investment when New York State tax money is used. This is bad economic development. Broadway isn't going to go away if we don't spend over half a billion dollars in taxpayer money to support it. This really epitomizes -- and when you think of losing the priority of providing a small tax credit to volunteer EMS and firefighters, that coming off of the budgetary table, and instead adding a new additional $150 million for theatrical productions specifically in New York City, and some to off-Broadway complete flops. Mr. President, I would ask someone to yield on Part C.

Yes, sir.

Welcome back. Through you, Mr. President. This part says deductions to the 501(c)(3)s will still count even if the IRS has revoked their tax-exempt status?

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

I do.

And that would be as long as their reason for losing the status isn't related to that nonprofit's mission, as I read the language here in Part C.

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Certainly.

So what if they fail to file with the IRS? That's one of the most common ways that 501(c)(3)s can lose their nonprofit status. There's an automatic way that those 501(c)(3)s get their status revoked. Would that still apply here?

And through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

So through you, Mr. President, that means those deductions would no longer count, even for New York State filings, is that correct?

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, if a 501(c)(3) is engaged in political electioneering, that is violative of their 501(c)(3) status. And if there was a determination made by the IRS that they were engaged in that conduct, then they would not be eligible to receive the deductible contributions.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, if a 501(c)(3) organization loses their status for any valid reason, meaning that they have violated one of the provisions of the tax code that grants them that status, then these provisions would not apply.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Certainly.

Through you, Mr. President, it is not my understanding that that is a valid reason why an entity might lose their (c)(3) status. Unless, of course, there is some type of financial mismanagement or fraud that is happening at that company -- or at that entity, which is a larger issue than just a compensation question. There's a fiscal mismanagement issue, at which point there could be a loss of (c)(3) status.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, that's correct. Any (c)(3) entity that loses their status for any valid reason would not be eligible under these provisions.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. The burden in this case would be put on the individual claiming the charitable deduction. If the Tax Department decides to conduct an audit of an individual's tax return and question the claiming of a charitable contribution, the taxpayer would be able to say, Look, here's why I continue to support this organization, because they were being targeted, you know, for whatever reason and they lost their status federally for reasons not related -- for nonvalid reasons.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Well, through you, Mr. President, if an individual chooses, you know, in the course of their day to day, they make a donation to a charitable organization, they make a donation to their alumni association, they support various different charities, and if it turns out that one of those charitable organizations subsequently loses or even previously loses their tax status at the federal level for a nonvalid purpose, that individual, should they be audited by the Department of Taxation and Finance to say, Hey, you claimed this deduction improperly, it would then be on the individual to say, No, I still believe this is a valid charitable contribution because this organization lost their status for a non-valid purpose, here's the news article, here's the clip of the IRS chief saying we're going after all of the cancer foundations in New York because we don't like their work or whatever, as a hypothetical. And so it would not be a form that DTF submits them right away, it would be upon -- or basically a defense from the individual taxpayer in the conduct of that audit.

Part K. Would that also be Senator Gounardes, Senator Gianaris?

Senator Gounardes, do you yield to questions on Part K?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, that is wholesale.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, we are including these products in the current alternative tobacco tax, which is 75 percent wholesale.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, $50 million of that tax will be sent to HCRA, and the rest will go to the General Fund.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Like we do with other tobacco taxes, that money is used for public health programs and for cessation initiatives.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Mr. President, would Senator Walczyk please repeat his question?

Not at all. I just wanted to -- through you, Mr. President, wanted to identify that that is the program that we set up to get people to not smoke.

Thank you. Mr. President, I would ask the sponsor to yield on Part FF.

I do.

And through you, Mr. President, I won't rehash all of the other issues, but there was something I wanted to drill down on here in Part FF, which is the Protecting Our Wallets Energy Rebate. We established that this isn't going directly to ratepayers but New Yorkers who qualify. And people can expect a small check right before this year's election. Is that coming out of the Clean Energy Fund or is that out of the General Fund taxpayer revenue in the State of New York?

Thank you. I appreciate you answering my questions. Mr. President, on the bill.

I thought this was one mistake that we were going to fix. We certainly, in our conference, have offered up a lot of helpful ideas in this budgetary process. Ratepayers across the State of New York want to understand, as my colleagues pointed out, what are all these taxes, assessments and fees doing raising the cost of each one of my energy bills, and where is that money going? Well, we did some digging and we found out that there's a Clean Energy Fund that has billions of their dollars that have carried over year after year, and that fund is actually increasing. Despite having all of the solar sprawl, all of the battery power, all of the things that New York State is spending ratepayer money on, they can't even spend what they're overcollecting fast enough. So there's billions of dollars sitting there, waiting for the State of New York to give that money back to the people that they overcollected it from -- not redistribute it to everyone based on some income-qualifying things, as this body often does, but directly back as relief to the people that you overcollected it from in the first place. That would have been the right thing to do. I don't even know why this is called energy at all, why energy would be related to this, because you're taking people's tax money and then you're just giving them a very small check right before the election happens this year. We've seen that election-year gimmick plenty of times in politics in New York State, but it has nothing to do with real ratepayer relief. I'll be voting no on this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President.

I was hoping that the sponsor might yield to a question with respect to Part S, as in Sam.

Yes, it would.

I gladly yield for questions on Part S.

Thank you, Senator Gounardes. Incidentally, the first question I'll ask, is there anyone else covering a different part of this bill that you want me to ask questions to so you have a break?

-- if you would choose to debate someone else on these questions. So I'm glad, I'm happy to answer the Senator's questions.

I will.

Thank you, Senator. On Part S, it indicates that we are extending the alternative fuel exemption for a period of five years. What taxes, state taxes are included that are being exempted? (Pause.)

Thank you, Senator. Will the sponsor continue to yield?

Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, the petroleum business tax is a tax assessed on the import of petroleum products into the state.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, that tax is assessed on the businesses who are doing the importing, yes.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, if the person importing that gas chooses to pass that cost on, it certainly could be. They don't have to. They could be, you know, benevolent and say, You know what, I'll eat this cost and take home a few fewer nickels. But yes, potentially.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, we're going to get the exact tax rates, because it varies based on the type of fuel. And so I'll make sure that I get the Senator the specific rate for the specific types of fuel. If there's a particular fuel you have in mind that you're curious about, we can prioritize that.

Gasoline. (Pause.)

Actually, Senator Rhoads, an act in relation to that, your 30-minute individual time for debate has expired. If you so desire, you may explain your vote at the conclusion of this bill. Your side's two-hour debate limit is still going on. Thank you, Senator Rhoads.

Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell. Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Thank you, Mr. President. In the richest city in the richest country in the history of the world, we have the resources to feed and home every child in this state. And yet last year the number of homeless students rose to 154,000 -- a record high. Billionaires like Jeff Bezos will tell you this is a spending problem. Last week in an interview he said that doubling his taxes would do nothing to help a teacher in Queens. Well, Mr. President, I am the daughter of a teacher from Queens, and I spent the first half of my education in public school and the second half at one of the wealthiest independent schools in the entire country. And I can tell you firsthand that he is wrong. He is wrong on multiple levels. He's wrong because according to the Budget Lab at Yale, doubling his taxes could increase salaries by $35,000 a year. I grew up in a one-bedroom apartment. That money would have benefited me and my family. He's also wrong to focus on the 44,000 we spend per student. That was the tuition for my education back then. The school I went to is now over 70,000 a year, because the wealthy understand that it is a good investment to spend on their kids. But when it comes to our kids, it's overspending and mismanagement. But what he's wrong most of all, to me, on is that my constituents aren't smart enough to understand that it is both true that we should make sure every dollar spent on education goes as far as it possibly can, and that the real barrier to outcomes and making sure that we all live a dignified life is the wealth that he and his billionaire buddies are hoarding. It is true that they are paying objectively a lower tax rate today than they paid in the 1950s. It is true that they have seen record profits --

It is true that in order to actually invest in our New York, we need --

-- to raise taxes on the wealthy. And because this bill fails to do that, I vote no. Thank you.

Mr. President, just a reminder to my colleagues --

-- on both sides of the aisle, we're trying to get through the budget bills today and tonight, so we will be enforcing the two-minute vote explanation rule very strictly.

Thank you, Mr. President. I found it interesting that one of the initiatives in this bill is to protect your wallet. How are we going to protect people's wallets? We're going to give them a hundred bucks. What do they need their wallets protected from? Bad policy here, from the pickpockets in Albany picking their pockets to the tune of thousands of dollars. It's the failure to do anything about rising energy costs. But we're going to blame the producers, the job creators, the people that actually pay the bills here in New York State. We're going to pick their pockets more. But you know what? Those pockets are portable. They leave. And we lead the nation, whether it's billionaires or working-class people, we lead the nation in people leaving New York State for other locations. So we can sit here and do this class-warfare rhetoric, but at the end of the day the losers are going to be the people left behind here in New York, the people that cannot afford to leave this state. They're the ones who are going to have to continually have their pockets picked and to protect their wallets from bad policies in this chamber and this city. So I'll be voting no. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. You know, a year ago I stood here and publicly named some of the billionaires who are quietly pulling the strings of our government, as Governor Hochul forced through a budget that fully preserved their tax breaks. I did so knowing I would not be taking on these horrifically powerful individuals alone. I did so knowing that quiet anger was already whispered in break rooms and at kitchen counters. I did so knowing that community leaders were already organizing resistance. And sure enough, I was immediately flooded with hundreds of messages from people ready to fight back. The chokehold millionaires and billionaires have on our government is daunting. Their extraordinary degree of power is hard to even imagine, and yet still thousands have stepped up to take on that power together. Over the past year, more and more people have joined in to march, call, rally and knock on their neighbors' doors, saying "Tax the rich." Today, because of them, we see the cracks starting to form in the power that millionaires and billionaires hold over our government. For the first time since taking office, Governor Hochul has agreed to implement a new tax on the ultra-rich, something she had publicly proclaimed she would absolutely not do. And although it is an egregiously small tax on those who have more wealth than they can spend in a lifetime, it is proof that they are not invincible. It is proof that this uprising is working. New Yorkers are sick and tired of living in a state where the ultra-rich amass billions of dollars in wealth while our public infrastructure crumbles and our social safety net frays. If Governor Hochul and her billionaire funders think they have done enough to quell this brewing storm, they are wrong. We are just getting started. I vote nay.

Thank you, Mr. President. So what happened to the affordability crisis that the Governor and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been talking about for months? What happened to the no tax on overtime? What happened to the larger rebates for our working class and the ratepayers? The bigger breaks for our seniors, our disabled veterans, I don't see it here -- no matter what it's called, whether you call it an adjustment or a fee or surcharge. And, you know, taxing a property's value rather than its net worth to its owner -- as some of my colleagues have mentioned earlier, a tax is still a tax. Two hundred seventy billion dollars spent, and I see very little that actually addresses the immediate crisis that faces our good citizens of New York today, and that's affordability. Real affordability. And I'm going to have to vote no on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. You know, this state in the last eight years has increased spending by a hundred billion dollars. Our roads are still potholed, infrastructure is still crumbling. And people are asking, if you could spend your way to affordability, to better lives for people less fortunate, go ahead and do it. But what do we have to show for it? A hundred billion dollars gone. We still have homeless. We still have mental health crises. We still have people in need of medical care desperately. And we keep spending money, and you don't get it done. So merely throwing money in the air and taxing people for the sake of taxing people because it makes you feel good is the wrong answer. Mr. President, with regard to co-ops, I'll remind everyone, since I ran out of time, that co-ops are taxed as commercial properties. You don't tax the individual, you only tax the building. And when you tax the building, then they push those taxes to the individual units based on their unit value or the unit assessment. So the building is taxed as a commercial property, not the individual apartment. It's still wrong. The pied-a-terre tax is a mistake. You're going to do it anyway. And that's why, Mr. President, I'm voting no.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I just want to offer a remark or two on some of the conversation that we heard about utility bills and making a mistake. I'm not a huge fan of the rebate-check approach, just as I wasn't a fan of the check approach from last year that was deployed to many millions of households around New York. But I want to respond to this baseless suggestion, this meritless suggestion that we can just wave a magic wand and do away with taxes and fees to lower everyone's utility bills. Senator Gounardes pointed out, and I want to underscore, the large majority of the taxes that are paid are property taxes by these utility companies. Okay, let's do away with property taxes. Tell that to your local school districts, tell that to your local towns, tell that to your local counties, and find the billions of dollars -- we're just hearing a lot of complaints about how many additional billions of dollars we spend in our state budget. Find many more billions of dollars to make up for those lost property taxes, that lost revenue. That, of course, is not mentioned as part of the series of suggestions. And then we talk about fees. Without any specificity whatsoever, just wave the magic wand, do away with fees. Let's pick one. ZECs, zero-emission credits. Three upstate nuclear power plants are open today because we have ZECs that are funded through the utility bill. Utility rates are too high. There's not a single person in this chamber who would disagree with that. But do away with ZECs? Okay. Close the FitzPatrick plant in Oswego, close the Ginna plant in Ontario, close Nine Mile, also in Oswego. Tell those employees, everyone -- we hear a lot about the grid, reliability. No mention of that. Well, let's do away with ZECs and all the fees. There are repercussions to the policies that we enact --

This is a responsible bill. I vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill is nothing but a spending and taxing bill. We don't have a revenue problem in this state; we can see that. We have a taxing and spending problem in this state. We were just talking about waving a magic wand to erase property taxes. Other states are working toward that. That is a goal of other states, to do away with property taxes and make life in their state better. But we're going to be the first to spend more money than any other state on our annual budget, once again. Every state has 1 percenters, the ultra-rich that we were talking about. Every single state has them. New York is going to be first again. We're going to be the first state to not have any ultra-rich. Because we're going to drive them out with this pied-à-terre tax, and no one's going to want to live here. And that's what this bill does. I vote no.

Thank you, Mr. President. Once again I'm compelled to rise to explain my vote and remind my colleagues that a property tax cap exists in this state because our Senate Majority got it enacted in our first year in the majority after decades of the Republicans being in the majority and refusing to do it. So yes, we do know how to lower property taxes in this state, because we have done it. And so I appreciate my colleagues who are voting in support of this bill, and I also vote aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, the tax cap used to exist for the state budget as well. We've seen that that's gone out the window under this Majority, with $100 billion in increased spending over the course of the last eight years. Five thousand dollars per family per year because of increased spending as a result of this Majority. New York -- and there are consequences. New York has lost 892 companies and $47 billion in economic activity since Governor Hochul has been Governor. It does have consequences. When these companies leave, what do they do? They take away jobs, the jobs that feed your families, the jobs that pay your bills. That has real consequences and real economic consequences to this state. You don't want to talk about energy costs and the taxes that we saddle on the cost of energy because of the policies in this chamber? You don't want to talk about NYSERDA and the report that NYSERDA put out that it's going to add $2.31 to the cost of a gallon of gas and will cost the average family an additional $2,000 in their utility bills as a result of the policies we pass in this chamber? Okay, let's just talk about the price of a gallon of gas: 15.8 cents petroleum business tax. Another 8 cents a gallon on the excise tax, another 8.75 cents on the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Tax if you live downstate. Another 8 cents on sales taxes. Forty cents a gallon. If you fill up your tank, $8 is going into New York State's pocket with the taxes that we pay. The affordability problem that we have in this state is because of here. And if we try to continue this march towards socialism, again, in the words of Margaret Thatcher: The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. We are running out of it fast, and that's going to be a problem for the State of New York. I'm voting no.

Thank you, Mr. President. As chair of the Senate Aging Committee, I rise to explain my vote on a particular portion of the revenue bill before us. Increasing and expanding SCRIE, DRIE, SCHE and DHE represents a hard-fought victory for so many New Yorkers, including our seniors. These programs are literal lifelines and time-tested commonsense solutions to keep older New Yorkers in all the places they love -- their homes, their communities, and their neighborhoods, near houses of worship, friends and family, long-term relationships and support networks. Expanding eligibility for SCRIE and related programs provides our residents with housing that is stable, permanent, high-quality, community-centric and affordable. That is exactly what we need in our state. I want to personally thank Senator Brian Kavanagh for his tireless advocacy and courageous partnership and leadership on this matter. I proudly vote aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just echo the comments of a great colleague, the chair of our Aging Committee, Senator Cleare. You know, the SCRIE and DRIE and SCHE and DHE programs are one of our most basic ways of ensuring that people can live stably in their communities, the communities that in many cases they have spent many decades in. SCRIE and DRIE are programs that are available -- they cover the difference between the legal rent in a rent-regulated program and a third of the person's income. They freeze the tenant contribution. SCHE and DHE are general-purpose property tax exemptions that -- they are local opt-in. They allow localities to give up to a 50 percent reduction in property taxes, with either a senior, somebody 62 years of age or older, or somebody with a qualifying disability. They are available -- most localities in our state have adopted these programs. And yet the maximum income for these programs has been stuck at $50,000 since 2014. In this budget we are raising that number to 75,000. That will give a lot of localities additional tools to protect seniors, to protect people with disabilities, especially in places where property taxes are going up rapidly. So I'm very excited that we're getting this done in this budget after 12 years. And I would just encourage all of my colleagues to think of this as something that they can work with their localities and their constituents to make sure we're addressing rising costs. And with that, I vote aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is called the revenue bill. Did you get enough? Did you get enough? Did you get enough this year? We do not have a problem with revenue in the State of New York. New Yorkers are taxed from the moment that they wake up to the moment that they go to sleep. They are taxed from the moment they're born until the moment they die, and then thereafter. You have enough creative ways to tax New Yorkers. You don't need to add this many more. We have a spending problem in the State of New York. Two hundred and sixty-eight billion dollars? You have far outpaced economic growth in the State of New York with your spending. And that will only lead to long-term economic decline. Talk to any economist. You pick on billionaires and businesses and all those kinds of things? The biggest bully in the State of New York is in these halls, not out there, and we work for them. I vote no.

Thank you, Mr. President. There are some things here that are attractive. There are some that we've left out. We're not taxing tips, but we are still taxing overtime. A clear way to put more money in the pockets of our New Yorkers is allowing them to keep the money they're earning. What's most troubling to me, though, in here is Part HH, where we're talking about taxing people that are investing in New York City real estate. The one thing in life, in my mind, that is guaranteed to increase in value is real estate in New York City. And now we're going to say that we're not allowing you to keep that appreciation. We're going to tax you each year on it and make sure that you come out-of-pocket with money that you have to be taxed on an asset that isn't realized. We didn't, you know, talk about the scenario where someone inherits property and now they've got to figure out how to pay for it to keep it. We're not encouraging property ownership, which is a basic American dream. And for those reasons, Mr. President, I can't support this. I'll be voting in the negative. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to represent people like myself, working class in Northern Manhattan and the Northwest Bronx. Understanding, looking at things, the bottom line is that we want to be able to make sure that they're looking after -- when I say "they," all of us are looking after the people that need our help. And that's extremely important. And that's what this is about: Family helping family. And with that, I vote aye on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. President. Nothing brings out the emotions and passions and tensions that we all trade back and forth than talking about money and talking about taxes. Everyone's taxes are too high. You don't like paying your taxes, I don't want to pay my taxes. No one wants to pay taxes. No one likes paying taxes. Taxes are high, right? People want to keep all of their money. Sure, of course. You know what's more offensive to me than my obligation to pay taxes? Seeing someone else not pay theirs. And when you see some of the biggest corporations on this planet who, yes, have a civic responsibility to contribute to the greater good, just like I'm putting my pennies in the pot, they too should put their pennies in the pot. And yes, because they have a lot more pennies, they should put a lot more pennies in the pot than I have to put or that you have to put, Mr. President, or that any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have to ante up. When you see corporations that are worth nearly a trillion dollars hoard that money and say we're not going to lower costs for consumers, we're going to buy up other companies to raise costs because we want a monopoly on this industry -- when you see corporations say, We're not going to return lower prices to our customers, we're going to give that money instead to our shareholders and do stock buybacks and put that money off the market and not contribute to the greater good -- that's what should anger us. That's what should rile up all of our passions jointly here. It should not be this fight with each other. It should be the entities and the individuals who are not paying their fair share. The entities and the individuals who have been incredibly lucky and incredibly blessed -- and yes, many of which have taken an incredible amount of public dollars to get to where they are today -- they should have a responsibility to all of us. Just like we have a responsibility to each other. Mr. President, I paid my state taxes this year. My tax dollars went to go support roads in other parts of the state that I may never drive on. They went to go support schools whose classrooms I will never sit in. You don't see me complaining about that. You don't see me saying, Oh, woe is me that I have to pay for someone else's education, that I have to pay for someone else's hospital, that I have to, God forbid, pay for someone else's healthcare because if they should get sick, they should be able to go to a place and get better. That's what this bill fundamentally is about. Because taxes are the prices we pay for a civilized society, as Oliver Wendell Holmes reminds us. That's what this is all about. And at a time when the federal government has given away the store to the largest corporate entities on this planet, and to the people who have made more money than any of us in this room could ever fathom, we have an obligation to protect and invest in New Yorkers. We're not trying to demonize hard work. We're not trying to go after the person who's scrimped and saved their way to the top. My father was the first in his family to go to college. My grandfather was a washing-machine repairman. My great-grandparents came here more than a hundred years ago on a boat, like many of our families did. It's not about demonizing that journey. But you know what my parents taught me, you know what my grandparents taught me? As important as it is for you to reach your hand up the ladder and keep striving, never forget to turn around and keep your other hand back to pull someone up alongside you. That's what people are forgetting. And if you are so lucky enough to be in the 1 percent in New York, which for the record is making more than $900,000 -- if you are so lucky at a time when one in four of my constituents can't put enough food on their table this week, you have a responsibility to reach your hand back and say, I too want to help you. And that is why, Mr. President, this revenue bill is so important. It's why I'm proud of the work that this Majority did in crafting a tax package that we know will help support and sustain the people who will make New York as great as it is. And that is why I proudly vote aye. Thank you.

In relation to Calendar 1334, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Brisport, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Gonzalez, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 39. Nays, 23. Oh, sorry. Also Senator Salazar. Ayes, 38. Nays, 24.

Mr. President, I'm so looking forward to the Senator Walczyk tax-hike bill for Herkimer County tomorrow, I'll say that much, after we finish that debate. Let's move on to Calendar Number 1331, please.

Calendar Number 1331, Senate Print 9003D, an act making appropriations for the support of government.

Good afternoon, Mr. President. I was wondering if the sponsor would yield for a few questions, starting with DHCR.

DHCR. DHCR.

We are retrieving the Senator on that issue.

He's entering -- he's entering now. Senator Kavanagh, please, Mr. President.

I do, thank you.

Thank you. Senator, I notice that there is funding in the budget this year for -- to combat homelessness. Can you tell us how much additional funding there is in the budget this year to address homelessness, housing insecurity?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes, Mr. President.

Is it fair to say that there's additional funding to address housing insecurity and homelessness in general?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes, Mr. President.

And included in the budget is funding for things like shelters and -- homeless shelters in New York City and in other parts of the state?

Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank the Senator for your answers. I do have some questions on commuter-rail MTA funding.

That would be Senator Comrie.

Okay. I have some questions, Mr. President, on congestion pricing.

I believe so.

That's okay, because I also have questions, Mr. President, on assistance, miscellaneous financial assistance to municipalities.

Senator Martinez, do you yield to some questions?

Senator Martinez yields.

Mr. President, through you, perhaps it would be easier if I just went through them one at a time, if it's easier for the Senator.

Mr. President, yes. If I may, we -- okay, so for Buffalo there is $55 million. For Yonkers, it's $40 million. For Rochester and Syracuse, it's $20 million, as well as for Albany. There is 2 million for Auburn and there is 10 million for Mount Vernon.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Mr. President, there is.

Senator Martins, are you on the bill or is the sponsor yielding?

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, each of the municipalities must show their deficit in order to receive this funding.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Mr. President, through you. Each municipality has to demonstrate that they have this deficiency in order to receive the funding.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, yes.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. First of all, without this funding they would not be able to pay their bills. And second of all, through this funding, it will not close the gap that they have. It is just an assistance.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I do. (Laughter.)

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Yes, they are Democratic.

Questions on the MTA would be directed to Senator Comrie. Senator Comrie, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Good to see you, Senator Martins. Thank you.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. President. Technically, zero. There's a dry appropriation in the budget that has been happening for the MTA for the last few years, but it is not drawn down because they get other monies. So what you see in the revenue budget is not reflective of what's actually happening with the MTA. The MTA is getting 4.5 billion for STOA funds this year, and that's all.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

No. That's not -- through you, Mr. President, that's not -- that's capital money that you're talking about, and most were for projects that were mostly done in Long Island. I think there are only about three stations that still need to get handicapped access. But most of that money, that $109 million, was for capital spending, not expense.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, we're just talking about this capital plan that's ending now. We're not talking about the future planning that's needed for the Long Island Rail Road and the commuter rail system. Clearly there is need for re-electrification, especially the different parts of the Long Island Rail Road, the Suffolk County pieces. That will be in the new capital plan. This capital plan is only closing out the projects that were planned for, what was it, '20 to '24? 2020 to 2024. There's a new capital plan that will be developed. I hope to talk with all of you to -- I realize the needs for Long Island especially to electrify and eliminate diesel rail in the new capital plan. As I said earlier, there are only about three stations that need to get handicapped access. We did third rail and we did the other major improvements. There's also money going into -- the Governor's pledged money to fix the hubs, the major hubs in especially the Jamaica Station, to allow for faster access for Long Islanders as well.

Senator Martins on the bill.

Medicaid and Medicaid spending? My assumption, that would be Senator Rivera. Senator Rivera, do you yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Since we are talking about the bill in front of us, we are just prepared to really answer as far as what the expenditures were increased between last year and this year, if there were changes in that. But I cannot -- I mean, if you give me five minutes and Google, I might be able to tell you. But just right here, right now, I couldn't exactly do that.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, the answer is yes.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Although I can't tell you an exact number, what I can tell you is that the numbers did go up during COVID and since then, since 2020, have gone down.

Senator Martins on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Martins. Senator Gianaris on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Gianaris. Senator Murray, why do you rise?

Senator Murray playing five-on-five. Senator Comrie, do you yield?

Senator Comrie yields.

As I said earlier to Senator Martins, this is a dry appropriation. This is just an emergency fund in case -- excuse me. Through you, Mr. President. In case we don't get a budget done and there's no appropriations, this would be an emergency fund for the MTA. It hasn't been used. It's been in the last three budgets, and it does not move forward.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, we have extenders that normally fund those agencies now.

I'm sorry. We have extenders that normally fund those agencies now. So if there is an emergency, through the extenders that have been done -- I think we've done 15 extenders so far this year. So that's how that would get done. This is just an emergency appropriation, it's a dry appropriation, which means that there's no money actually put in the budget. It only would be done through an emergency extender.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Right.

Through you, Mr. President, not -- that's not part of this budget.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. They have been living up to that promise. They have demonstrated over the past couple of years that they've been saving almost a billion dollars a year in savings. They've been working -- we've created other opportunities for them to be able to save money by the way that we've changed contracting. And so they have been meeting those goals. It's not reflected in this part of the budget, but it has been reflected in their annual report.

Senator Murray on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Murray. Senator Rhoads, why do you rise?

The Department of Health, that would likely be Senator Rivera. Senator Rivera, do you yield?

The Senator yields.

Well, it's about -- one about VAPAP funding and then about NUMC.

Okay, not a problem.

Thank you, I appreciate it. Senator Rivera -- through you, Mr. President -- I notice that the Health Department budget has an additional 500 million for distressed hospitals through the VAPAP program. Is that correct?

And will the sponsor yield to another question.

Yes.

The VAPAP program, can you explain what that does?

And will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. President. The VAPAP funding for this year, is there any particular hospitals that are designated to receive VAPAP funding as part of this budget?

Thank you. And will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

There have in prior budgets, however, been instances where specific hospitals -- and I'll draw an example for SUNY Downstate last year, which received both capital funding as well as direct assistance, I believe in excess of a billion dollars. There are situations where hospitals do receive direct funding in the budget separate and apart from an allocation of VAPAP, correct?

And will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Last year as part of the state budget the Nassau University Medical Center, which is run by Nassau Health Care Corporation, was the subject of a takeover by the state that was engineered as part of the budget, is that correct?

Senator Gianaris, the questions on NUMC, who would the appropriate member be for this?

Senator Bynoe, do you yield for questions on -- Senator Rhoads' questions on NUMC? Senator Rhoads, if you don't mind rephrasing the question so that Senator Bynoe can become acquainted.

Senator Rivera, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. First of all, we have had this conversation before, and I know that my colleague will probably not change his mind, but I have a deep aversion to the term "illegal alien." We're not talking about ETs. If we were talking about, I don't know, Romulans and Spock or what have you, then I would certainly be able to answer the question. If we're talking about undocumented people, I would say that there is a number, we do not have it with us. We did not expect this conversation that probably refers to something we call Emergency Medicaid. Since there are instances in which an undocumented person, now an undocumented person -- again, person -- who can afford on their own coverage -- very few can, but that doesn't -- it doesn't preclude the situation in which somebody has enough money to have their own private coverage -- then they would not be -- we would not be spending anything on that person. However, if there is an undocumented person who is sick and winds up in the emergency room, that person, because we believe that that person should not die because they get sick, they are treated. And in many instances what we use is something we call Emergency Medicaid, that is strictly for the instance in which that person has to go to the emergency room. We don't have the number in front of us. I can have some of the staff figure out how much it was that we spent in this last year. But again, that is a situation that happens if there is an undocumented person that has to go the hospital and get taken care of.

Senator Rivera, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Mr. President, through you, if my colleague could repeat what -- the numbers that he mentioned, to double-check.

Sure, I'll yield to a question.

Oh, sure. Approximately 750 million total. Somewhere around 550 million for Medicaid, Emergency Medicaid, and 200 million for Medicaid referred to illegal immigrants over the age of 65.

We can track the number down for you, Mr. President. It sounds accurate, but we are still looking for confirmation.

Senator Bynoe, do you yield to a question?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. It seems plausible that you're correct.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. There are funds that are available for NUMC to apply for in the event that they are continuing to be in need of assistance.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, that is a decision that the executive chamber makes based on need.

Senator Rhoads on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Rhoads. Senator Bynoe on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Bynoe. Senator Borrello.

Excuse me, gentlemen. Senator Lanza.

Thank you for the clarification. Senator Rhoads.

Senator Bynoe, will you yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President. I believe that it's inherent to the population that they serve and the reliance they are on for Medicaid reimbursement.

Senator Rhoads on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Rhoads. Senator Borrello, why do you rise?

Just look around, George, these are your colleagues. You good? Senator Borrello, why do you rise?

Senator Addabbo will be the person for that.

Sure.

All right, here we go. Through you, Mr. President, this is the Aid to Localities bill, and it shows here there's an appropriation for $306 million for the Tribal State Compact Revenue Program, which is an increase of $55 million, it looks like, or 17.3 percent. So is this the money that's going to the municipalities that benefit from the compact? Is that correct?

Okay. And so with that being said --

I'm sorry, yes. Through you, Mr. President.

Yes.

That's a pretty hefty increase. So with that being said, where are we getting this projection of such a hefty increase in revenues? (Pause.)

Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

I believe -- and I want to clarify -- that you said this is coming from the Executive. So it's the Governor that gave this revenue increase?

Yes. Yes, okay. So have we heard anything about compact negotiations? Because my contacts are saying it's kind of nowhere. How is -- oh, I'm sorry.

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

So what other -- could you tell me which tribal nations in New York State participate in this program? I'm assuming it's not just the Senecas. (Pause.)

Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

And as of right now, the other two nations have a compact that's in place, generating revenue. Has there been substantial increases in those two income streams for this program that you're aware of?

Mr. President, just a clarification. Did you say larger increases from the Senecas?

Okay. Mr. President, just a clarification, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes, Mr. President.

You did say that it's a larger increase from the Senecas, but this is information that you're getting from the Governor's office, is that correct? (Pause.)

Mr. President, on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Addabbo. I want to thank you also for what you have done to revitalize this -- you know, our subcommittee and re-engaging with the Senecas and others. So -- and I appreciate that. My concern lies with the Governor and her lack of good-faith negotiations on this compact. Because you have said that we're going to see a substantial increase, and you're saying this based on the fact that right now money has been going into essentially a fund, you know, that is being held until this compact is negotiated and finalized. There's no doubt in my mind, and certainly the Senecas' mind, that the percentage that is being paid right now from the gaming compact, the old one, which has been expired for going on three years now, the revenue is going to go down, not up. So if the Governor thinks all that money that's in that account, in that escrow account, is somehow going to magically end up in the budget, she's wrong. She's wrong because whatever amount that they agree on is going to have to retroactively be decreased. And not just because the Senecas deserve a fair compact that would include a lower percentage -- because, quite frankly, New York State has saturated the gaming market with things that are not involved in Native American gaming -- you know, sports gambling and so forth -- that have eaten away at the revenues that are benefiting the municipalities that I represent in my district and that so many others in this room represent. It's also because it's simply one of the worst deals that has been negotiated, and the Senecas I know need a fair compact, and that's what they're negotiating for. So, look, I was in local government for a long time as county executive. And, you know, these numbers are projections, right? We don't really know what the number's going to be. It's pretty easy to cook the books, if you will, and increase revenue to help balance the budget when in the end you know you're not going to actually achieve those revenues. I think that's what's happened here, quite frankly. This compact is nowhere, from what I am told, finalized. Negotiations have been going on for three years, and the Senecas very generously have agreed to these quarterly extensions where they continue to pay money into an escrow account, knowing full well that that number, that percentage, is going to decrease with whatever final number they come up with. And quite frankly, the Governor hasn't negotiated in good faith. And if I was advising the Seneca nation, I would tell them it's about time to say maybe you stop making those payments. They're apparently nicer than I am, because they continue to make those payments even though good-faith negotiations have not been in good faith. So my concern is not so much with this chamber and with the number that's in this budget, although it is a concern. It's a concern what numbers you receive from the Governor, and is she being honest with us, honest with you, honest with the Seneca Nation. And I suspect, based on the conversation we've had, that that is simply not the case. That this is revenue that, quite frankly, has been inflated from a Governor that has continued to fail to negotiate a fair compact with the Seneca Nation. So thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. I've got quick questions on the Office of Children and Family Services, Office of Aging, Department of Health, and then the Education Department, in that order.

Those are all over the place. Which one would you like to begin with?

That would be Senator Brisport.

Yes.

Through you, Mr. President. There's a $350,000 allocation in this Aid to Localities budget bill for services and expenses of Make the Road community organizing projects. What services and expenses would that allocation go toward? (Pause.)

Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Just in the light of transparency and openness, could you elaborate a little bit more on what type of community projects, just so I know what that $350,000 of taxpayer money is going towards? (Pause.)

Thank you. Mr. President, would someone yield on the Office of Aging section?

That would be Senator Cleare, Mr. President.

Yes, I do.

Through you, Mr. President, there's a $200,000 allocation in here for services and expenses of Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders, Inc., or SAGE. What services and expenses is that $200,000 going towards? (Pause.)

Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Through you, Mr. President, I do.

So is the $200,000 just kind of open for them to utilize, or is it a specific target for one of the services that you listed?

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President, would someone yield on the Department of Health section?

Senator Rivera.

Yup.

Through you, Mr. President. There's a million dollars for services and expenses for workforce development for transgender, gender nonconforming, nonbinary and intersex people within the state. Is that a new program and a new allocation of a million dollars? (Pause.)

Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Was it funded at a million dollars last year?

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

What did they spend that million dollars on last year? (Pause.)

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

And it's the Department of Health that does the distribution of that million dollars? Do they do any reporting on how they distribute it and what the oversight is for how the money is spent? (Pause.)

And through you, Mr. President, briefly on the bill. And I'm all set, thank you.

And just as you're still listening, Mr. Chair, I'd appreciate any feedback for how the money actually got spent last year and how they plan to distribute that this year. But happy to get with you offline. And if someone -- through you, Mr. President -- would yield on the Education Department section of this Aid to Localities bill.

That would be Senator Mayer.

Yes.

Through you, Mr. President, there's $28 million for services and expenses for the My Brother's Keeper initiative. What services and expenses will the $28 million that we're allocating here go towards?

Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes, I yield.

And it's the State Education Department that provides the oversight for the $28 million that we're allocating here?

Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Do they report back specifically on how that money is allocated and spent across the State of New York?

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

So that's distributed down from the State Education Department to the school districts to then allocate and contract with vendors or nonprofits?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. President, would someone yield on the local assistance appropriation section?

I believe we're back to Senator Martinez.

Yes, I do.

Through you, Mr. President, last year AIM was funded at 715 million to help offset local property taxes. That's spread over the 1500-plus municipalities that we have in the State of New York. The local assistance appropriation section in this bill increased by almost a billion dollars this year. So what can those municipalities expect that billion-dollar increase to mean for them in AIM payments?

Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill.

Yeah, there was a very large increase in the local assistance appropriation. But instead of pumping that money into AIM payments to help support municipalities that depend on these for their normal governmental functions, this body went a different direction this year: $695 million to New York City, $55 million to Buffalo, $40 million to Yonkers, $40 million to Albany, $20 million to Rochester, $20 million to Syracuse, $10 million to Mount Vernon, and 2 million to the City of Auburn. And the greatest trivia question: What do all of those cities have in common? Democrat mayors. Surprise, surprise. Your job here is not to play partisan politics with the allocation of funds in the State of New York. We have a job that supercedes that here in this body. I was told today that New York City was the wealthiest city in the world and that's why we have to tax the billionaires. Well, okay, I don't know why we're bailing out New York City instead of the struggling poor rural municipalities in New York that could use a modicum of increase, at least an inflationary increase in the lines of funding that they hope for from the State of New York. I'll be a no on this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. Thank you, Mr. President.

Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Senator Gianaris to explain his vote.

Senator Gianaris to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Serrano to explain his vote.

Senator Serrano to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Murray to explain his vote.

Senator Murray to be recorded in the negative. Senator May to explain her vote.

-- and I encourage everyone to go partake of wonderful New York cider. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I rise as chair of the Aging Committee to acknowledge some of the good in this budget bill. With this budget we have finally started to listen to providers such as nursing homes and those organizations that take care of our most vulnerable and precious older New Yorkers. We have extended the Uniform Managed Care Organization funding mechanism to do the most good, including investment in nursing homes of almost $500 million, $100 million for the Quality Incentive Vital Access Provider Pool, and up to $20 million for assisted living providers and hospices. Though we certainly can use more funding and have been advocating for such, we finally have a foothold. And I hope from here we will continue to make increasing investments in community social, medical and institutional care for our seniors. Thank you. I proudly vote aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. You know, this body has a history of helping municipalities when they do need help and there are deficits. We have a history of doing that. And it comes with a level of fiscal accountability and oversight, always. We want to make sure that we're there to help to make sure that the bills get paid, but we also want to make sure that that municipality is taking on the responsibility of making ends meet, of addressing the shortfall so we do not have a recurring need to come back to the state for funding. We have examples in the state of financial control boards that exist decades after the initial request and payment and are there even though those municipalities are doing well. And the idea, Mr. President, that somehow there are municipalities out there that can't make ends meet because they have different circumstances is absurd, absolutely absurd. Every municipality has an opportunity and a responsibility to make ends meet and to live within their means and not to be bailed out every year. So the idea that we're going to be paying tens of millions of dollars to cities so that they can be bailed out -- and I'm going to say it, Mr. President, politically, because down in Nassau County where we have surpluses year after year, and we continue to make our budget ends meet, we still have a financial control board which they have refused, the Governor has refused to remove even though we are absolutely okay. But yet we're spending 20, 30, 40, 50 million dollars, $450 million, without a single responsibility on the part of the municipality to show us that they're going to bridge that budget gap in their budget. It's wrong. I vote no.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There's a lot to appreciate in this bill, and I will be voting in the affirmative for it, including in the arts, arts community that we just heard about, as well as seniors, nursing homes, and more. But the couple of pieces that I really want to make note of today is the additional $20 million that will be invested in the City of Albany to try to stabilize their finances there. It is a city where well over half the property is tax-exempt and where the state workforce has primarily worked from home since COVID, and it has really affected the downtown parts. We have a $200 million investment. I'm very optimistic we will -- from last year, and I'm very optimistic that we will turn around the finances in Albany. The mayor is working aggressively on a plan to do that. But in the meantime we needed that investment, along with a number of other upstate cities that are feeling the effects of post-COVID and more. In addition, I could not be more pleased that we have a million-dollar investment in the Harriman State Office Campus finally for a comprehensive plan to take what is a fully state-owned complex and begin to develop that such that we will add commercial, retail and hopefully even housing into that property to get it back on the tax rolls as Albany begins to stabilize its finances. We're finally getting out of the 1960s there, and I truly appreciate the leader for hearing us on these Albany concerns, whether it's downtown or uptown. We have a billion-dollar investment coming in, just announced last week, an investment again in nanotechnology. I am optimistic we will turn this around, but we've got to make some smart investments to add to it. And with that, Mr. President, I vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in order to support the bill. But I wanted to say Aid to Municipalities -- I've been fighting verbally myself as far as making sure that New York City is never left out again as far as AIM funding for the municipalities. And if you think that just because they're getting their share that, you know, you have to give more to others, well, they get more by the wealth of New York City being as it is. And so when, you know, one administration comes by and says now is the time for us to get behind the city, that's going to hold people accountable. So with that, I continuously will push for Aid to Municipalities because they're entitled to it just like everybody else is. And so with that, I vote aye, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill is a perfect example of dysfunctional government as its worst. Tax, tax, tax, especially the wealthy that's worked hard their whole life. They earned what they earned. Yes, earned it. Bailing out cities with taxpayers' monies. New York City, 695 million in this bill. Buffalo, 55 million. Yonkers, 40 million. Albany, 40 million. Rochester, 20 million. Syracuse, 20 million. Mount Vernon, 10 million. City of Auburn, 2 million -- they are Democratic-controlled cities. Let's get back to New York City again -- 695 million on top of that. What about the 1.5 billion that Governor Hochul gave back in February? Plus in this budget, what about the different things given in other bills -- $4 billion given to Mayor Mamdani because of obviously Governor Hochul, it's an election year. What are we, buying votes? Everybody knows on both sides what's going on here. Every New Yorker needs to know what happened in this budget -- a $260 billion budget, more than Florida, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota combined. It's dysfunctional government at its worst. We lost 2.5 million residents since 2020. We have a Siena poll that says, guess what, in the next five years we're ready to lose another 6 million because -- great residents of New York State, because of budgets like this. So, Mr. President, I vote no on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. President. Their fair share -- we've heard this over and over and over tonight. Their fair share is a great philosophy, but it's certainly very subjective. Who's contributing their fair share? Who's paying their fair share? Certainly New Yorkers should be upset about where their fair share is going. MTA is certainly getting more than their fair share. With fare evasions and no effective solutions, we've got, as Senator Murray pointed out, taxes, fees, fare increases, congestion pricing. This is an authority that has certainly gotten more than their fair share for decades and has done nothing with it. The only thing they should be getting is fiscal oversight. Our veterans, where are their fair share? Dwyer fund, no increase. And other funds have been decreased. That's a shame. That's a shame for New Yorkers. And certainly they're not getting their fair share. What I'd like to know is there's almost 3 million Long Islanders, and almost nothing in this budget represents funding for Long Islanders. I vote no.

Thank you, Madam President. Let me start on a bipartisan note and say happy birthday to Senator Borrello. (Cheers; applause.)

Senator Bailey to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Lanza to explain his vote.

Senator Lanza to be recorded in the negative. Senator Borrello to explain his vote.

Senator Borrello to be recorded in the negative. Are there any other members wishing to explain their vote? Seeing and hearing none, Senator Harckham to close. We know, thank you. Senator Harckham to close.

Senator Harckham to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Senator Lanza, why do you rise?

Thank you, Senator Lanza. Upon review of the amendment, in accordance with Rule 6, Section 4B, I rule it nongermane and out of order at this time.

The appeal has been made and recognized, and Senator Borrello may be heard.

Thank you, Senator Borrello. I again want to remind the house that this vote is on the procedures of the house and the ruling of the chair. Those in favor of overruling the chair, please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")

A show of hands has been requested and so ordered. Announce the results.

The ruling of the chair stands, and the bill-in-chief is before the house. Senator Gallivan, why do you rise?

Medicaid, I believe that would be -- Senator Serrano, that's Senator Rivera? Yes. Senator Rivera, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. We have both an agency -- OMIG, which is the Office of Medicaid Inspector General -- as well as an office in the Attorney General's office that is dedicated to the -- to identifying waste, fraud and abuse. I just -- I do think it's important to kind of linger on this for a second. It is indeed -- Mr. President, through you, obviously. It is indeed an expensive program. It is an expensive program because we have so many working-class folks who without this program would not have access to any level of healthcare whatsoever. I'd ask my colleagues whether we would -- we should cut, you know, funding to their hospitals, whether we should cut funding to the nursing homes that serve their constituents. I'd really love to hear from them in that regard. But as it relates to waste, fraud and abuse, I do think that there is -- that we have agencies that certainly could work a little bit better, but we both have the Office of Medicaid Inspector General as well as offices of the -- within the Attorney General's office that investigate instances of fraud in the program.

Will the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President, no, there is not. But once again, there is the notion that there obviously must be -- there must be something amiss, there must be something virulent under the hood, there must be something that we must identify because it is impossible that we could be spending this much money to take care of people. That's got to be it. So -- but no, Mr. President, there is no -- nothing new in this budget related to oversight.

Will the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Well, first of all, it is important to remember that until we are able to pass the New York Health Act to be able to fundamentally change the way that healthcare is organized, healthcare is always going to be incredibly expensive. And it will be expensive regardless. But because we're choosing to pay for it the way that we're paying for it, we have to abide by the same market forces that impact anything else, which means inflation. Healthcare costs are more expensive every year. We have to remember that some of these numbers relate to taking care of institutions that are not just in Democratic districts, but they're in Republican districts all over the state. We're also talking about the fact that we are, in this state, trying to take care of more people than they do in other states, and in ways that other states do not. And we provide -- and we try to provide the type of quality services that make sure that people who would not be able to afford care otherwise would be able to get services to keep them healthy. For all these reasons, it is indeed an expensive proposition. And on a year-to-year basis, there are increases much like in the rest of the healthcare system, period. But I will remind us again that if we were to fundamentally reorganize the way that we pay for things, we'd actually be able to pay a lot less for healthcare. But as it relates to the way that things are working right now, those are some of the reasons why -- through you, Mr. President -- we have to spend more every year.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. It is again, indeed, cost from year to year that has seen an increase. But I'll repeat again, the cost of healthcare related -- whether it is privately financed or publicly financed, is still going up. And if we're talking about the rate of inflation, I would point to maybe the cost of care for people who have privately funded plans, who have commercial plans. It is likely that the percentages that they've had to pay on a year-to-year basis are actually more than the 7.5 percent that we're talking about here.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. No, I do not. I have not believed that it has played a purpose for a very long time, and I argue that we should do away with it every year. But to save many people many questions, I will answer one version of it right now. We're debating the budget we have in front of us, which is the best that we could get under the circumstances after negotiating for way too damn long, in my view. But as it relates to this particular issue, I've never believed in the -- I have -- if I believed in the global cap at the beginning of its creation, I certainly do not believe in it now and for years have carried a bill to do away with it. And I also suggest that we -- during our one-houses, we also try to do away with it in our suggested budget.

Senator Gallivan, are you on the bill or asking him to yield?

Senator Gallivan on the bill.

Part O is also Senator Rivera. Do you yield?

A ditto, and the sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. It wasn't necessarily a policy, it was just a discussion, a negotiation. There's always -- it is clear that every one of these -- the entities that will be impacted, whether we're talking about nursing homes or FQHCs or hospitals, each one of them was arguing that they should get a little bit more. Ultimately we had to make the decision, and this is the breakdown as it -- so it's broken down exactly as my colleague pointed it out.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. We know how this works. It's just a back-and-forth with certainly someone in the back-and-forth having more weight than the other folks involved in the conversation. But ultimately this is a negotiation. We go back and forth, we say how about this, how about this, how do you want this, how about that. So it wasn't -- you know, it's not -- I don't think that in this enormous budget, whether we're talking about this bill or any of the other bills that we have debated or will debate, it's unlikely that we might be able to say, like, this one particular thing was decided by this one person. Instead, it's just a back-and-forth, and this is just the product of that negotiation.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I certainly would. Although I believe that I would probably use less PG-rated language to refer to their condition.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you Mr. President. If I understand the question, there's a constant -- so I've been here for a long time. And I've been the chair for, I don't know, coming up on a decade, maybe. And during -- certainly during that time I've constantly argued that we need to really rethink how we do this entire thing. I don't think that we are -- that we think in long-term about how to make sure that institutions which serve the most vulnerable, and therefore are the most vulnerable, are supported. I've constantly talked about how we need to retool some of the formulas, how we need to rethink how we do this. So I certainly would not disagree with my -- if I understood my colleague correctly, I do not disagree that there certainly needs to be a rethinking of how we do this in the long term. But as it relates to this, we were lucky enough to slip right underneath the cutoff to be able to receive this money. We did not -- you know, we would not have received it unless we got that approval from the federal government. We got it right before they cut it off for everybody else. And therefore we'll have a little bit left over to -- we'll have some of this to be able to patch up some of the -- you know, some of the parts of the system that are a little bit broken.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

So through you, Mr. President, it is true that there is -- that this is a limited amount of money and that we're only going to be able to -- this particular MCO tax is one that is -- that is going to run out. We do, however -- have introduced another MCO tax that is targeted differently, therefore we still require federal approval for it but it's a different one than this and will produce at least a little bit of money. But the reality is that the cuts that are coming from the federal government which has been impacting us on a rolling basis are not done yet. And there is -- since there is this obsession with making sure that we spend less money on taking care of poor working-class people while we give more money to the wealthy so they can create jobs or whatever it is that they do, we're going to see a lot of changes to publicly financed programs that are going to continue to impact the state and are going to continue to impact working-class folks across the state up until next year. And so when we are dealing with next year in January we're going to have to navigate it, because there's going to be even less resources to be able to deal with. We hope that some of what we're doing here is making some of this money flow with some increases to some institutions so that they can kind of, I don't know, kind of build little fortresses, if you will. But yeah, no, things are going to get bad and worse and worse and worse.

Senator Gallivan on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Gallivan. Senator Borrello, why do you rise?

What part, Senator Borrello?

That is indeed allowable.

But he said one question, Mr. President, I just want to --

Excellent retort. Senator Rivera yields. Senator Borrello, you have the floor.

Through you, Mr. President, I probably need a little bit more information, because it is not as cut-and-dried -- how far was that ride, what rates are being paid to that particular nursing home, what acuity as it relates to a particular patient. So there's -- there's -- I know what you're trying to get at, but I think that your question requires a lot more details to be able to answer more accurately. Through you, Mr. President.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I'm actually not aware of this situation, so I couldn't really comment on it. But I would say that I am of the -- I absolutely agree, wholeheartedly, with the notion that government money should be used responsibly, particularly when it relates to the program that I believe saves lives, such as relates to Medicaid overall. And so therefore wasting Medicaid dollars is not something that I would ever be supportive of. It is, however, some -- and I don't necessarily think that anybody in this room today has done it, although that -- you know, we're still early. But there's a suggestion that there's something perverse about this program that obviously there must be something hidden that must be discovered. Now, if there is -- as, again, I'm not familiar with the story that my colleague mentioned. But if that story is public, it probably means that those people were caught, that whatever fraud they were perpetrating was identified, and that these folks are being held accountable. So it seems to me that if we're saying that the evidence that there is -- that there's fraud that is hidden is because we have found fraud and we have identified it and we have gotten people to be held responsible for the things that they've done, it seems to me to be a little, you know, like what are we talking about? Like we have identified it, and when we identify it, we hold those folks accountable.

Will the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I have no way of knowing that. But, you know, I do -- I will tell you there's -- you know, humans are not perfect, so certainly there's bad actors everywhere. And so certainly I think there are probably folks who we're not catching that are committing all sorts of crimes, all sorts of white-collar crimes, for example, that we are either, you know, choosing to ignore or not catching at all. So there certainly would be -- there probably are things that we're not discovering. But again, it seems that the attacks are about just insisting that there must be something perverse that we must discover, and if we are -- and if we don't and if we try to utilize -- if we don't -- if we utilize just the tools that we have so far, which in many instances have identified people who are committing crimes, have been able to hold them accountable, have been able to put them in jail, et cetera, et cetera, that unless we use -- if we use only those, then it's -- obviously we're not serious enough about finding all of the bad stuff. I would love to be able to go like that (snapping fingers) and find everybody who's doing bad things, but it is probably impossible for me to do it in any human endeavor, whether it be public use of Medicaid dollars or anything else.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

(Laughing.) Mr. President, at the risk of repeating myself, I believe that I have been one of the absolute loudest -- not just because I'm Puerto Rican -- critics of that move ever since it happened. I have never been happy with it, not when it happened, not during the transition, not now and probably not ever.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

So Mr. President, again, I'm unaware of the particular story that my colleague is referring to. But I would say that, if I'm not mistaken, what that is in reference to is a capitated plan -- capitated money that is paid into plans on a capitated basis and then having people within the population that they're supposed to cover who are deemed ineligible, and therefore there would be money in there that is being spent on folks that are not eligible because they live out of state. But I'll repeat again, if we're saying that the Comptroller found it and identified it -- and again, I'm not familiar with this particular study. But if we're saying that the Comptroller found it, identified it, and we are talking about it on the floor of the Senate, it means that we probably figured that out, that we probably identified it, and that we probably have put -- we've acted as a state to recover that money. So, you know.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Mr. President, through you. There's a big difference between the State of New York not being able to identify certain folks who we're paying money for their medical care, and the Empire Center having that information. I am again unaware -- I mean, I wish I had the Cliff Notes of all the different stories that we were going to be hit with today, and I would have studied them. But in this case I don't necessarily know this particular -- this particular request. But there is -- but the idea -- again, this is very similar and we've heard conversations like this before, it's the same thing as voter fraud. It's this notion that there obviously must be something there that's hidden that we have to uncover, because if we don't, then, you know, we'll have all this money being wasted, all this money being stolen -- and again, in this case, by poor working-class people. Again, I don't claim that any system is perfect, and I do not claim that our Medicaid system is perfect. God knows that I have many issues with it and constantly try to do everything I can to make it better. But there's these constant kind of dog-whistle suggestions that there has to be something that we have to uncover, that we have to look further, that we have to flip some more things around and maybe we'll find something. So, you know, I think that in this case I am unfamiliar with this request from the Empire Center, but -- so the Empire Center didn't get whatever names they wanted for the story that they were writing, too bad. But whether the state, which has to actually make an effort to be able to identify whether someone is eligible, and when we find that somebody is doing -- not doing that, then that -- then the people who do that should be held accountable.

Will the sponsor yield?

However, Mr. President, I will still yield.

Through you, Mr. President. The federal government right now is pursuing fraud in Medicaid. We've seen it uncovered in Minnesota to the tune -- I think it was $9 billion and counting. And now they have their sights set on New York State. And I think what they're going to find in New York State is going to be -- is going to be well and above what we've seen in Minnesota and other states. We have the opportunity to, as we discussed in the amendment, to actually, you know, have a better control over this by auditing our own system, rooting out the fraud before the federal government comes in. Do you think it would be a prudent thing for us to do, to audit the Medicaid program here in New York State and root out the fraud ourselves before the federal government does?

Mr. President, on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Rivera. Yeah, the point of my last question was if you truly believe -- and I believe you do -- that the federal government's not acting in good faith, then we should absolutely be reporting this ourselves. We should be rooting out the fraud and abuse. So that's what I'm suggesting. That's what my amendment earlier suggested, that we have an independent third-party audit. I think it's desperately needed. It's desperately needed because we have the largest Medicaid program in the country per capita, we spend more than anybody else per capita, and yet every single day I hear from nursing homes, hospitals, senior centers, people that deal with the -- people that serve some of the most vulnerable people in New York State through the Medicaid program, and they aren't getting enough. They aren't getting enough. Nursing homes lose money every single day on Medicaid patients because our reimbursement rate does not cover the cost of care. And yet we have a program that is absolutely filled with fraud. How do I know that? Because we have uncovered the fraud. But it is the tip of the iceberg that we have uncovered. Because the program itself, unfortunately, whether it was intentional or not, is designed to incubate fraud. That's the point here. Our hospitals should not be losing money because someone on Medicaid shows up at the ER. Our nursing homes should not be losing money because someone who can't afford anything but Medicaid is there because they have to be cared for. And this program that we have has millions of people -- quote, unquote, people, because we don't really know if they actually exist -- that are not qualified and yet are still a drain on the system. That's why we need an audit. That's why we need accountability. That's why we need to hold those accountable -- not just for the fraud, but the waste. The CDPAP program that you and I both agree is not good. The reimbursement rates that you and I both agree are not enough. We have the means within our own state to fix that, to right the ship. We could audit this program. We could root out the fraud. And we could take that money, probably reduce the total expense, and still give those people that deal with our most vulnerable citizens -- developmental disabilities, senior citizens -- give those people the money that they need to care properly, to stay in business. Just this year alone I've had two nursing homes close in my district, just this year. More to come. They can't stay open. Hospitals that are closing, hemorrhaging -- not bleeding money, hemorrhaging money. And yet we refuse to hold those folks in charge accountable for where the money is being spent and how it's being spent. We refuse to open our eyes to where the problems really are. You can't hate the federal government that much to want to do this to our own people, to our senior citizens, to the people with developmental disabilities. You can't hate the system enough to justify what you're doing. I can't think of one single thing right now that would justify not wanting to audit something that is almost 50 percent of our budget. I'm going to repeat those numbers: $125 billion, with a B, of a $268 billion budget. That's what Medicaid is costing us. If anything in your household income, your personal household income was eating up half of the money you made and you weren't sure where that money was going, would you just say, Ah, it's fine, I'm sure we'll figure it out at some point? No, of course not. You'd want to know why. This is a cancer that is growing within our budget, a financial cancer. It's growing bigger and bigger and more malignant, and we're not doing a thing to treat the cancer. So you can hate what the federal government is doing, but at the end of the day it's the only treatment that cancer is getting. And since we can't do that here, they may have to do it for us. And you probably aren't going to like the results. So I'll be voting no on this. Thank you, Mr. President.

Yes, on the bill, just quickly. Through you, Mr. President. So we talk about news stories that they don't tell us they were coming. A news story they didn't know was coming -- headline (reading): Trump administration admits a glaring error in its accusation about New York healthcare fraud. Oz -- and I skimmed a couple of paragraphs down -- Oz claimed that this would be -- Mehmet Oz, the -- that dude over there in Washington, D.C., Dr. Oz, you know him, "claimed that New York's Medicaid program last year provided some 5 million people with personal care services, which assist people in need with basic activities like bathing, grooming, and meal preparation. That would add up to nearly three-fourths of the state's 6.8 million Medicaid enrollees." "But the real number of New Yorkers who used those services last year was about 450,000, or between 6 and 7 percent of total enrollees, CMS spokesman Chris Krepich told the Associated Press this week in the agency's first public acknowledgment of the error. He said the agency misidentified New York's approach to applying billing codes and had since refined its methodology." Just one example, Mr. President. I do not take the federal government's efforts. I don't think they're in good faith. I will not respond to the federal government's efforts except in trying to make the program better, to strengthen it -- but not at the cost of the people who we're supposed to serve.

Thank you, Mr. President. If the sponsor will yield for a few questions on rural healthcare.

Through you, Mr. President, I thank my colleague for making clear that she would ask a few questions and not just one. (Laughter.)

Thank you. Through you, Mr. President. Senator Rivera, I have to say I do believe that there is something amiss, that it's been found but it hasn't been corrected. And that's what's driving my questions on the budget bill before us. The first issue is the State Comptroller has documented that there are significant healthcare shortages in rural communities. And I'd like to know what in this bill is specifically intended to help us recruit and retain healthcare professionals, doctors and nurses, in our rural communities. (Pause.)

Through you, Mr. President, on the bill quickly.

I am so freaking disappointed in that answer. I have been asking about the Rural Healthcare Transformation funding, which is not part of this bill, for weeks now as we do these extenders. And that does not address hiring or staffing at all, has nothing to do with that. And I have sat next to Senator Rivera and asked the commissioner of the Department of Health during our budget hearings over and over again, what specifically are we doing to address the workforce shortages identified by the Comptroller in our rural healthcare hospitals, nursing homes, and everything else? And there's never a specific answer. So through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield for a question.

I will. And I also -- but before I do, I will have to both say that --

I will yield.

Through you, Mr. President. Senator Rivera, another one you and I have discussed. The Rural Ambulance Services Task Force identified serious challenges facing EMS systems. What recommendations of that task force are advanced in this legislation? (Pause.)

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.

Yes.

Senator Rivera, another one that we've gone back and forth on. The Comptroller did an audit of the Suicide Prevention Task Force and found that there are so many components that remain unfinished. And that report identified the unique challenges in our rural communities. Which of those recommendations are included in this budget bill?

Through you, Mr. President. On the bill quickly.

I appreciate Senator Rivera's comment that I should introduce legislation, because I carry legislation, the Rural Suicide Prevention Bill, that gets passed every year but this year so far in this body, it gets passed through the Assembly, it's moving right now through the Assembly. And every single year that it's been passed by both houses, guess what happens?

Right, the Governor vetoes it. But hopefully the Majority will bring that bill through and we'll try again. I'll continue on the bill. I have so many more questions I could ask about rural healthcare and what that budget does to really address the issues that have been identified and discussed for years, but I know what the answer's going to be because I studied the bill. The State Comptroller documented healthcare workforce shortages in rural communities across our state. This body created the Rural Ambulance Task Force to identify challenges facing ambulance and EMS services, and they provided recommendations. And Senator Rivera and I, we waited years for those recommendations to get released by the Department of Health. And it's disappointing that when they finally were, nothing happened with them. The state, as I said, created a Suicide Prevention Task Force and yet as the Comptroller pointed out, recommendations remain unfinished. And we hear every year during the budget testimony, and throughout the year, from rural healthcare providers that repeatedly share their concerns. So I asked questions today, as I did during the budget hearings for the past several years: Where in this budget is the plan to recruit and retain the healthcare workforce that rural communities need? Where in this budget is the strategy to strengthen rural EMS and ambulance services? Where in this budget does the Governor and the Majority advance meaningful recommendations on rural suicide prevention? You heard the answers. It's just not there. What I do see is rural communities continuing to lose access to care. Just recently I learned that the Department of Health is reviewing yet another request to close a birthing center in upstate New York. So we know that means, for expectant mothers and families between Oswego and Rochester, they're going to have to travel an hour and 30 minutes, 50 minutes, to get care, that's not just acceptable. I've heard comments today, I've heard someone say we have an obligation to protect New Yorkers, that we should always have a hand behind us to pull someone up alongside us. Well, that's exactly what I'm asking this body to do again. Quit ignoring the data. Quit ignoring the reports and the recommendations. Quit pointing the finger at the federal government -- because many of these recommendations came under a different president, and still no action was taken by this body. Don't ignore the needs of people living outside of big cities. I heard something today that was crazy that said that people living outside big cities don't care about other people, almost like we deserve what we're getting. That is so untrue. Mr. President, it's time to take care of the people living in rural communities, make sure that they have access to healthcare. I vote no.

Thank you, Mr. President. Would the Senator from the 33rd Senate District yield for some questions?

I yield to the ominous request, Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. President. There's a proposal that was included in the one-house budget resolution, 340B, Prescription Drug Anti-Discrimination Act. I know that sits on the third reading of the calendar in this house; it's stuck in committee in the Assembly. But some were hoping, including me, that that would be included in the final budget here. Certainly my Federally Qualified Health Centers would very much appreciate that. Was that included in this final bill?

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Is there a reason, or are we hopeful? Anything that you can give from feedback from third-party negotiations about any sunlight?

Sorry to hear that. Mr. President, briefly on the bill, and then I'd ask you to come back in a moment.

Thank you, Mr. President. In February, two guys from Queens were caught bribing seniors with cash, that's how that worked, to use an adult daycare to bilk taxpayers for $120 million through Medicare and Medicaid. And in January, two people from Brooklyn pled guilty for bribing patients and billing Medicaid for services that they never provided in the Happy Family Social Adult Daycare and the Responsible Care Staffing, Inc. They stole $68 million from taxpayers. And I think when you're stealing that much money, you're going to get the attention from the Department of Justice. And that's exactly what happened. And I hope everyone gets justice in this case. Last year the State Comptroller said we taxpayers paid $1.2 billion in managed care premiums to people who didn't even live in New York. The state, federal and local share of Medicaid is now $125 billion dollars, all in, in New York State. And with that, Mr. President, I would ask the sponsor to yield.

Yup.

So with -- through you, Mr. President, with $125 billion all in, what is the state share of that? (Pause.)

What was that again?

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Why are we 24 percent higher than the next highest state per capita in Medicaid spending and 77 percent higher than the rest of the nation?

Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Yeah, that's a -- that's a per-capita spending percentage that I gave. So you would think in a more populous state, with more condensed areas and services closer together, that we would actually be under the average. I think the next state -- which we're still 24 percent higher than -- is Kentucky, which has a spread-out healthcare system. So the question, is it all of the additional programs and services that New York State has added on that are Medicaid-eligible? Is that what accounts for us being 77 percent higher than the national average?

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Do you view being 77 percent higher than the national average in per-capita spending on Medicaid as a problem?

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

And indeed I do wish it was managed a little bit more responsibly, and we will get to that. What does this proposal do to ensure that the Department of Health is only giving this benefit to eligible New Yorkers?

And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Yeah, you mentioned the Office of Medicaid Inspector General. They're in charge of investigating, obviously, as the title suggests. How much money are we increasing their funding by in this budget for them to do more work investigating fraud within our Medicaid system?

Through you, Mr. President. There was an increase. I'm sure that you have further questions. When I have the exact number that the increase was, I will give it to you. But there was an increase from year to year, we're trying to figure out exactly how much it was. But you can -- I will yield for the next question if there's a follow-up.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

First of all, through you, Mr. President, they are obviously -- even before this particular president, there's obviously a lot of processes that we have to follow with the federal government. We are using federal money, so obviously there's a lot of built-in ways in which we have to consistently be able to prove to the federal government that we're utilizing money for the things that only they have provided -- only for the things that they have provided us authority to go over. But I will refer to my comments a little earlier. We're talking about extended powers through agencies that I do not believe are acting in good faith. No, I don't necessarily believe we should be, quote, unquote, opening the books. I certainly do believe that we should -- as we have always, to the best of my knowledge -- abide by the federal laws that already exist and that we already have to abide by, to make certain that -- to demonstrate to the federal government that we're only using dollars that are -- that we're only using federal dollars for things that they have approved, and to people who are eligible for those services. That, we shall absolutely continue to do. But in reference to what I said earlier, the expanded efforts, so to speak, of the federal government I do not believe are in good faith, and instead I believe that it's clearly demonstrated that they are meant to criminalize, if you will, or to punish the enemies of the person that currently resides in the White House.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Mr. President, through you. Again, I think there was a -- I believe that my colleague just used a number of 120 billion. I'm not sure if that was accurate, first.

But as I referred to earlier, I am not familiar with this particular story. And I will repeat again, no, these -- I will repeat again, these folks were -- the actions that they took I am not defending nor will I ever defend. I do not want any money to be spent on things that are not supposed to be spent for, particularly when we're talking about taxpayer dollars. These folks were -- if there's a story in the news, it means that they were identified, that their crimes were found, and that indeed -- (to staff) oh, my goodness, this handwriting -- this handwriting is almost as bad as mine. Almost. Mine is worse. Anyway, so I don't -- I don't believe that these particular people that we're talking about, the particular people that we're talking about in that story fit what I'm talking about. What I am referring to is the way that the federal government has used agencies at the national level to punish the states that they have seen as enemies of the current administration. Now, this is not -- I believe that this is clear that this is what they have been doing in this. And so -- but I don't know in particular the story of these two people, whether they stole 1 million, 2 million, or whatever it was. I am unfamiliar with that particular story.

Senator Walczyk on the bill.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, obviously these people should be held accountable for what they did. There was nothing that I said that had anything to do with those two individuals. The argument that I'm making here is that there is a broader conversation that is occurring. It is not about this one act or these two people. Certainly, again, if somebody's caught with their hand in the cookie jar, chop off the hand. Well, not literally, but you know what I mean. People should be held accountable for what they do. So I'm not defending these folks. I'm not defending what they did, and I certainly believe that they should be held to account and that they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The argument, however, it is about inching towards -- the type of things that we're talking about is a broad-based like dropping in of a federal agency that it would not be in good faith. It is about taking public programs that are serving mostly poor working people of color across the state and across the country, and making it seem like those things are wastes of money. This has been the case forever. It's the reason why we've had -- like if we're talking about welfare, we're talking about food stamps, there is always a demonization that exists. So those two people, they can go away. I have no problem with them being arrested, being prosecuted. They should talk about all the other folks that were involved in their fraudulent scheme. And I do not defend fraudulent schemes. But we're talking about the broader -- the broader issue that I'm making, because the argument that one of the colleagues -- that one of my colleagues -- that one of our colleagues, Mr. President, made earlier was that we should in advance audit because we should open the books to the feds, et cetera, et cetera. I do not believe that those efforts would be in good faith. If you have an attorney, the district attorney of the Southern District or the Eastern District finding folks like this, great. Let's find them, let's prosecute them, let's get them all out of the system. I don't want a single one of them there. But it is about the broader issue, and the broader issue is that -- I repeat once again, I do not believe that the federal government is acting in good faith when it is going after a state's programs in its entirety. We're talking about bad actors in them, fry them. But not the program as a whole. And there's a demonization that exists when this type of thing happens that makes these programs -- that makes the federal government go, like, we shouldn't fund these programs at all. That's what they do.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, thank you for pinging me on that. The answer is yes. It is a total of 71 million. That was an increase on year to year of $12 million.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. No, I was not.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I have no way of knowing that. What I would suggest to our colleague is that next year when we're talking to the OMIG Inspector General, or even before that, that there should be questions specifically asked of them as well as the MFCU -- see, I got it this time -- the folks who work those offices. I am not a prosecutor. I am not an investigator. I cannot tell you whether I think that there's more or less. What I can tell you is that I will admit, again, that any government program obviously has bad actors. But I will say once again, the fact that we know about some of these things means that we are doing at least a good job of identifying some of it. Is there more? There likely is. But I am not an investigator, I am not a prosecutor, so I couldn't be -- I wouldn't be able to tell you.

Senator Walczyk on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Walczyk. Senator Stec, why do you rise?

Senator Rivera, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. As I've stated more than a few times already, nothing new that is not about supporting the institutions that already exist to identify this sort of fraud.

Will the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Through you, Mr. President. God bless Bill Hammond. Love the brother. God bless Bill Hammond.

I love the brother from the Empire Center. I respect him. I have deep disagreements with the gentleman, but I do think that there is -- I don't necessarily think that his -- that his numbers are accurate, necessarily. And so I don't know for a fact that there are 3 million people who were not eligible who are receiving services, who aren't eligible for them. The state has an obligation to make sure that the services that are being provided are being provided to folks who are eligible for them. Are there folks who are receiving them who are not eligible? Probably. And we should find them and we should make sure that if they're not eligible for something that they don't receive it. And if somebody has made some sort of rigmarole arrangement to make sure that services go to somebody that should not receive them, that person should be held accountable. But I don't necessarily think that just because the Empire Center report put out something that says that 3 million people who are ineligible are still receiving services, I don't necessarily think that that's accurate.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

The state taxpayer is not doling out money to just anybody. It's -- there are -- are there folks who are -- there are always bad actors in every shape -- there's no -- humanity is not perfect. There's always going to be knuckleheads everywhere. So there's always going to be somebody who's going to try to take advantage of it. So obviously there are folks who are not eligible for something and know they're not eligible and are still receiving the services. Do I know how many there are? No. But consider this. If we're talking -- if we take his number at face value, that means like half the program -- it's like -- we have like just over 6 million people, I think. So it would be like half the program. So really, half the program? Are we saying that we're so inept -- and listen, I have many issues with the Department of Health and with the Medicaid -- with our Office of Medicaid. But half the program? I mean, if you -- if you believe that, that's great. I don't think that there's enough evidence to be able to say that. And certainly -- and I don't believe that that -- if that was the case, then obviously the next logical step would be like, well, you have to blow the whole thing up. And this is what is a problem for me. Because ultimately, as we said before, this is a program that is necessary for people around the state. And not just in my district, but around the state -- in rural districts, upstate New York, you know, Western New York, Southern Tier, everywhere. There's people who need it all over the place. So I do not want to blow it up. Do I want to make it better? Yes. But just to answer just your question, is there anything in this budget, no. Not a thing extra.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

You did mention in your soliloquy that -- you used the word "inept," is the State of New York that inept where we've got this kind of tens of billions of dollars and millions of people. It is May 27th, and here we are working on a budget, Chairman. So maybe, maybe we need to expand our imagination a little bit. But to ask my question. So in 2021, the year that I joined this body, there were 7.2 million New Yorkers enrolled in Medicaid and the state share was $22.8 billion. This year, there's 6.5 million people enrolled in Medicaid. And you just provided Senator Walczyk the number, the state share is 43.6 billion. So in 2021 we went from 22.8 billion to just about double, 43.6 billion state share, yet we shaved 700,000 people, from 7.2 million to 6.5 million participating. Then I did the math. The cost, the state cost per person in 2021 was $3,166, and in 2026 it's $6,707. The per-person spending on our Medicaid program in the six years that I've been in this chamber has more than doubled. How is that possible? (Pause.)

Thank you. Mr. President, on the bill.

I will spare my friend and colleague further pressing the issue. I think I got the information I needed from the chairman, and I appreciate that. But there are lots of reports -- the Comptroller, a statewide elected official, his office. The Empire Center, we talked about that. And some very simple math that shows billions, maybe up to $20 billion a year is being wasted or inappropriately spent on Medicaid. Medicaid, at 30-something billion dollars, that's about a sixth of the state's budget. So it's a big chunk of our spending. In fact, two of the biggest chunks of state affordability problems are Medicaid and the money that we are inefficiently or perhaps inappropriately spending on Medicaid that we're talking about tonight, and energy costs, which we've been talking about. And when any of us, myself in particular, have asked why New York is an outlier -- Medicaid per person, we are 77 percent above the national average. Energy electric rates, we are 70 percent above the national average -- the answer we always seem to get back is the world economy, the war, inflation, the current occupant of the White House. It's never state policies. And this is a nonsensical answer. If New York State's energy rates are 77 percent above the national average and our per Medicaid spending is 70 percent above the national average, it's time for New York State to look in the mirror. Because 49 other states and the weighted national average have managed to be doing it for about half of what our energy costs and half what we spend per person on Medicaid. We've almost doubled the per-person Medicaid rate in the six years that I've been here. Now, is it because I don't want people to be covered? No. But I want to make sure that the people that deserve to be covered are being covered. If there's tens of billions of dollars floating around because we're paying them out to people that aren't income-eligible, then you either need to change those eligibility requirements or we need to start tightening down the ship. But we are wasting money. And the people that are supposed to benefit from our energies here are not. The pie is only so big. Thank God Albany can't print money. But there's a Siena poll that is saying that one in three New Yorkers say they're going to leave the state -- regardless of whether or not the Knicks are the national champions, Mr. President -- because they can't afford to live here. One in three are saying they're going to leave in the next five years. And what can we do about it? We can do something more than a $150 rebate check on our energy bills, like we just passed an hour ago, and we could certainly do more than ignore, turn a blind eye to "I don't think it's 3 million people, it might be less than 3 million people." If it's 250,000 people, that's way too many. We need to do better in the Medicaid department. We are wasting money. And every measure, when you compare us to the national average, is telling us that. And the go-to answer can't be, I don't like the guy in the White House, let's blame him. It's easy and lazy politics, but it's dishonest. And the bottom line is, it doesn't fix the math and it doesn't fix what's happening. We are spending New Yorkers into a move in a U-Haul. I'll be voting against this budget bill.

Senator Stec has summed up the answer perfectly. And I will go so far as to answer the chairman's question from previously. Yes, if you look at the numbers, clearly we are inept at managing this problem. The numbers speak for themselves. The highest per-capita spending on Medicaid. We spend more by far than every other state -- $6,000 per capita. You may disagree with the Empire Center's number, but the notion that you could potentially have 3 million more enrollees in Medicaid than are financially eligible for it, and you're questioning the methodology from the Empire Center -- shouldn't we actually be taking a look at that? What are we doing to investigate fraud? And this is about making sure that the people who need the services have access to those services. Look at what it's doing to our budget: $120 billion of a $270 billion budget is on Medicaid. Forty-four percent of the state's entire population is on Medicaid. We had a conversation about taxes earlier, and property taxes were brought up. Do you realize that the entire budget for -- the entire amount of property tax that is charged by our counties goes to cover Medicaid? The entire amount of property tax attributable to our counties goes to cover their share of Medicaid expenses. We have a tremendous problem here. And when you look at the budget, we are doing absolutely nothing to save the problem -- to solve the problem and to investigate. And so the question becomes, while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep pointing to Washington and saying Washington's acting in bad faith, when Washington is footing a substantial portion of this bill, I'm sure they would make the argument that we're not acting in good faith. What are we doing to solve the problem? Medicaid expenses, 79 percent more than the national average. Every other state seems to have this under control. New York, for some reason, doesn't. 57.8 percent higher, our overall healthcare costs, public and private, higher than the national average. That's a problem that we need to be looking at, and this budget does nothing, nothing to address that problem. Why haven't we done a forensic audit? Any idea? Because that would seem to be the solution. Yet when this side of the aisle proposes it, we hear crickets on the other side and no one's interested in pursuing it. With that, Mr. President, I would ask if the sponsor would yield to some questions on the three-year HCRA extension.

Knowing full well that the food in the back is getting colder and colder, I will.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. President. Now, the Health Care Reform Act is New York's healthcare financing structure that raises billions of dollars through insurers assessments and healthcare surcharges, covered lives assessments, and other industry taxes and fees, and those revenues are used to support Medicaid hospital funding pools, graduate medical education, public healthcare programs, and other health spending priorities. And in this piece of legislation, if I'm correct in my understanding, we're going to be extending those taxes that are making healthcare more expensive. So my question for you, after that lengthy lead-up -- through you, Mr. President -- is can the Majority explain how extending HCRA for another three years does anything other than lock in higher healthcare costs and insurance premiums for working New Yorkers?

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Couldn't those priorities be funded through other mechanisms if we rooted out the fraud in the system?

I think that was a yes. I'm not a hundred percent sure. But will the sponsor yield to another question?

I will yield for another semi-soliloquy, yes, sir, I will.

First off, the dude in the White House is the president of the United States. Secondly, does the sponsor deny -- through you, Mr. President -- that if the HCRA assessments and surcharges -- you would agree that they're ultimately passed on to the consumers, right? (Pause.)

Senator Rhoads?

I would agree that certain -- that actors in a capitalist system will certainly try to maximize their earnings and their profit. And that if that means castigating the customer, as opposed to trying to serve them, certainly that probably has occurred and will continue to occur, yes.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, if I may ask my colleague to yield to get a clarification on that question.

Sure.

Sure.

I've got to fill out my scorecard here. Yeah, yeah.

Mr. President, through you, to make sure that I understand what my colleague is asking. So he says there's -- again, bringing in things that we didn't necessarily know we were going to have to -- we're getting tested on things that we weren't necessarily told to study. I am not familiar with this particular report that my colleague was speaking about. But this thousand dollars that he was referring to, is that a thousand dollars that's being charged to customers through which -- are we talking about insurance companies charging a thousand dollars extra? Is that -- through you, Mr. President, is that what that thousand dollars refers to?

Thank you. Through you, Mr. President. I have said it many times before. Insurance companies are my favorite. They're my favorite because this is what they do. I certainly agree that the way that the current system is organized, this is what is going to -- bound to happen. And I've said the story before of the frog and the scorpion, Mr. President. A frog is on the side of the road with a scorpion, and the scorpion says, "Hey, I need to get to the other side of the road" -- he doesn't know how to swim. The frog says, "I'm not going to do that, because if I do, you're going to sting me." And the scorpion says, "I don't know how to swim. If I sting you, we're both going to die." And the frog thinks about it for a second and says, "You know what, yeah, get on my back." So he goes, swims, and in the middle of the lake, the scorpion bites him. And as he's going down, he's going like, "Why did you do that?" And the scorpion just says, "Because it's my nature." The insurance companies are the scorpion, Mr. President. They're obviously going to charge the customer more. I would argue that we need to do away with the entire system and not have to charge them anything because they shouldn't be necessary, which is where the New York Health Act comes in. If we redesign the way that the entire system is structured and we take the profit motive out of it, then certainly that wouldn't happen. Insurance companies wouldn't charge people a thousand dollars more or $2,000 more or take your doctor out of the -- out of their network for no reason whatsoever, or decide that you should not be covered for X or Y, even though your doctor thinks you should be -- you should be covered for it or that you should need it to be healthy, et cetera. So yes, Mr. President, it is true that these wonderful, wonderful companies are going to indeed do that to customers. I would hope that we could get my colleague to join me in trying to do away with the entire system so that's no longer necessary.

Briefly on the bill.

So I guess the solution that's being offered here is to actually put everyone on the same fraud-riddled Medicaid system that we actually have in the State of New York now that encompasses 40 percent of the state's entire budget, just for 44 percent of the people in the State of New York. If now all of a sudden everyone was on that, imagine, imagine the size of the state budget. But my question for the Senator, if he will yield --

If he's ready for another soliloquy, yes, I am.

It's that the HCRA was originally enacted as a temporary increase in the 1990s that's been repeatedly renewed and, as you've conceded, has now effectively become a permanent financial mechanism within New York's healthcare system. If it was initially presented as a temporary financing mechanism decades ago, at what point is the Majority going to admit that these temporary healthcare surcharges, taxes, have effectively become permanent? What's the point of extending this for simply another three years, only three years from now to extend it again? (Pause.)

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

I think part of the issue here is that I feel like we must be on the North Pole in summertime. The sun never sets. That's part of the problem. And if HCRA is working so well, why does New York remain one of the most expensive health insurance markets in the country, the fifth-highest in the nation?

Thank you, Senator. On the bill.

I think part of the issue is that while you complain about -- and no one has love for health insurance companies. But while we complain about health insurance companies, when we look at things like the HCRA, the real issue is that Albany has become dependent on opaque healthcare financing mechanisms, because openly presenting the true cost of the system would be politically unpopular. The reality is that healthcare in New York is 57.8 percent more expensive than the national average. And part of that, I believe, is because a recognition of -- that the Majority fails to recognize the fact that when you're talking about private companies, these private companies act in their own self-interest. So if you put a big tax on a company, whether it's a gasoline tax, whether it's a tax on utilities, or whether it's a big tax like HCRA, which is adding a thousand dollars a year to the cost of a health insurance premium, that cost is going to be passed along to the consumer. And because you decided -- not you personally, but you the general majority decided that we're going to create this funding mechanism rather than finding room in the budget to pay for all of the ancillary programs that were mentioned in the answer to the first question, now we're stuck with this system, which is driving up the cost of healthcare premiums, pulling $6.6 billion out of the pockets of New Yorkers who are paying those healthcare premiums, and making things less affordable. And that seems to be the theme today. Because whether we are talking about utility rates, whether we are talking about the expense of a gallon of gasoline, we -- or we're talking about healthcare premiums, we are putting tax upon tax upon tax upon tax, and then we lament the fact that people are complaining about the fact that they don't have enough money to be able to afford gasoline or healthcare premiums or their utility rates. And the solution seems to be, from the other side of the aisle, to point the finger at Washington. But when we're talking about premiums being almost 60 percent higher than the national average, that finger that we're pointing at Washington has three fingers pointing back at us. Because that means we're not managing our budget correctly. So, Mr. President, I know this isn't an explanation of vote, but I will certainly be voting against this piece of legislation and asking my colleagues to do the same. But more importantly, I'm asking my colleagues to look at reality and recognize the fact that the very things that we are doing in this chamber are making it less affordable for the residents of the State of New York to stay here. And when you see the exodus of people and see the exodus of businesses and see the stats that my colleague Senator Stec mentioned that 33 percent of New Yorkers are talking about leaving the state -- another almost 7 million New Yorkers are going to follow the 1 million that have left, in the very near future. If that statistic is accurate, that should be a wake-up call to all of us. And so again, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I know we're trying to fill temporary stopgaps, and this three-year HCRA extension is one of them, but it's time for us, one, to be serious about rooting out fraud in the system, but it's also time for us to be serious about understanding how the world works, understanding economics, understanding business, and understanding the fact that the more we put taxes on products, goods and services, the more it drives up cost. And if the issue is affordability, that's at the heart of it. Thank you, Mr. President.

That's a long time. Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.

Yes.

How long did you say, Mr. President, 11 minutes?

Through you, Mr. President. I will answer while one of my of colleagues does a transformation. All of a sudden you will see -- through you, Madam President -- I'm not sure who's next. As you will see -- through you, Madam President -- all of a sudden I will be replaced by somebody far more stylish and more athletic. So through you, Madam President, I believe that I will cede the floor to my colleague who was elsewhere in the room, but now is over there.

Happy to yield.

(Inaudible.)

Senator Bailey, will you yield? Yes, the Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President, it depends on the type of insurance, Medicaid -- the breakout is different. And so you have Medicaid, you have the New York State Health Insurance plan, and you have other commercial plans, right? So it depends on the type of plan that the doctor is enrolled in -- excuse me, that the patient is enrolled in and the doctor is providing care in. Through you, Madam President.

Yes.

So let's walk, if you would, through that. As of Section 1, when would a doctor be able to -- until when can a doctor continue to seek IDR to get reimbursement for services provided? (Pause.)

Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

I yield.

I understand. But what would happen to those claims that are pending when this legislation -- or if this legislation becomes law? What would happen to those claims that are pending, either that are already in the pipeline -- there's a significant backlog, as I'm sure the Senator knows, with regard to claims that are pending. But if those are pending, do they continue to be serviced under IDR until the legislation is passed? (Pause.)

Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

And I'm sure you can understand the concern that healthcare professionals have, and appreciate the fact -- I think we all appreciate the fact that this isn't going to impact patients. Treatment has already been provided. Hopefully they're well. These are the healthcare professionals who provided the treatment who merely want to be reimbursed. And they provided treatment under a certain understanding that they would have access to this dispute resolution mechanism in the event that they were not paid. Many of these providers are out hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, for treatment they've already provided. And so changing the rules of the game midstream, I would suggest, is probably a significant concern. And I would suggest, you know, as we sit here and discuss this, rather than leaving it for DFS, that we understand that if they played by the rules -- you know, if they -- if they create a three point line, they don't go back and reevaluate where somebody shot from to determine whether or not they got those three points and reevaluate who won or lost the game. These are the rules that they fell under when they actually provided the services. And I would hope you would agree that it would make sense that we would continue to provide, through the enactment, because it does take place or does go into effect immediately, correct?

Thank you, Senator. Madam President, through you, if the sponsor would yield for a few more questions.

Did that clock accelerate, Madam President?

I thought I -- I'm pretty sure I had a few more, but I'll try and wrap it up in two minutes.

Yes, he yields.

So Sections 2 through 6 would go into effect, as the Senator said, in 90 days. And what I would expect is there's going to be a natural adjustment period to something that has been there. I do believe, as it relates to this, though, for NYSHIP it does have a sunset so we can evaluate it after five years to determine whether this is efficient or not efficient. There is a sunset in this program that would expire, so to speak, in five years.

Senator Martins, I was wrong, you have another minute.

Senator Martins on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Martins. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell. Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Thank you, Madam President. I'm standing to explain my vote on the HMH. This budget bill makes meaningful strides in several important areas. It advances our response to problem gambling, strengthens care for seniors, and supports families navigating developmental disabilities. These are important investments, and they deserve to be recognized. There is, however, one area where I believe we must continue the work, and that is with substance use disorders. New York has seen progress in reducing overdose because -- because we have been willing to treat substance use as a public health issue. We have invested in prevention, treatment, recovery and harm reduction. We have moved the conversation away from punishment towards evidence-based care. That progress did not happen by accident. It happened because New York chose to act. Now is not the time to step back and claim victory, but to continue investing in proven interventions. The Governor has been clear about the need to respond to new substances emerging in the illicit drug supply. On May 21st the Governor stated, "We will continue to focus on removing health disparities and responding to new substances that are emerging in the illicit drug supply." I agree with that goal, and we should build on it. So the question now is, how do we continue that process? How do we respond to emerging substances in the illicit drug market without a comprehensive statewide public health surveillance program dedicated to that work? How do we address the ongoing crisis of alcoholism without dedicated funding for alcoholism treatment? I am grateful that this budget includes a 2.7 percent targeted inflationary increase for service providers. Stabilizing the workforce is a necessary step. Expanding coverage for school-based health centers is a necessary step. Expanding treatment for gambling addiction is a necessary step. But affordable substance use disorder treatment is also a necessary step. Stable funding for the providers doing this work is a necessary step. A statewide public health surveillance program that allows us to monitor the evolving drug supply in realtime is also a necessary step. While this budget moves us forward in many ways, I believe we must continue pushing to make sure substance use disorder services receive the attention, stability and investment this crisis demands. That is not criticism of the progress that we made; it is a recognition that the work is not finished. As chair of the Committee on Alcoholism and Substance Use Disorder, I look forward to continuing this work with the Governor and our Majority Leader and our colleagues here as well as the providers, advocates and communities across the state, because --

(Speeding up even more.) I'm going to vote aye because if we're serious about saving lives, we must keep building on the progress that New York has made. Thank you. (Laughter.)

Two hours went by fast. I didn't get a chance to ask Senator Rivera to yield, so I'm going to explain my vote. And I was going to talk to you about the things we agree upon on this side, because I heard you agree with some of the things we were saying over here, and one of the things we don't agree with you on that maybe I can bring you over to our side a little bit. First of all, it's a big program but it's an important program. It's helps a lot of people with their health. It's 40 percent of the budget. We agree with that. We agree with you, Senator, that there is some fraud. We talked about 1.5 and instances that have been in the media. The Comptroller says out-of-state individuals are getting Medicaid money and care. And I think you agree, there is some fraud. And then you went on to say, but look, it's working. The oversights we have are working. The things we're doing are working because we're catching them, we're finding out about that $1.5 billion, or the billions that are being from people outside of New York State, so it's working. And then you said some things about being sinister, which that's what I disagree with you on. Because we were asking for more oversight, for more innovative things to be done. Because here's the point. If it's $1.5 billion of fraud or if it's $3 billion of fraud or if it's $7 billion, it's 10 -- I think you and I agree, the higher that fraud gets, the more money that's being taken away from those who need it, but the more difficult it is to recoup that money and bring it back. If we put more innovative oversight in place and make that 1.5 let's say half a billion dollars, am I happy with half a billion? We agree upon that: We're not happy with any fraud. And I think you're not happy with any fraud. But more oversights are not sinister, they're letting us catch these individuals without taking away the ability to get service -- I'm talking about innovative programs. Why would you want us to think we were sinister just saying we want to get it down to $1? Probably not going to happen --

I'd like to close by just saying something very quickly. Saying it's always been done that way can always be a disaster.

This has always been done that way; we can do it better.

I'm going to vote no on the bill because of that.

Thank you, Madam President. We're looking at a staggering monetary figure here, more than any other state, a 9.8 percent year over year state share of spending increase. Office of State Comptroller audits, Inspector General investigations, new stories that occur. And if the objective is to really take care of the institutions and the people that you want to ensure that we are serving, then I think we want to also ensure that they're getting the resources and the services necessary. And if you can see that we've actually demonstrated that there are problems in the program relative to waste and fraud, then I don't understand how you would say in any way -- and one of my colleagues alluded or insinuated that nothing's amiss. Then why -- the question that I would ask, and I think it begs the question, is what is the reluctance, what is the resistance to that independent outside forensic audit, investigation? I think that's baffling and quite frankly outrageous. I vote no.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise today in support of this bill. And we've talked a lot about Medicaid today as well as the need to -- the lot of work that needs to be done. But I am proud that we've held the line on a lot of Medicaid needs, particularly given the devastating cuts that the program experienced last year in the Big Beautiful Bill. But I'm really here tonight to talk about a piece that we haven't talked about as much. As chair of the Disabilities Committee, I am pleased that we did include a targeted inflationary increase of 2.7 percent for the direct support professionals, or DSPs that we hear a lot about. They are some of our lowest-paid workers in the workforce in New York. They often serve those with disabilities, our seniors and more. We had wanted a larger increase, but this is a significant one and I'm pleased that we were able to increase it from the original proposal. Also very pleased that we were able to extend the care demonstration program in the OPWDD. The bottom line is there's still a lot of work to do, but we are making enormous strides. And with that, I rise in the affirmative. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. You know, we mentioned earlier that the one thing people hate more than paying taxes is knowing that their tax money is going -- is not being used properly. It is hard to reconcile the numbers when it comes to Medicaid in this state. Eighty-nine percent increase in six years, but 700,000 less people on Medicaid. And yet our expenses go up. And the alarms aren't going off. Not for the Attorney General's office, not for us, not for the state. They're just not going off. We're talking about a $20 billion increase in eight years as people are coming off the rolls -- which is a good thing. They're coming off the rolls. But the amount of money that is being spent should be a concern for all of us. Now, there isn't a single person in this room that wants to see somebody go without treatment. Nobody in this room wants to see that. But there has to be a level of accountability, and there has to be integrity to what we discuss here when we go home and we explain to our constituents why it is that the price is what it is, given the numbers. It just doesn't add up. And so the last place we should be looking for, or one of the last places we should be looking for is blaming the very physicians who provide the healthcare and claim that they are the reason that our costs are so high. The people who are actually treating our constituents and providing specialized services should not be the ones that we decide to nickel and dime at the end of the day, telling them that they can't even go to independent dispute resolution as a means of being paid for their services. Madam President, I vote no.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to sincerely thank my colleagues who participated in this conversation today. It got testy at times, but Senator Tedisco, you are correct, there are a lot of things that we can agree on. And the fact is that because I know the folks in this room and because I've worked with the folks in this room, I can look across to you, Senator Tedisco, I can look at Senator Helming, I can look at Senator Griffo, et cetera, and I know that you mean what you say when you're saying that, just like I do, no fraud is acceptable, that there probably is more that we haven't been able to find, and that we should do every effort, that we should make every effort to identify how this program can be run effectively, can be run well, can serve the people it's supposed to serve. The problem, my colleagues, is that there's folks outside of this room that I don't trust. And I will once again mention the comments of the person in the White House who -- once again, who said very clearly and explicitly, "We can't forward those things, those social programs. We can't afford them. We have to put them into military might." He said that very explicitly, and the actions of this particular administration tell me that that's what they're trying to do. So here in this state we're trying to do the best that we can to protect a system that I believe can be absolutely done better. And everybody who is a colleague who's on the Health Committee will tell you that we've had many conversations, both in public and in private. I have not been a -- I am not -- I don't know if you know, but I can be loud and I can be annoying and I can be very open when I have criticisms of whatever administration we're talking about. So I can certainly say that there's a lot of things that we need to do to make sure that the system works better. We absolutely need to serve our rural areas better. We need to make sure, as Senator Borrello was saying, that we actually pay people for the actual services that they're providing. All these things we can agree on, and I think that we need to work to make the system a little bit better. I would once again warn you, gentlemen and ladies, colleagues all, that the problem with getting those folks involved is that that's not what they want to do. They want to gut the whole thing. Everything that has to do with the social safety net, they want to do away with it. And then the poor working-class folks in your neighborhoods, in rural areas, in upstate New York, those are the folks that are going to get screwed, along with the folks in my district. A couple of extra things. Senator Rhoads, we were talking about HCRA. It was created in 1996 under a Republican majority, with a Republican governor. So there's that. It was created certainly to fund certain things and it has become kind of something that we use to fund certain programs that are important. And we probably could use another -- we could do -- we could take other -- we could figure out other ways to pay for these programs. And I believe that we might be able to do so in the future. Because I would say, to finish, that when I -- I did mention the New York Health Act, and I'll finish with that. I would like to have a conversation with all of you, sincerely, any time, one-on-one, and I would like to tell you how we can create a system which would benefit every single person in the state, including every single one of your constituents, including you and every member of your family, cost us a lot less money, and deliver better services. And not to put everybody on Medicaid. That's not what I want to do. I do want to transform the system, though. And I believe that we can do it. And it can cost a lot -- a hell of a lot less and work a lot better. I would want to have a conversation with you about that. But as it relates to this budget bill, Madam President, I will be voting in the affirmative. Certainly there's things that we did not do here. But there are some things that that we did hold the line on, which I believe that we needed to hold the line on. And I'm very thankful to the leader and to the staff that actually fought tooth and nail to get to this bill that we have in front of us. I'll be voting in the affirmative. Thank you, Madam President.

In relation to Calendar Number 1333, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martinez, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 43. Nays, 20.

Madam President, let's move on to Calendar 1332, please.

Calendar Number --

Senator Krueger moves to discharge, from the Committee on Finance, Assembly Bill Number 10004D and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9004D, Third Reading Calendar 1332. Calendar Number 1332, Assembly Bill Number 10004D, an act making appropriations for the support of government.

Thank you, Madam President. I was wondering if the sponsor would yield for a few questions regarding capital expenditures in the budget, the first question having to do with capital being appropriated for libraries in New York State.

Senator Bynoe, do you yield?

The Senator yields.

Forty-four million.

Does the Senator yield?

The Senator yields.

It actually restores last year at 44 million. But it was proposed in the budget at 34 million. The Senate one-house increased it.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, 7,000.

Seven thousand.

Correct.

Senator Mayer, do you yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President, yes, that is correct, for the Galleria project.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. It's referred in the legislation as the District Galleria Project in White Plains. It is a transformative proposal of taking the old Galleria Mall, if you're familiar with White Plains, and transforming it into a -- both a residential market rate and affordable housing development with commercial and other real estate, of which there would be 3,000 units of housing. That's an incredible number, of which at least 25 percent will be affordable at 60 percent of AMI, plus a project labor agreement, working with the building trades of Westchester and Putnam, plus other agreements that have been made by the developer.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. This is being developed by a private -- a series of private developers, with the strong support of the City of White Plains mayor and the Common Council, and it will involve the purchase or possession of publicly owned property as well as privately owned property.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. It is a grant, just like other grants for capital projects. But it needs to go through all the approval process that these kinds of grants -- which there are others in this budget, and have been others many times in the past -- have to go through in order to achieve a state goal of both construction and creation of a significant number of affordable units in a community that's sorely in need of them.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. I actually would say that's an incorrect way to describe this project. Like other investments that the State of New York makes in creation of affordable housing -- changing, for example, all of Times Square, if you were around that many years ago, as I was, which was an investment that involved both private and public investment. The state invests in the creation of housing and new economic development activity that will benefit the city, the County of Westchester, the people who are able to live in high-quality affordable housing and be able to stay in their homes and their residence and their county. So it will have multiple benefits to the residents of Westchester, to the tenants who are going to be able to be there, both affordable and market rate. And to the extent that there are benefits to the developer, there's also costs associated with the development that will -- some of which will be offset by this fund.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, it's over $2 billion. I had to make sure I had the "b," not the "m".

Does the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President, I don't believe so. But I cannot be certain that the City of White Plains may not come up with some way to make the deal work for them.

Does the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President. One, I would point out that this is very early in the development that is going to allow the project to move forward. There are many approvals and municipal agreements that need to be reached along the way. It can be or it could be that the developer or the city or the county is going to seek or obtain additional benefits. That has not been clarified at this point. This is in order to make a wise investment in a wise outcome that's going to create affordable housing and good-paying jobs for hundreds of Westchester residents.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. One, I'm not aware of any other developer who has offered to engage in a process of taking an old indoor mall, which is defunct and sitting there, and transforming it into over 3,000 units, of which 800 will be affordable for so many people in Westchester and create union jobs for the creation of the construction and the post-construction work of the people who actually service those buildings. So I'm not aware of anyone else. But what was presented was the unanimous support of the City Council of White Plains and the mayor for this project and for this funding.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. The DEIS that was done on this proposed project is an extensive review of the proposal. And in addition, the City of White Plains has already approved certain parts of the process moving forward beyond just conceptual agreement. So presented plans and obviously this DEIS is subject to an extensive analysis of both the number of housing units, the number of school-age children, all of the factors that are relevant to deciding this is a worthwhile project.