Assembly Live Stream (partial)

Thank you serving the candidates who need services for the first time and the local director director local bishop and local teachers and advisors in some programs These from state to Family Financial Aid Some Voc street as well as senior 2012 parents pseud 의혹 about 9th. For visitors and other buses you can consider one such of the traditional medical instructions between summer Watchers program Thank you.

Madam Speaker, will you please call the House to order?

Ms. Lunsford. Madam Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Tuesday, May 26th, and that the same stand approved.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, may we please call the House back to order.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would now like to advance the A calendar.

Ms. Lunsford. Thank you very much. We are going to take up the following two bills, Rules Report No. 216 and Rules Report No. 217. I'm sure we will have additional work to do later in the day. Thank you.

An explanation has been requested. Mr. Pratlow. Absolutely, Madam Speaker. The bill before us contains major components of legislation that are necessary for the implementation of the state budget as it pertains to health and mental hygiene. This bill includes legislation to extend the Medicaid global cap, provide increased investments from the health care stability fund, and to support hospitals and nursing homes, and provide a targeted Inflationary increase for human service workers. Mr. Palmasano? Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the chairman yield for some questions? Yes, I will. The sponsor yield. The sponsor yield. Good afternoon, Mr. Palmasano. Good to see you again. Good to see you. Good to talk to you again. We seem to be getting there. That's a good thing. It seems like only yesterday. It seems like only yesterday. So true. So I guess I just wanted to start out, obviously we're dealing with the health budget today, right now, and obviously Medicaid is such a big part of this budget. Could you tell me what this bill appropriates, what's the total amount of spending on Medicaid overall? Total Medicaid spending is $117,787,882,000. Just to clarify on that point, is that just for the Department of Health? Because we know there's other outside agencies that are getting Medicaid. Does that $117 billion include those other agencies? That is all agencies. All agencies, total $117 billion? Okay. And, of course, I know this being the first one, we got the financial plan earlier and the Medicaid scorecard. Are they going to become available to the public? Did the Medicaid scorecard become available to the public? Well, everything will become available to the public because we're very transparent in our actions. Sure. This budget bill extends the Medicaid global cap while also amending several savings proposals from the executive budget. Does this mean that we remain within the Medicaid global cap with this provision? The enacted budget includes $2.1 billion, or 8% increase to the global caps. Spending for fiscal year 2627 for the global cap is $28.6 billion, so it is unchanged from the enacted budget. So then we do remain in the global cap then? Absolutely. All right. And just to go over again, what is the expected total Medicaid budget for this fiscal year? It should be what I gave you earlier, $117.8 billion. And how much of this is federal dollars, and what is the change from last year? The federal dollars is $74.1 billion. Okay. And what is the expected state share of Medicaid for this fiscal year? From a general fund, that would be $32,965,000. And what has that changed from last year? $294 million. Okay. It's been, I know, a common practice to shift spending outside of the Medicaid global cap calculations due to state spending more than the cap will allow. Does this enacted budget shift any new spending outside of the cap? No. No. All right. And the executive budget projected that the state spending under the global cap will require a gap-closing savings plan to address the cumulative $8.8 billion in spending needs through fiscal year 30. Many of the proposals that were included as saving measures were either amended or restored. Therefore there is an updated deficit associated with the enacted spending plan Yes Is there an updated deficit number associated with the enacted budget spending plan No No so it still remains at 8 Yes. Okay. It actually went down a little bit. Okay. All right. Does this enacted budget address any savings measures that will reduce these out-year global cap deficits? Are you willing to break down the new MCO tax? Yes. Okay, well, the funding stream is it will collect a .35% assessment on total premium revenues for managed care organizations starting January 1, 2027. The tax is expected to bring in $165 million to net benefit the state for fiscal year 27-28. Okay. Now, Medicaid spending has increased significantly under the current governor, with the state share ballooning over 75%. However, the state has not had proportionate increases in fraud prevention efforts, with New York ranking very low in fraud investigations per billion spent. are there any provisions in this budget bill that are aimed at reducing fraud and waste to ensure we are good stewards of this important program that is funded by our taxpayers? That's being handled by the Medicaid Inspector General. Okay. And do you believe the current state efforts to reduce waste and fraud are sufficient given the upward trend in Medicaid spending within the state? Yes. Okay. Okay. For clarity, does this budget bill contain the Governor's proposal to change Medicaid crossover payments to ambulance providers? No. Okay. Do these changes to the executive proposal have a fiscal impact? It's a small increase there. I don't have the numbers in front of me. I'm looking at my notes. Okay. Part X of this budget bill makes changes regarding Medicaid coverage for the undocumented over the age of 65. Are these provisions providing any new benefits to this particular population? No, there are no new benefits. Is there any fiscal associated with the provisions? There's no additional costs. Okay. The executive budget Medicaid scorecard included $1.9 billion in financial plan resources. Most of this funding was intended to cover the ELISA population under Medicaid. However, this is no longer necessary. How does this budget reallocate that previously allocated funding? Okay, that money has been reallocated to the general fund. We didn't do anything with it in this budget. Okay. I'd like to pivot to one question relative to the targeted inflationary increase, Part P, of this bill, and acts of 2.7% increase for various human service providers. The governor proposal of 1 included million in funding with million of that being the state share Can you provide us with a dollar amount of how much of a funding increase this is over the executive budget proposal I believe the state share is $140 million. $140 million? I'm sorry, $104 million. $104 million. All right. And I think, Mr. Chairman, I know a couple of my colleagues have some other questions at this point. I'll go on the bill, and I'll talk to you a little later. Thank you, sir. Madam Speaker, on the bill. On the bill.

Thank you.

Yes, I will. The chair yields.

Well, in answer to your question, I'll give you a rather lengthy answer. You're absolutely right. The provisions of H.R. 1 that was enacted July of 2025 disqualifies most of the lawfully present immigrant population from receiving premium tax credits. Due to this, the current 1332 waiver will lose more than half of its current operating revenue, rendering it insolvent beginning in July of 2026. To maintain coverage for as many essential plan enrollees as possible, the state received authority from CMS, Dr. Oz, to terminate its 1332 waiver and reactivate the previously used 1331 basic health program effective July 1, 2020-26. The reactivation of this basic health program is a very important thing. and allows the state to access $9 billion in basic health plan trust fund to offset the loss of premium tax credit revenue and temporarily maintain the solvency of the essential plan for over 1.2 million enrollees. So by returning to the 1331 basic plan, 470,000 individuals with incomes between 200 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level will lose essential plan coverage. The state was not able to offer continued coverage for these individuals due to the immense cost associated with backfilling the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding. So the provision of the health care coverage is a longstanding partnership between the state and the federal government. Unfortunately, the actions by our current administration to roadblock longstanding eligibility standards have left thousands now ineligible for coverage.

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

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

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

Yes.

Those numbers are about correct and we're trying to figure out now how to alleviate that, what to keep it from happening, yeah. So we are concerned and we're trying to figure out in the out years how we're going to ensure that this time,

six years from now, we're addressing it.

Yes.

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

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

Yes.

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

Yep.

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

but we're doing it equitably across the entire ecosystem so that we can ensure that pot of federal money does continue to flow to New York State.

They never should have eliminated it.

No.

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

So.

and I think we would have, and I would agree with you that we'd like to see a longer extension, just to not have it come into question.

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

A number of years. I don't know what that means.

and $500 million thereafter to support the fund in offsetting the loss of MCO tax.

Yes.

$750 million.

$165 million.

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

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

No.

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

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

Okay, well, the goal of us to bring the margin closer, there are very few providers that are taking advantage of this. So it's what we're just trying to get it all together.

Okay, I think of 21 to 24, the idea claims have increased 18 times from 778 claims to 14,166 claims per year. I can't give you a dollar amount, but that translates to it. You can see the scope of the number of claims has increased drastically.

We're just something we're working on still, and it'll be done outside of the budget.

I believe it's already passed this House.

Thank you, Mr. Jensen.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the chairman yield for a couple questions? Will the chair yield?

Well, thank you, Chairman, and I appreciate all the work that you've done on this and your staff and Mr. Pomisano's staff. and you've always been very professional and collegial and good humor through this process, so I know we all appreciate that. My questions are regarding Part P, the targeted inflationary increase. So we're at 2.7, if I'm correct, and that is approximately, give or take, the rate of inflation for this particular area. Am I correct? That's sort of where we're at?

And are there any changes from this year to previous years in what is covered in that section?

What was that?

All right. Thank you.

Titles. My one question regarding that is, it says, first promote, how would that work practically? There's really no change from last year, how does it calculate?

There's no change from last year. All I'm saying is the restriction on how they have to spend the money to first with employees.

All right. So, thank you. I'm going to go on the bill then.

All right, I thank the chairman for answering my questions. Obviously, we started in the executive budget at 1.7. We're at 2.7, which is close to the rate of inflation. There was advocacy from a lot of folks to get to 4. I would have loved to get to 4. I certainly would have preferred 4. But what I am happy about in this time last year, I was very unhappy. because we were nowhere close to the rate of inflation, and the difference was not even sort of halfway between the executive and the one-house budgets. So whereas last year I was very mad, this year my reaction is sort of, eh, we're trending in the right direction. And that is the positive that I want to sort of put on this, even though I would have obviously preferred to be at four, is if you look over the long term on what was once called the COLA, now the TII, We were in a very shameful, in my opinion, position under the previous executive on what he was willing to do. The current executive has been better, and in this case, increasingly better over time where we've ended up, where we went from not getting anything to getting something to getting close to the rate, on the rate of inflation. Obviously, there's still the backlog from all those years of being behind inflation, which is why I think people wanted to get to four. But that trend line of increasingly caring about this issue and increasing investments on this is very positive. And so I want to also associate myself with some of the remarks that the ranking member on Ways and Means, Mr. Pomisano made about the importance of this particular line item. In my opinion, this is where we should start the budget every year, because you're dealing with extraordinarily vulnerable people, those who are doing God's work, taking care of them, and people who are in a position to need help through certainly no fault of their own. So I hope this trend line continues. I hope that next year we start with an executive budget that's more robust. I hope we can continue to make investments in this area that are increasingly positive. So while I'm not jumping up and down excited, I'm certainly in a better place than I was last year, and I will continue to advocate next year in the budget process for increased investments in this area. And one thing that's very positive about the TII is it tends to be something that brings, within the legislature, especially Republicans and Democrats, together. together. There was very across the board, across the ideological spectrum feeling that we needed to do more and continue to do more in this area. While there are other areas of this bill that I have very strong concerns about and will sort of dictate where I have to vote on this I do want to highlight this sort of moderately very positive situation here and hope that this trend continues into the future Thank you

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the chairman yield for a few questions? Will the chair yield?

Good afternoon, chairman. Thank you. I just have a very few questions, specifically on the medical indemnity fund, something that we've spoken about a few times in the last couple months and that we've continued to focus on overall the last several years. This budget bill omits a proposal that would have benchmarked rates for MIFF services to other government payment rates while extending the current enhanced rates. Is that correct?

Is this a permanent solution for funding of the MIFF?

So this is just a short-term fix based on what the governor had proposed in her executive budget?

And it's enrollment issues regarding the accessibility of the fund. Will this require us to go back to the drawing board next year?

In regards to access to the MIFF, can you tell us how many members of the MIFF there are today?

And do we anticipate being able to support additional members with this current plan?

How much additional funding is required for the MIFF in this fiscal year as a result of this proposal?

Is that lined out in this particular budget bill?

It would be in aid to localities?

And I'm sorry, so you said that the total that we were allocating for the MIF is $156 million? Yes.

I think it's about the same. I thought we were at about $213 million last year.

Okay, and so with the 156, we can get into this at that appropriate time if you wish, but I just want to make sure I'm clear while we're on the topic.

Yes.

Well, those are all the questions that I have. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will Chair Pretlow yield for a few questions? Will the Chair yield?

Thank you very much. So I wanted to ask about Part X, the Medicaid for undocumented immigrants over 65. It was noted as a technical amendment. Could you explain what that technical amendment does?

There's so much noise behind us.

Okay.

No, it doesn't.

It's about $230 million.

Yeah, that's a different part of money.

Yes, yes.

was that just for undocumented immigrants over the age of 65?

I see.

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

There is a possibility that it could be... When you look at all ages under the program. Very good. Thank you for that clarification. The second thing I wanted to talk about was Part P, the targeted inflationary increase section. And I definitely echo the comments made by previous speakers about being grateful that we did get up to a 2.7 percent increase rather than what the governor's proposal had been. I knew that they had looked for 4%. Certainly when I met with advocates in my office, the number was 4%. But is it your understanding that the advocates are maybe not as happy as they would be with 4%, but they're satisfied with the 2.7%?

Okay. All right. So one of the things I wanted to just touch on was that when I met with advocates about disability services and OPWDD funding, they were really advocating for the inclusion of care coordination organizations, or CCOs, in funding increases. And my understanding is that these care coordinators, they assist families to navigate Medicaid and disability services. Do you know whether the targeted inflationary increase will impact in any way positively these care coordination organizations?

You don't believe that they do? Okay. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Pretler.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Durso? Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the chair yield for a couple of questions? Will the chair yield?

Sorry, Mr. Chairman, you look like you almost got comfortable there for a second. But I just wanted to touch on something that my colleague just spoke about, again, with the targeted inflationary increases. We're at 2.7 percent this year, correct?

And it says here that it must be used for recruitment and retention of non staff first correct I believe so Okay So when we talk about recruitment and retention and using that what you just stated was roughly million correct

Can you give me an example of what that could be used for for recruitment and retention?

I'm sorry? Pay bonuses, any kind of remuneration that we have to give them. Okay, so it's not so much advertising and online advertisements, billboards, anything like that to recruit and retain.

I think those items would be very minimal. They have to show exactly how this money is going to be used.

But it can be used in those. It doesn't have to strictly go towards salaries, correct?

Okay. Now, is there, and it has to go towards recruitment and retention first, then it could be used for salaries for those direct care workers?

Okay. Now, can any of that money be used towards taxes, benefits, anything like that, or is it strictly for salaries?

Okay. So is that how the money was used last year when it came to direct care workers?

Okay. So really, there's no sense of – excuse me, I apologize. Who's making that decision on how that money is getting spent, what counts as recruitment and retention? Because if we're giving them 2.7 percent, which is just below the inflationary rate, these are our workers that are doing, as said by my other colleague, God's work. But now the money is not guaranteed to go specifically to salaries. they're actually taking a loss from last year in what they got, correct?

Can you give me an example of what those cases may be? So, in other words, sorry, I apologize. Let me ask more of a direct question. How much of this $120 million that is essentially set aside for direct care workers, which we all agree are some of the most important workers that we could have in taking care of our most vulnerable, has to go towards actual salaries for some of the lowest paid people in the industry. Do we know how much of it?

Well, there's really no public reporting on that. They just have to attest to it. And I don't have the exact number in front of me, but I will be glad to provide it to you at a later date. So there's, and not you, sir, but I'm saying there's no public reporting on it. So we really don't know how much money of this $120 million is going to go towards signage, online recruitment, paper, mailers, anything like that to recruit. And we don't know how much is going to go towards actual, tangible salaries for workers.

So do we have an idea of how much was spent from last year's budget and the money that was directed towards those workers, how much was spent in salaries as opposed to?

Do you think that's a problem, sir, as far as the legislative body that's directing this money to go towards... towards direct care workers, which again, as I'll say, we all think are some of the most important workers, and we're all fighting for these workers' salaries, but we don't have numbers on how much is actually going towards the workers?

I would agree with you, sir. If you want, who could we blame for that? I won't put you on the spot, sir.

Madam Speaker, on the bill?

So I want to thank the chair for taking my questions. It was really one just in regards to the target inflationary increases. Again, and I'll say it again, and I think there's nobody in here who will mind me saying it. Again, these workers do, as my colleagues said, God's work. They are taking care of our most vulnerable, and they are severely underpaid. And everybody in this chamber has fought for these workers to get more money, and now we're getting it, and we're not sure where the money's going, how it's being directed, and it sure as hell is not going into the pockets of those workers. Plain and simple. We should be worried about where this money's going. We should have some kind of report in front of us every single year of how this money's being spent, because in all honesty, the money's supposed to go towards, again, the workers that are taking care of these individuals, and it obviously is not. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Will the members of the local governments committee please meet immediately in the speaker's conference room?

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Pretlow. I made sure not to make the mistake of asking you to yield based on a limited number of questions. So I want to focus on the MCO tax. How does that work? How does the MCO tax work? I'll give you a breakdown in two seconds. It collects 0.35% assessments on total premium revenue for managed care organizations that starting in January of 2027, the tax is expected to bring in $165 million in net benefit to the state for fiscal year 27-28. And, of course, these additional funds will be used to maintain health care stability fund investing going forward. I'm sorry, Mr. Pratlow. I'm having difficulty hearing you. Did you say that it's a tax on insurance premiums or insurance premium revenue? On premium revenue. Okay. Okay so that a tax that the insurance companies will pay and they pay that to the state Yes they already paying it Well how much are they paying right now I think it a total in a second It a dollar I can figure the number out Okay, can we work that to $1.50 to $2 per member per month? Okay. And so this will increase it by .03? No, this will actually decrease. .35%. 0.35%. Okay. And when that money is collected by the state, what implication does that have with money that we may receive from the federal government? This goes into our fund, and then we receive a federal match. Okay. Okay. So the higher the tax is, the more money we receive as a match. Is that correct? That would be correct. Okay. And then what do we do with the money that we receive as a match? Then it gets spent the same way that the additional money was spent previously. So it goes towards what exactly? Health care. If you spend a dollar on the hospital, you can get a dollar. If you go to hospitals, it goes to? Like I say, if we spend a dollar on a hospital, we get a dollar from the federal government. Okay. And this tax is applied across the board for all insurance? Everyone pays the same, you know, 0.35%. So if you're a small business owner and you are buying insurance through the ACA exchange, you are paying, you could be paying an increase in premiums. Isn't that correct? You could, but small businesses are not included. Okay, so if you're an individual, let's say, who's purchasing on the exchange, you could see a premium increase as a result of the MCO tax increase, couldn't you? Okay, so let's say if you're a small group of insurers, you're not seeing an increase. You're not part of this. responsible for paying it. Well, you just said that it applies across the board to all insurance. Large groups, like the insurance group that most of us belong to, NYSHIP. Okay. So if you're a county, one of the 62 counties that offers a large group plan, you could see your costs increase. Isn't that right? Yes. And they're already paying this under the old method. Right. But that's ending because we want to be in federal compliance. Otherwise, we'll be accused of things like fraud, which is not the case. So what we're doing now is making across the board everyone pays the .35%. Fiscally, it works out about the same. Okay. So when the counties have to pay increased costs because of the rise in the MCO tax, and they disperse that cost amongst property tax owners, we should just tell them that, hey, we're supposed to do this because we're already doing it? Is that what we should be telling them? I saying I think you trying to infer that we raising the rate and we not We replacing the old method of calculating the dollars received with a new method which is more uniform with the rest of the country So 0 is what it worked out to and is similar to what the to worked out to fiscally Okay. So I'm sure someone much smarter than me has calculated what the difference is going to be in changing the previous method from the dollar assessment to this percentage. What is that change going to be? There is no change. There's no change. As far as I know, and I'm not going to comment on anyone's math skills as to how this number was worked out, but I trust the person that did figure this out. And as far as I know and what this budget anticipates is that there is no change. Okay. I hope you're right, Mr. Pretlow. On the bill? On the bill. So I don't know who the person is who calculated this change. And I would like to believe and hope that this is not going to increase costs. But I hope we can all next year, if it is a problem, hold that person or persons responsible. if it is, because we have some of the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. We spend more on medical care than in any other state. Our Medicaid, the amount that we spend on Medicaid in New York State is larger than both Texas and Florida combined. And just last year, this state tried to raise the MCO tax to increase the federal match, and it got struck down because it was extremely problematic and prejudicial. And so I hope what we're not doing here is I hope that we are not going to increase burdens on our counties, on large group insurance purchasers, on individuals who are buying into the exchange, because if we start to see increased premiums, that is not going to make anybody's life more affordable here in New York. It will just continue the trend of things being less affordable here in New York. So, you know, here we are passing another budget bill, and my hope is that we're not doing so on a hope and a prayer. So I will be voting negative on this piece of legislation. I'd encourage my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the Chairman of Ways and Means yield for some questions? Mr. Pretlow, will you yield?

Chair yields.

Okay, this is something that we've already passed. We're waiting for the Senate to pass it. We did it outside of the budget.

We've already had a bill. We've already passed it. The Senate has not taken it up yet.

I believe that was all part of the bill we just mentioned. Okay. It's already been passed.

Well, that is included. We give $500 per unit of gambling apparatus to Oasis, which is used for problem gambling. I think you have to look at Part R. Okay, we're expanding the substance use disorder treatment coverage, and there are other additions in Part R of this bill.

It expands the substance use disorder treatment coverage to other addictions. And that's the problem gambling is in the other addictions? Yes.

I don't believe there's any additional monies.

Nothing additional.

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

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

The so-called parity that we fixed in one respect, but we're not addressing it in terms of enforcement. So the practice still continues that if you are a person with an affliction and you get treatment by private insurance, that therapist is only paid 50 cents on a dollar. Have we done anything to address that issue at all? Well, I think two years ago we mandated that they pay at least the Medicaid rate for those services.

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

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

We've been, over the last couple of years, trying to increase that. But if you're a provider and you provide someone with private insurance, you're still not getting paid 100 cents on the dollar.

They're more apt to treat the person with Medicare and Medicaid.

but we haven't fixed the financial side of the equation.

There's nothing in the budget pertaining to that.

There's nothing in the budget pertaining to that.

Thank you, Ms. Lunsford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Could we please have the health committee to the speaker's conference room? Health committee members, please make your way to the speaker's conference room. Health committee members, speaker's conference room. Read the last section. This act, she'll take it back immediately. A party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh.

Thank you, Ms. Lunsford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority will generally be in the affirmative on this bill. If you would like to register your vote in the negative, you may do so from your seats. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So I appreciated the discussion that we had, the debate that we had on this particular bill. I wanted to just explain my vote because I do really, although I'm constrained to vote no on this bill because of other reasons, I did want to say that I thought that as far as the targeted inflationary increase, formerly known as COLA, I'm glad for that 2.7 percent increase. Because of the work that I have done historically over the years with the developmentally disabled community, a lot of advocates come and meet with me. And I know that they really did want 4 percent because they've been historically not treated well in previous budgets. I am glad to see the 2.7 percent. I don't think it's enough. And I would also say that I do wish that there was greater flexibility as to how it could be spent. But I did want to just state for the record that I do agree with my colleagues and all of us agree, I think, that if we're going to put cuts in this budget, this is not the place to do it. I'm glad to see the increase that we have. I do wish it could have been more, but I do think that it will help us to continue to make investments in the workers who take care of our most vulnerable. So I do support that piece of the budget and other pieces as well. Overall, though, I can't support the total amount that's spent on Medicaid. I think it just such a huge huge part of our budget and I don think it sustainable going forward So I will be a no but I do appreciate that piece for the COLA Thank you Thank you Ms Walsh

Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. I also agree with my colleagues. I was very happy to see in both one-house bills the increase to 4% for the COLA. The fact that it got diminished down to 2.7%, I agree with my colleagues in that They have been operating at a structural deficit, and the rate of inflation keeps rising, and the increase that they are given each year don't equate to what they need to run these homes and run these places where our most vulnerable population goes. So I appreciate the efforts of both houses in their one-house bill, but I am not happy to see that it was diminished down to 2.7 percent. And because of many other things in the bill and the spending problem that this state has, especially with the Medicaid budget, that I will not be able to support the bill. But I do appreciate the 2.7 percent increase. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can we have the Governmental Operations Committee to the Speaker's conference room, please? GovOps, committee members, speakers, conference room. GovOps, committee members, make your way to the speakers, conference room.

Yes, Madam Speaker. I'm going to give you a lengthy explanation, and maybe it will then not require many questions on debate. This bill would enact major pieces of legislation that are required to implement the revenue proposals that are necessary to ensure a balanced state budget. This bill would rise an additional $562 million in state revenues during state fiscal year 26-27. In the out years, revenue will increase by $1.9 billion for fiscal year 27-28, $2.3 billion for 28-29, $1.6 billion for fiscal years 29-30, and $841 million for fiscal year 30-31. Major provisions within this bill include language to provide protecting our wallets energy rebate checks, eliminate income taxes on state wages, enact the temporary Article 9A corporate franchise tax extension rate for two years, three years, I'm sorry, authorize New York City to impose a surcharge on property that does not serve as a primary residence, enhance the New York City musical and theatrical production tax credit, increase income eligibility thresholds for scribe and dry programs, streamline the STAR program, enhance tax credits for donations to food pantries by farmers, amend property tax exemption, for certain disabled veterans, expand standard-bred testing requirements, and provide extensions to various tax credits and exemptions that already exist in current law. With that, Madam Speaker, I encourage the members to support this piece of legislation.

That's Madam Speaker. Mr. Pretlow, will you yield for some questions?

Mr. Pretlow, will you yield?

We have a few, Mr. Pretlow.

Thank you. You've said, I just want to ask again, I know on committee, how much revenue, how much does revenue increase by this bill on a two-year basis? I think you said $560 on a one-year basis.

So for one year, so for two years, it would be double that?

Okay. And what about the net tax, not the net tax, how much of a tax revenue decrease?

Okay. All right. That's okay. I want to talk about the pied-de-terra for a minute. This new surcharge will put an annual New York City tax on certain high-valued residential properties.

What specific factors will the New York City Department of Finance use to determine not a primary residence, and how will this provision ensure uniform treatment across buildings and owners to avoid inconsistencies?

This proposal has certainly been in the news and it's been talked about pretty extensively. I know obviously the mayor did a press conference outside one of the homeowners. One of the concerns we keep hearing about is the potential impact on investment and development in the city. Are you concerned about the threat to reduced investment and development in the city that could help grow the city's housing stock, create up more affordable units?

So are you concerned that this, I know you say a few people, but high income, high wealth, are you concerned that that might reduce that investment? Are you concerned this might reduce that investment from these individuals who can make that investment?

and allowing the city to change the amortization schedule is just kicking the can down the road. Is the revenue projected for this new tax on sturdy ground?

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

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

Sure, I understand that. Will the billing the surcharge at the building level risk imposing costs on uninvolved tenant stockholders?

What mechanisms are in place to protect against passing the surcharge on to non-covered tenant holders?

Yeah, I could do that. What mechanisms are in place to protect against passing the surcharge on to non-covered tenant stockholders?

I want to, if I may, I may come back to this, but I'd like to go to the decoupling provisions of H.R.1. Yes.

Yes. that really affected timing and treatment of research and experimental expenditures and other deductions. Why is the state moving to increase near-term tax costs on manufacturers when the manufacturing community, who I've met with, I'm sure you've met with, has warned that this will directly undermine investment expansion and modernization in New York State?

Wouldn't that be impactful, though? Because, I mean, there are some states that are decoupling, but there are some states that are not decoupling, like Ohio's not decoupling. I don't have New Jersey down as not decoupling yet. South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Texas. isn't that a risk that we run losing those investments to these states that are more friendly on from an upfront perspective? I really hate to compare New

who have argued that this provision makes New York State a less attractive place to start or expand a business because it raises the tax cost of investing, hiring and building here instead of a competitive state that doesn't?

And so why is this burden falling on manufacturers for buying equipment, building facilities, funding R&D, instead of on broader fiscal reforms? Because that's what was put into H.R. 1.

that we run the risk of losing these manufacturers and their investment and taking it to another state that's not decoupling like other states are?

Okay. I want to talk about some of the other business tax impacts.

And this budget now extends them further through tax year 29, correct?

Why does it seem every temporary tax imposed by this body never seems to be temporary?

Just to counter that argument, if business taxes can be reduced, that increase business activity, possibly increase jobs, possibly increase more investment, which would lead to more tax revenue coming from that perspective of that argument.

in the 1st of July, which is two months from now, hundreds of thousands of individuals are going to lose their health coverage. And from a business tax perspective, we know we have one of the highest tax states. We know business climate, the competitiveness, the royalties are at the bottom. How do these higher rates make us more competitive? And wouldn't lowering tax rates across the board help provide incentives for businesses to invest and stay here and come here?

very vibrant How much more does it cost taxpayers to provide incentives and how much of a strain does it put on local government budgets to provide exemptions and incentives just to get a business to consider siting a new construction in the state of New York Wouldn just reducing taxes across the board help with that problem

That's all right. I'd like to move over to the power check program for a little bit, if I could.

I see that you have this rebate check. How much is that rebate check again?

How much would it be for a family for income ranges?

Thank you for that. I know we had a proposal out to our lower program. That was one part of it. It wasn't the entire piece of it. I know we talked about it. I don't know if it fit here, but if we really want to help on the utility side of things, wouldn't that $2.4 billion that's sitting in NYSERDA hands, wouldn't it have been a better thing to add to them if we wanted to provide that relief to ratepayers?

Yes. But there are proposals out there that could fit into this bill. There's a proposal, in fact, it happens to be my proposal, Mr. Prattlow. Maybe we'll consider it in a committee before the end of the year. It would basically suspend those taxes, fees, assessments, and surcharges that are actually on the utility bill that sometimes make up as much as 20 percent of the utility bill. Wouldn't that have been a good thing to include in this bill to provide fast, direct, immediate relief to rate payers, especially considering that constant is up to 20 percent bill?

And do you think, I know there's a lot of talk about affordability, do you think this one-time rebate is really going to provide that direct relief on utility bills that New Yorkers want?

I mean, at the rate we're going now, $200 amounts to maybe a bag and a half of groceries.

Something is better than nothing.

On that point, too, I was going to ask.

Excuse me.

I know, and I refer to it, New York City is getting a bailout to the tune of billions of dollars for budget problems the city created. Ratepayers didn't create the utility affordability crisis, but they're really drowning because of decisions really made in this chamber. And I appreciate the attempt to help. We really need to do more. Are there any other existing pots of money that could be used to provide some relief to ratepayers during these hot summer months that are coming?

Okay. And I think the other point, when I think I lost my train of thought for a minute, I know we have the rebate at something, but another bill we passed that had a – We provided credits for people that purchased electric vehicles, electric, you know, to the tune of $30,000, which would be paid for by the ratepayer. So now we're giving them a little bit here, but we're still taking away from them on the other side, aren't we?

Okay.

Ms. Lunsford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Could we please have the Education Committee to the Speaker's Conference Room?

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to switch, if I could, to the alternative nicotine products tax that was included in this budget. This puts in place a 75% wholesale tax on nicotine products, is that correct?

This would be in line with other, like, cigarette combustible products, is that right?

Why would we want to categorize nicotine pouches and similar products to be folded in the same category and tax structure as tobacco products?

I know.

So, I mean, you know, a lot of people are going to these pouches, nicotine pouches, to switch over from smoking because it's less harmful because smoking causes cancer, nicotine polishes, I'm not saying nicotine has a health risk, but not compared to smoking. It seems like we're going to make this more expensive for them, and then if they're comparing, why would I switch if I can have the cigarette with the same thing? I mean, they're going to pay the same expense. Isn't that a concern?

I only saw one the first time in the past couple of months.

Is there any concern about the illicit sales channels now that you're going to tax this? I know you mentioned your concern for youth, and I saw a study that was in the National Youth Tobacco Survey that said there's a 1.6% youth usage. So what is the rationale for taxing nicotine pouches when doing so creates the risk of an illicit trade market that could expand opportunities for youth use through that illicit market rather than now not being able to access it through a proper retailer We use the same apparatus in place for the nicotine enforcement for six cigarettes

Obviously, this is a very regressive tax, and we're already seeing what other states are doing. like I know Rhode Island after they implemented this tax, their projected revenue plummeted following the wholesale, implementing the wholesale tax. Are we prepared to deal with that when that happens and revenue estimates that we're talking about getting from this?

Wouldn't it be better to, instead of expanding the tax to alternative nicotine products and focus on enforcement against illicit sales or sales to minors, wouldn't it be better to do that rather than increasing the tax?

This revenue is certainly dependent on consumer behavior. How are we going to address that as we move forward if it's going to impact consumer behavior, correct?

Yeah, sure. How sensitive is this revenue to changes in consumer behavior, especially if consumers switch to untaxed or lower tax products?

Okay. And is a state tax and finance department ready and prepared to administer and enforce this expansion?

What's that?

And how will the state prevent product mislabeling and classification games designed to avoid the tax?

And I know there are some other alternatives being proposed by some asking for, you know, to go to a unit-based tax. Is there any reason why that wasn't considered?

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pretlow, for your time. Madam Speaker, on the bill?

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, we're in the process of passing a budget of more than a quarter of a trillion dollars. The fact of the matter is, as we take up this revenue bill, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I'm very concerned about the continuation of business taxes that were supposed to be temporary, that were supposed to go away, that the impact that will have on businesses that are here, that want to stay here. I think that a concern that I have and will continue to have businesses have They want to invest here They said it was a temporary tax but yet it not temporary And we know that we have a challenging business climate already here in this state. I'm also concerned about these power rebates. It's nice we're going to send a $200 check to families, but that's not just a drop in the bucket to help provide direct immediate ratepayer relief. There are other things we can do. We could refund that $2.4 billion. I know it's not part of this bill, but we could do that, get that direct relief rate back to ratepayers now instead of letting NYSERDA sit on it for green energy programs. We could also, in this bill, and we have a bill coming, that would suspend the taxes, fees, assessments, and surcharges on our utility bills, which can constitute up to 20% of our utility bill. So I think that's something we need to look at. This peer-to-teer tax for New York City, the surcharge, we all saw the mayor hold a press conference outside the home indicating these individuals aren't doing enough, not paying their fair share. These are the very people who invest significant amounts of money in their communities, whether it's real estate investment, whether it's business job creation. They create jobs that bring more income that is taxed, to bring more income into the city, into the state. Those are the same people that increase charitable contributions that help people in our community. And as we see more people moving to Texas, Florida, Tennessee, a more friendly business environment tax climate, we're going to see more of those businesses and families leave for a more favorable tax climate. And it's not just the high wealthy income. It's other people that are leaving the state because they're feeling pinched by the cost of living and not getting enough. the tax regulatory structure in the state is too burdensome, and we need to address that. And to think that people aren't going to leave our state because of this tax, because they can afford it, I think is just really kind of bad judgment. I worry about that. I also, relative to the decoupling, we heard from our manufacturers that said, this will jeopardize their investment in the state. This could jeopardize new businesses coming here. If you had to choose between a state that didn't decouple and a state that did decouple, you're going to go to that state where you're going to get that upfront investment because there's usually those upfront investments that are critical for a manufacturer to locate, for a manufacturer to grow or expand. States like Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio, New Jersey, South Carolina, North Carolina have not decoupled. I think we missed the point with decoupling. It's about allowing the upfront investment, the benefit from that, you're worried about losing revenue, but what you're losing is that upfront investment that's going to generate more revenue, more private sector investment, more private sector jobs. From those private sector jobs, income that can be taxed, that's going to be the response when we look at not decoupling, but we're decoupling. We already know that New York is already a difficult place to do business. The tax regulatory, the climate challenges, the energy costs, workers' comp, all of it. This would have been a way to jumpstart more private sector investment. this would have been a way to jumpstart more job creation here in New York State. Unfortunately we said no because of the federal government And I think this really is just going to hurt our manufacturers and it going to hurt our communities as well I just concerned we losing the opportunity for more job creation more private sector investment and yes, which would create more revenue coming into our state coffers so we can pay for these important programs. And I did want to address the alternative nicotine product, again, the 75% tax, to put it on the same tax level as combustible cigarettes. We've heard from people that have done this, made this change, because they were smoking, and they looked at this as a better alternative for a health perspective. We know it's not as harmful as smoking cigarettes from the perspective of what we're going to do. We know in New York, people who use this, now we're going to increase costs on these people who want to use this alternative, which is going to make it difficult. And this is less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Why do we want to increase the costs on them more? And the fact of the matter is, in New York State, we spend more than $12 billion a year on smoking-related costs, including more than $7 billion on Medicaid, which we just dealt with in the last budget. So this action will take a less harmful alternative away from people who want to try to improve their health and get off cigarettes and make that alternative much more expensive. And the taxes we are collecting from this, that we're going to be paying more, is going to be totally offset by the increased Medicaid costs because those people might not have the opportunity to switch. And I know people were saying, I remember questioning the Tax and Finance Commission at a budget hearing, saying it's about youth involvement. The National Youth Tobacco Survey said 1.6% usage. Unfortunately, I believe what it's going to do is it's going to create an illicit market for people, including younger people, and we know that happens. we've seen these illicit markets with the sticker stores that come about with selling cannabis. So younger people are going to have access to this illicit market where they wouldn't be able to get it in a store because there's proofing and other things that go on in that if they fall the right way. But we're going to drive people away from a more health alternative. It just doesn't make sense to me. And I know there was another alternative proposed, the unit-based tax that people came in and suggested that would make this system and not make it as expensive for the user who they want. People want this alternative, and that's unfortunate. That was not considered. That was not addressed in here. And as we talked about, this is a regressive tax and a loss of revenue. and our neighbor in Rhode Island did this, and they saw their revenues plummet. So there are a host of problems with this bill from my perspective. I went down the list, the pay-a-de-terre, the decoupling, the business tax increase, continuing the power check, not doing enough, could have went much further. We should have went much further to help on the utility costs. And, of course, this alternative nicotine products tax. I just don't think, based on these issues, that's why I'm going to be voting in the negative on this bill and why I would urge many of my colleagues to join me and do the same. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. How are you doing today?

And you?

I'm just hoping that Mr. Prella wouldn't mind, but I'm going to choose to speak on the bill only today.

All right. So listen, as a legislature, you know, we talk about two things. We talk about, well, a lot of things, especially this being an election year. We talk about affordability and we talk about safety. And you're going to hear members standing up after this bill is passed and throughout this entire budget process, and they're going to be going door to door saying, I am proud that I passed this bill, that I made things more affordable and more safe. So I want to talk directly to New Yorkers all over the state, particularly from New Yorkers from New York City and from Staten Island and within my district. Do you actually feel that your life is better? We have a tax here, the pied-à-terre tax, to tax millionaires. And most people will say, well, that's okay. I'm not a millionaire. It's not me. All right, that might be true. But we also have speed cameras. We also have red light cameras. Do you own a car? So you're getting taxed there as well. Some people might say, hey, I don't own a car, no big deal. Do you take a bus? Do you ride the subway? It's $3. Do you think that service that you're getting is worth it? Do you think that the MTA, which has never had an independent audit, is spending your money wisely? Do you think that this legislator or any of these legislators here are spending your money wisely? yet they're going to come knock on your door and tell you how proud they are to have passed this. Let's talk about the small businesses. I'm a small businessman. When COVID hit, I was asked to pay more, to contribute more, because we have to help. That tax was a temporary tax. It was supposed to come back. It was supposed to stop. Now we're extending it. How is that right? How is that justified? At a time when small businesses are struggling, we're continuing this tax and adding on with many more taxes, regulations, and fees. If you live in a NYCHA housing complex, do you really feel like this system is working for you? How about when your water doesn't work? How about when your gas doesn't work? How about when there's swallowing rats and vermin throughout your entire complex? Does that make you feel like this legislature has your best interests at mind? I doubt it very much. Let's talk about the money we're throwing into public schools. If you live in a low-income neighborhood, if you're a minority, do you really think that the school is taking care of your children? How many children, particularly black and brown children, low-income neighborhoods, minority children, cannot read and write at grade level? There are some schools in New York City where 90 to 95 percent, if not higher, cannot read at grade level. Does that make you think as a parent we are taking care of your child? Because we absolutely are not. And we probably have the highest per student ratio in the country. It's been a generational failure when it comes to education. It's time to stop. And what do we do here as a legislature? I hear people stand up all the time and go, it's not us, it's not me, it's the guy in the White House. Well, I'm going to tell you this. any time an elected official has to point to somebody else for the problem that you're facing, chances are they're the reason that problem exists. If you want change, if you want your life to get better, if you want the money that is collected by New Yorkers to be spent on you in a reasonable way that improves your life, it's time for change. And the only way you going to get that change is to vote for change in November You can no longer continue to vote the way you have for generations because if you continue to do so you will be in the same position

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If you could have the Children and Families Committee please to the Children and Families Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's conference room.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill?

Okay. We started this year with families on the brain. Workers and community safety was the gold post, and we knew from the federal level no help was to be found. We had one job and one job only, protect New Yorkers from greedy oligarchs posing as federal heads of state. However, now simply stated, this austerity budget falls far short of what New Yorkers organized for, were promised, and what we deserve. In particular, it fails to raise revenues to provide for the hundreds and thousands of New Yorkers who are about to lose their health insurance due to the cuts to the essential plan and for those who will lose SNAP benefits due to cuts. And as a nurse, as a mother, and as a representative of thousands of families affected by these cuts, I cannot support this bill. This budget fails to raise the revenue. our communities have been fighting to make sure that everyday life becomes a little bit easier. This year I introduced the Fair Share Act to make sure that New York City is able to raise 2.0% income tax on millionaires. And while it received widespread support, it was not included in this budget. We cannot continue to protect millionaires, billionaires, and corporations for another year, but our communities, our communities are left waiting. In the Assembly One House, we included measures to tax the wealthy. Ten weeks later, though, Governor Kathy Hochul is siding with the ultra-wealthy instead of working New Yorkers. This is the reality behind this bill. We have the tools. We have the proposals. But instead of fighting against austerity and protecting New Yorkers, we are accepting these needless cuts and these cruel cuts. This is unacceptable. And I consider it my duty as a legislature to make sure that we are fighting for real solutions. I know exactly what happens when the state fails to raise the revenue we need. The failure shows up in our hospitals that are closing. The failure shows up at the long lines at the food pantry The failure shows up at the wait list in daycare centers The failure shows up when a family loses health insurance Revenue is not just numbers on a paper. It's not just numbers on a spreadsheet. It is lives. It is decisions. It is my former patients being able to get their medication that they need today. And it's whether, and it's regardless of the families in my district, my district on Classin Avenue, it's on yours too. Your main street and your back streets. And I wonder with a revenue like this, does the governor understand what her cuts will do and who they will hurt? We, the legislature, came into this year's session with real plans to fund social services by generating new recurring meaningful revenue. So many plans to pick from. You could pick any of them. However, we are here stuck with austerity. And next year, we're going to be in the same position again. New Yorkers will be struggling, and we will be working to deliver a balanced and fair budget. The government, the federal government, will be delivering more cuts, and we won't have the infrastructure to raise more revenue. I cannot stand here and accept a revenue bill that refuses to tax the ultra-wething, the 1%, while my people and your people continue to pay the price again and again. I will continue to fight to make sure that we tax the rich. But more importantly, I will make sure that I will be included in the number to make sure that all our communities, no matter the issue, get something good out of this and not just austerity. So today, I will have to vote no.

You can take back my time. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the chair allow me to ask a few questions in regards to veterans par EE?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Pretlow. Par EE in this bill, it's to do with veterans and veterans' real property tax exemption, correct?

I'm not sure of the number, no.

Do you know how many of our veterans actually are VA compensated?

About right now, today, around 153,000 veterans are partially or all compensated by the VA.

Yes.

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

I guess being designated as 100% disabled.

Yes.

Would I still qualify for that 100% exemption?

Okay.

I became a diabetic, or I was around a burn pit, had disabilities.

Well, this is all a local option and what we're doing is just increasing the availability for localities to raise the exemption or the discount given to fully disabled veterans. Most communities already have in place the availability for all veterans to get some sort of a reduction in their property taxes.

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

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

Yes.

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

I'm not sure. I don't know if you're allowed to work if you're fully 100% disabled.

I would imagine the VA.

Yeah.

But just a little while ago, we talked about that would be decided by the locality.

The locality has the wherewithal to provide the availability of the exemption to the 100% disabled vet.

That is not determined by the locality.

Okay.

So going back to the locality, if the locality decides to give the exemption,

No.

Well, they can. This is a local option. If my community wanted to do it, they could, they have the wherewithal to do it.

My community says, you know something, we can't afford to do that.

You should move to my community.

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

whoever the governing body is that determines the taxes in that community.

If they don't feel that they have the capacity to give that tax reduction to their 100% disabled vets, that's on them.

But I don't think the exemptions will be equal to the cost of moving.

is there an opt-out clause? That's up to the community also. That could be put into the language. That could be put into the language. That wouldn't be dictated by the state? Yes. Okay. And I know a lot of us as veterans, we work with our county veterans offices back at home. Is there going to be anything from New York State if this passes, which it probably will, Is there anything that's going to be sent to them to give them a heads up, to educate them on the number, the hundreds of veterans that will come in and say, look, I may have 100% disability before I do. Are we going to help educate them, to educate our veterans, to help them through the process?

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

Okay. Last year, I believe in this House, we passed a bill somewhat like this, and it was in that bill it had kind of the same language, but they had talked about adaptive housing and being unemployable. Is that in the new bill by any chance?

Is what we passed last year still in effect?

You believe so?

Okay. Okay, okay.

It's simplifying it, but it also says that what we passed last year is still in place.

Okay. Chairman, I thank you for the questions or the answers. I appreciate it. Madam Chair, I'm the bill.

I'm sorry, Madam Speaker, I apologize. I'm a veteran. I'm the ranking member on the Veterans Committee from the minority side. We all love our veterans. We want our veterans to succeed in life, especially if they're disabled, especially the ones that come back that are maimed either brain damaged missing limbs missing arms We all want to protect them As I look through this there were a few questions that came up already And we have veterans that have already asked us that question You know what about this What about that And I will absolutely support this part of the budget, 100%. But I want to make sure that we have things defined. So when our veterans come to our local county offices and ask those questions, or if they come to one of us here on the assembly floor as an assembly member, we should be able to give them those answers. So that's why I wanted to ask the questions for a little bit of clarifications and again I'm glad to see this part in the budget and I will definitely support this part of the budget 100%. So thank you Madam Speaker, thank you Chair for your time and thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Would the chairman yield for some questions on Part K?

For Part K, absolutely.

Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to revisit the tax on alternative nicotine products. and I know my colleague, the ranking member on Ways and Means brought this up. And you know that the differentiation between gum, nicotine gum like Nicorette and the pouches was brought up. Is there any concern about the inconsistency between treating those types of products differently?

Yeah, so I don't want to get back into the tax rate per se, just on the inconsistency. So was the driver for instituting this tax because of a belief that the nicotine pouches, because of the volume of nicotine in them, was harmful to New Yorkers?

I'm just looking for an understanding about why there's an inconsistency in what we're doing and why we treat it. That's not addressed in this bill.

So if the FDA were to rule tomorrow that a nicotine pouch is an FDA-approved cessation device, is there a provision in this piece of legislation to...

is there a provision in this bill that would roll back the tax because it is used for medical purposes?

Okay.

Okay. Thank you. And then is there any concern, I know in surrounding states, that by passing this measure, our neighboring states like Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Vermont, do not have this tax. And that by instituting the tax on these nicotine pouches, it will drive consumers who will be purchasing other products at a location where they would also buy a pouch and other things to purchase the pouches and those other things at one of those three neighboring states.

So we're not concerned about...

All right. Fair enough, Mr. Chairman. and I appreciate your answers to my questions. Thank you, Madam Chair, or Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, on the bill?

I rise today to share my deep frustration with a revenue bill that fundamentally fails to meet the moment, protect New Yorkers, and ensure that we are a state where working people can thrive. I am a proud democratic socialist because I believe that everyone deserves to live with dignity. I reject the idea that anyone should be one disaster away from losing everything. Year after year, we see corporations and the executives who run them get wealthier, while everyday New Yorkers struggle to survive. We are the most unequal state in the country, and our wealth disparity is growing exponentially. If you or someone in your family gets sick, lives through a natural disaster, is the victim of a crash, your stability is likely ruined. If you not wealthy the safety nets available to protect you are few and far between It doesn have to be this way This year budget reflected a clear and unique moment New York millionaires and billionaires are receiving billion in tax cuts while nearly half a million New Yorkers are losing their health care as a direct result of these cuts. If there was ever a simple and straightforward opportunity to stand with the New Yorkers over oligarchs, this was it. But we are voting on a budget today that does nothing to cover nearly half a million New Yorkers who will lose health care on July 1st. While the P de Terre tax is a good policy and an important first step, it will not scratch the surface of the billions we could raise with modest increases to personal income tax and corporate tax rates. Tax increases that these wealthy people and companies would not even notice because they are receiving such large cuts at the federal level. And indeed, because the budget has taken so very long, we will have less than a week to debate and vote on other issues that New Yorkers care about. So I am forced to vote no on this revenue bill and this budget. But I can promise you we will be back next year and the year after that. We will not stop until we truly tax the rich statewide and make the investments that ensure New Yorkers continue to have a place where working people can thrive and live. Thank you.

Hello. Oh, great. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The number of millionaires in the state continue to grow. The amount of corporate profits in the state continue to grow, whereas the households making $75,000 or less make up the biggest group of people who are leaving the state. And they are leaving the state because they can no longer afford to live here and have a decent quality of life. All of this has been made worse by the federal administration's cuts on Medicaid as well as SNAP, which means the most vulnerable people will further find a challenge in continuing to live in this state. But this spending plan from the federal administration also gives tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. To be specific, collectively the millionaires in this state will be saving $12 billion every year going forward. And that means the state budget this year had one core function. to address the affordability crisis and act as a counterweight to the assault the federal administration is unleashing on the working families of this state. However, the refusal to raise money from those who have it, from those who are hoarding it, so as to not invest in programs that would stabilize the lives of our constituents has made it so that people increasingly don't have a reason to truly believe in why they should be excited about democracy, why they should participate in this process. People need to believe that the government exists to watch out for their well-being. And the message we are sending, With this revenue bill, specifically the very explicit refusal from the Executive Chamber to not make the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, is basically saying we are going to allow the working families of New York to be the victims of one of the highest wealth disparities that exists in this country. New York State has so much wealth that it is richer than countries like Denmark and Sweden. But at the same time, we are having people fight over scraps, fight over what program can be funded over another, and still have none of these programs fully funded. For example, we do not want people living on the streets. And yet, we do not want to fund housing access vouchers which would help people have stable homes. And that is an ask of only $250 million, which is a drop in the bucket compared to how much money people who are the richest in this state are keeping to themselves. The purpose of money is to exchange hands, not to sit there collecting dust. The purpose of money is not to increase the wealth of a few people. It is to fund our collective well-being. It is to invest in a social infrastructure that gives everybody the opportunity to have a decent quality of life. That includes stable housing, that includes lower utility bills, that includes access to healthcare, that includes access to high quality education as well as good, well-paying union jobs. So to say that we are not going to invest in New Yorkers simply because we do not want to touch the pockets of the wealthy is an abdication of this government's responsibility. And for that reason, I will be voting no on this revenue bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a few clarifying questions? Will you yield, Mr. Sponsor?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're doing good. You're doing good.

Well, that's not really what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to talk about was your – there's a couple of questions in here about the child and dependent care credit. Yes.

Yes. And obviously very happy to see that we're trying to address some of the challenges and financial burdens parents are facing in finding affordable and reliable child care, something our conference has been pushing for. and I know this is one of those bipartisan issues that we've seen commonality with, and we appreciate that.

230,000 filers that it would impact.

Understood. Understood.

Is that for a live-in au pair, or who would benefit from that particular provision in the bill?

Right.

I don't know who they are. I'm just trying to understand when we talk about giving room and board for caregivers, again, what does that entail?

So there's no minimum of the number of young individuals that they would be in charge of?

And would the benefit, again, just to make sure I'm clear, would the benefit go to the caregiver themselves or those who are paying the caregiver?

The employer, essentially.

Understood. And the other thing that we saw was there were ancillary costs related to educational expenses that were not allowed when they also enable work. Can you tell me why those costs were not included?

And so are educational expenses included?

Understood. How about in regards to some of the regulatory reforms?

Is there anything in this bill that speaks to any of the regulatory reforms that I think both sides of the aisle have been trying to examine?

Just making sure there's no other questions that I have there. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for answering my questions. I appreciate

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Two facts should have motivated, defined this budget. One is the 450... On the bill? Oh, sorry. Pardon me. On the bill. Thank you. Two factors should have defined this budget. One is the 450,000 New Yorkers who are about to lose their health care because Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress have taken a buzzsaw to our already threadbare social safety net. The second is the $12 billion in tax cuts that the wealthiest New Yorkers are getting this year from that same Republican Congress. New York State had the opportunity and the responsibility to lead The overwhelming majority of New Yorkers are demanding that we tax the rich to invest in the working class of the state to make our lives more affordable and more dignified But Governor Hochul answered to different New Yorkers, that small number of billionaires and CEOs who refuse to pay their fair share and who donate to politicians to keep it that way. So what are we left with? a pied-à-terre tax on second homes worth more than $5 million. It's a start. And against a governor who so beholden to her billionaire donors, she swore she wouldn't allow a penny in new taxes. It is a victory. I want to thank the thousands of New Yorkers who made calls, who canvassed their neighbors, who showed up to rallies in their cities and here in the capital. Your organizing made a difference this year. But in a moment of profound inequality, when the rich have never been richer, when one in four New Yorkers lives in poverty and hundreds of thousands will lose their health care and their food stamps in a matter of weeks, it is simply not good enough. Make no mistake, this is on austerity budget, but we will continue to organize for a just budget that recognizes that it is the working class that make the state run, not the CEOs and billionaires. I vote no.

Mr. Bologna. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the chairman please yield first a couple questions? Will the chairman yield?

If you'll limit you to two.

A few. I'm going to be on part K, if that's all right. So the 75% wholesale tax, and again, some of these have gone over, but I just want to clarify. These are non-combustible products. We're talking about non-traditional cigarettes here, right? Yes.

And would you agree that a lot of adults use these products as an alternative to smoking?

So generally speaking, as we move away from combustible cigarettes, I think that would you agree that it's a positive that people are moving away from tobacco to just nicotine, even if it's just a gateway to get off altogether?

So would you agree, well, it's data, this is from the CDC, that lower income folks are at a three times higher rate of smoking and using tobacco products than higher income earners? Let me rephrase that.

And that's a percentage of their income. It's a lot higher. So, I mean, in a weird way, we're actually kind of effectively helping balance a budget on the backs of lower income earners. Are we not?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

On the bill, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Bologna. Ms. Metanyas. Oh, pardon me. Mr. Keith Brown.

On the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Brown. Now Ms. Matanjas.

Our communities fought for New York for all. Real protections that would finally establish clear separation between local governments and federal immigration enforcement and ensure immigrant New Yorkers could live with dignity and safety and continue to contribute into the economy. And then the governor stood in the way. We were forced to settle for weaker measures and partial protections after enormous resistance and reluctance. Even so, immigrant advocates, organizers, and legislative allies fought hard to secure meaningful wins in this budget. These victories matter, but they don't go far enough. At a moment when immigrant families across this country are living in fear and under increased attack, New York should be leading with courage and clarity, not compromise and hesitation. Immigrant communities should never be treated as bargaining chips during budget negotiations. Our fight does not end here. We will continue organizing, legislating, and pushing to strengthen these protections until New York fully lives up to its promise as a safe home for all immigrants. New Yorkers are facing one of the worst affordability crises in generations. Families are being crushed by rising rents, health care costs, utility bills, food prices, while billionaires and major corporations continue to receive enormous tax breaks and protections. We fought to make the ultra-wealthy finally pay their fair share. We fought for real progressive revenue solutions that could fully fund housing, health care, public transit, climate investments, child care, and public education. And once again, we faced constant pushback. Instead of fully taxing the rich, this administration chose to protect wealthy interests and corporate power while asking working-class New Yorkers to continue carrying the burden of a broken economy. Now, there are important wins in this budget that deserve recognition, but even those victories exist alongside austerity, compromise, and missed opportunities that continue to leave too many New Yorkers behind. I recognize the hard four victories won by movements, advocates, organizers, and legislative allies. Our communities deserve better than incrementalism during a moment of crisis Working people are looking for leaders willing to improve their lives They looking for leadership willing to confront corporate greed invest boldly in public goods, protect immigrants without compromise, and treat climate change like the emergency that it is. And too often this governor stood in the way of that vision. Despite those barriers, our movement continues to grow stronger. Working-class New Yorkers continue to organize, and we will continue fighting for a future where housing is guaranteed, health care is universal, energy is public, immigrants are protected, and our economy serves the people who make this state run, not the wealthy elite who profit from inequality. This budget did not go far enough, but our fight does not end here. I will continue building a New York that belongs to all of us. I vote no on this budget.

On the bill. So I've listened, as usual, with interest to, you know, there are 150 of us here sometimes. Well, it seems like there are a lot of us here right now, which is kind of good. We're all listening to each other, I hope. And, you know, we have a wide difference of opinion on this bill and on this whole topic of revenue. So I want to just use my time to talk a little bit about what's on my mind with this bill. This enacted revenue budget increases state taxes by $2.5 billion over two years. It includes an enhancement of the child and dependent care credit, energy rebate checks, taxes on alternative nicotine products, as well as a new surcharge on high-value second homes in New York City, an extension of business tax rates, and decoupling from various H.R. 1 provisions. So by, you know, some budget bills are very thick with many, many, many subparts. This has 36 parts. So, you know, we're not going to like it all. If you like all of it, you probably should have your head examined. If you hate it all, you probably don't have a heart. So there are definitely parts of the bill that I think are decent. And I'm a glasses-half-full kind of gal, so I'm going to tell you what I like about it so far. I like the tipped wage income exemption. I think that's good. The rebate checks are good as far as they go. I just think that, you know, again, they're a little gimmicky. They're not really – when you go to the grocery store or you fill up your gas tank and you think about what these rebate checks are really going to mean to you, it's not going to be that much. It's really not going to be that much. I'm grateful. Let's put it in a positive spin. I'm grateful that the New York City Pieditere tax did not get imported to upstate. I'm very grateful that that didn't get into the final enacted budget. I don't think we want it up here, but we'll see how it works in the city. You know, I think when I came here 10 years ago, the enacted budget was $153 billion. dollars. Last year it was $254 billion and this year it will be $268 billion, an increase year over year of $14 billion. And I listened with great amusement to that being described as an austerity budget. I don't see in what realm of reality that is an austerity budget when you're increasing it by $14 billion. I just think what I'm coming away with, what I been feeling for some time now is that no matter how much money this legislature has to spend it will always want more It will never be enough It will never be enough And you know that has an impact. The governor promised no new taxes, but then over time that became no new broad-based income or statewide business tax increases. So it changed a little bit, messaging, right? That's Albany speak for. There are, you know, there is going to be state tax increases, but we're going to look at over two years. It's going to be two and a half billion dollars. New York City businesses have the highest combined corporate tax rate in the country, while statewide business taxes are generally among the highest nationwide. And I won't re-quote all the great statistics that were offered by a previous speaker, but suffice it to say that I believe that we are already taxed considerably here. For those of my colleagues who are very disappointed that we're not taxing the rich, I would say we do tax the rich. We tax the middle class and we tax the poor and we already do that. And, you know, I think overall I'm just disappointed again that we're, it seems as though there are some in the chamber who are taking a victory lap and kind of saying, we didn't make it any worse, you know, we didn't make it any worse. But really, in fact, it was already pretty bad. And I would say that over the 10 years that I've been in office, an increase of well over $100 billion is a lot of money. And it is what it is. Let me say one more good thing, though, before I close. I was very happy to see, in Part J.J., which is all the way at the end of this budget bill, and what this part does, which is very helpful for my district, And I did want to point it out because, like I said, I believe in calling out the good stuff when it's there. Let me get it in front of me. I have a village in my district, Boston Spa. It's actually where my district office is, too. And they have a very old brownfield site. And we've been wanting to see that get redeveloped for like a long time. And there were some brownfield tax credits that were issued several years ago, but then the pandemic happened and a lot of other things happened and proposals, you know, developers kind of came in with ideas and then those developers went away. And to make a very long story short, those brownfield credits were ready to expire. And that would have really detrimentally impacted the owner of the property and any potential development ideas for the property. It makes it much more attractive to redevelop that property with the brownfield tax credits. So with this part, JJ, and it's not just for Boston Spa, but it's for other areas too, those Brownfield tax credits are going to get extended for a few more years to allow for the appropriate development process to move forward. And hopefully we're going to get a good project in there that's really going to help that village out quite a bit. So I'm very grateful to see that. So to answer colleagues who thought that we should have taxed more, we should have taken more from those who could in their view, very well afford it. I would just say I think that this bill does plenty enough damage, and I can't support it, although there are certain aspects to it, as there would be with 36 parts to it. There are certainly some parts that I'm happy to see. So I'll be voting in the negative,

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And on the bill, please. On the bill. I saved you a little time, Mr. Chairman. I didn't ask you any questions this year. There's no white smoke, so we're good. I'm going to be very brief, Madam Chair. This is just ridiculous. Here we are all this time late on a budget, spending $100 billion more than what we did back when I first got to this chamber. And I hear people whining and crying and blaming the governor, blaming the federal government. No, the blame is in here. The blame is on the second floor. There is no one paying attention to what the heck is going on. How can we spend $100 billion more in 10 years when we have less businesses, less people living in this state? What are we doing? And then we attack people that have been successful? Let me tell you what, a lot of those people that you're talking about that are millionaires and billionaires now, A lot of them grew up poor, started with absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, and they made their way the American way. New York should and never ought to be a socialist state, nor America. I can't believe that we have people in this room that think it's okay to just give away the store and let everybody else pay for it. That is not how this country came to be. Sure in the heck not the way I want to live. So, I mean, I hear all this. Some people are voting for it. Everything I've seen so far is absolute junk. As a matter of fact, I ought to tear it up and just throw it in the garbage can. This is not responsible. This is afraid of saying no to people. And when you're in business and you're running, and when you're here and you're running government, sometimes you have to say no. We can't afford it. The people we represent can't afford it. As long as we have our priorities, our emergency services, our law enforcement, and we keep the wheels of government going, that's priority. I just, I don't get it. I don't get it. I guess I live in an area of the state where people work hard every day and expect to get something back for the fruits of their labor. But what we're doing to people, and you know what? You want to talk about being rich or whatever? You have to have a million dollars to be able to live in this state. Because over the last 10 years, we've made it so unaffordable for every single person to live here that if you don have a million dollars if you don make a million dollars you can live comfortably here And it all because of the things that happen in this chamber that chamber down there and the second floor People are out of touch with the real world. They're out of touch how hard people work and how hard people struggle to pay the bills. That's where I came from, blue collar. I started with nothing. Didn't have rich parents, didn't have parents give everything to me. I got up at 3.30 every morning, and I worked my tail off, and I paid my fair share of taxes in the last 50-plus years. You want to really do something for the people that you represent? Start thinking about them. Not giving away the story, but start thinking about programs and things that can really help them get going while cutting the budget and lowering people's taxes. Why don't we think about that one time? I could never support anything like this. This is just absolutely ridiculous. Almost $300 billion with a B. Where the heck is it coming from? And the nonsense about Washington, D.C. and the federal government, that's been happening since Obama was in office. So I don't want to hear that. And the same thing with the health insurance. There's been a problem with health insurance for the last 30 years. Nobody's fixed it. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on. So ridiculous. Put your money where your mouth is, get a set, get some guts, and do what we're supposed to do here. Make the people in the state of New York's lives better by doing the right thing and never mind the politics. I vote no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill. On the bill. New York doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. Spending is out of control. As my colleague stated earlier, the budget went from $175 billion to today's $268 billion in less than 10 years. Taxing, taxing, and taxing is not sustainable. Corporate greed, tax the rich, and now we're extending taxes on small businesses for three more years. And that's the flow. When you run out of the money at the top, it starts trickling down to the bottom, to the businesses and to the middle class. Money flows into New York City from our state budget. While the state legislature or the city legislature, the financial plan from 2026 to 2029 shows a 16% salary increase for the elected officials in New York City with 13% fringe benefits and a mere 3% increase for the 80,000 workers that make the city work. What will we do to stop the exodus? New York's share of millionaires is falling compared to other large states. Wall Street to y'all street is real. More than 100 companies are duly listed in New York and Texas, and they're planning their exodus. JPMorgan Chase employs more in Texas now than New York. Goldman Sachs is building an 800,000 square foot building in Dallas for 5,000 employees. Wells Fargo opened a new campus in Las Colinas bringing 4 workers there from New York Charles Schwab moved corporate headquarters to Westlake Texas with 7 employees Bank of America 5 employees to Texas Scotiabank, regional office in Dallas, 1,000 workers there. What will we do to create a better business environment in New York so that we stop leaving and losing these large companies that are paying these taxes that we're all talking about here today. The structural deficit and unsustainable revenue source will affect our bond rating in the future. The well will dry out. This spending is out of control, and the Wall Street to Y'all Street is real. They're leaving, and it will fall on the middle class. The spending has to stop. And for that reason, I'll be voting in the negative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you all. You know, I think something... On the bill. On the bill, sir. I think something that's been left out of the discussion is where the money is going. The money in this budget is going not to state government, but mostly back into the pockets of our communities and our institutions. Health care. Hospitals and nursing homes needed help. They're getting some relief in this budget, especially upstate hospitals, very much at risk because of what's going on in Washington. We're doing the best we can to help. It may not be enough for some institutions. Money is going back into what we're doing with foundation aid and school aid, back to the taxpayers. We increased in this budget the minimum a school district could get in aid from 1% to 2% for those that are on Save Harmless, an increase that school districts asked for repeatedly, we did it. Increases in childcare, increases in school breakfast and lunch funding, assistance to utility rate payers, not just with the rebate program, as has been mentioned somewhat disparagingly, but it's a billion dollars, but also in changing, more importantly, the rules by which rate increases are approved by the Public Service Commission. Commission hopefully will see better results on those applications. Increases in AIM and other kinds of transportation assistance to local governments back into the pockets that will help offer property tax increases. One billion dollars for our sustainable futures fund which will help us do some of the energy efficiency kinds of programs that we need to do. One billion dollars is not enough but it's what we looks like in this budget we can afford. We added 25 million, so total $525 million for clean water programs, which has provided to local governments in this state, these programs, over $3 billion of assistance since those programs were created. And we have a new $175 million for clean water related to housing. We will see how that program works out, but that is a potential money out the door that helps at the local level. And And with it, it's just too easy to say too much spending without reflecting on the fact that very little of it, most of our state agencies are at zero increases for their budgets. It's out the door to help people, help affordability in this state. So I vote aye on this budget. As with any budget, we're not all happy with every element, and that comes with the territory. But we doing real things to lower costs for the people that we serve That something we should all be proud of I be voting aye Thank you Thank you Mr Smollin

So here we are with another budget and more new taxes for New York. The new state taxes this year benefit New York City to the tune of a half a billion dollars. yet New York continues to have the number two overall tax burden in our nation. We have the most state and local taxes in the whole country at $12,500 per person in New York State. But meanwhile, the Tax Foundation ranks New York number 50 dead last in the whole United States. The budget itself is up 5.6%, but inflation last year was only 2.6%. What gives? Why are we spending more than we need to? This spending is at historical levels. It's up from $170 billion in 2019 to almost $270 billion here in 2026. And this spending, we spend more than any other big state in the country. California spends $349 billion, but they have 40 million people. That's outrageous. That's because Texas spends only $169 billion, and they have 31 billion people. And sunny Florida spends $114 billion with 23 million people. So is it any wonder that a million people have left upstate New York in the last years? Is it any wonder that people realize that New York is on the wrong track and they are voting with their feet? We need to stop this insanity. I vote no on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This budget has both positive and negative. On the bill? On the bill, sorry. On the bill. This budget has both positive and negative, and there is, as the previous, as Mr. Smolin says, that we lost nearly a million people for the past five or six years, and our budget has ballooned. So why are we increasing the budget? Why are we losing people? And we're paying more per person than not. Now, if we have to find a way to just find a fraud, waste and abuse in the system, we don't even need to increase the taxes. We could even cut the taxes and bring back the business itself. This bill doesn't address that, especially for a useless wasteful homeless program that doesn't help. Education, we lost in New York City not even a million kids enrolled. Not too long ago, it was over a million, but it's less than a million now. And the cost per student is in New York City, nearly $42,000. And education level, we're in the middle of the pack. Not in the top of the pack, but in the middle. So this budget, as my previous colleague is, is not a tax problem or revenue problem, but it's a spending. It's the priorities that we spend on this that is wasteful, that is not accounted to all those non-governmental programs that need to be ordered, need to be – need to account for, are they successful or not? We're just pumping useless money. And I am debating on this bill, should I vote yes or no, because there's a lot of positive in this bill. There's some tax releases in there. There is some expanding – decreasing on government regulations. So there is a lot of greatness and goodness on this bill. So that's all I have, and that's my thought on this bill.

Madam Speaker, on the bill. On the bill. As one of the newest members of this body, I was elected less than four months ago as a proud Democratic Socialist, ready to fight for my constituents at a pivotal moment for New York and our country. I've had countless conversations with my neighbors who are worried about not being able to afford the rent or childcare while watching Trump gut government agencies slash social programs and threaten the very fabric of our democracy to line his own pockets and the pockets of his billionaire oligarch friends.

I went for office precisely because I saw that our state government has-

Point of order. Ms. Marano, please stop talking for one moment, please. What is your point?

Okay, your point on decorum not sustained. Relative to speaking on the bill, it is sustained. We will speak on the bill in front of us today, please.

Ms. Moreno.

Thank you. Mr. Tenusas.

Thank you, Mr. Morinello.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Mr. Norber.

The metals coming together. Metals coming together. Batteries are charged up. We're in good shape. Good. I shouldn have mentioned batteries I sorry That good sir Yeah you don want to get you on a You don want to get me going I don want to get you on a Good point Actually what I would like to get going on here is I know we finally have the financial plan Yes.

Okay.

All funds is $268.1 billion, which is $5.5 billion or 2% over the executive's proposal.

$9.2 billion over last year, which is 3.5%.

State operating funds, the estimate is $161.5 billion, which is an increase of $2.6 billion or 1.7% over the executive's estimate and $12.7 billion or 8.6% over state fiscal year 2526.

I guess I can. $2.4 billion in Medicaid and health, $1 billion in social services, $543 million for local government assistance, $469 million in education, $300 million for capital projects, $205 million in general public protection, $184 million for higher education, $127 million in general state charges, $52 million for housing, $47 million for economic development, $13 million for the environment, $10 million for transportation, and $10 million for mental hygiene.

For 2026-27. We have a balanced budget for 2026-27.

Give me a second. Cumulatives, $30 billion.

2.4% above the executive.

No, it doesn't.

The current rainy day reserve is $8.138 billion.

$4.2 billion.

$1.618 billion.

Yes.

Well we don expect that to happen but we will handle it as the need arises Are reserve funds being used to help with additional spending needs in this budget

I think we're using like $2.5 billion for... We're moving $2.5 billion into our fund balance for this year.

That's not being contemplated.

You say for fiscal year 26, 27?

71.8 billion. There's a state supported.

Last year it was 61.6 billion. We're projecting for fiscal year 27, $71.8 billion, going up in fiscal year 28 to $80.8 billion, and fiscal year 29, $89.5 billion.

Okay, we're still handling some of the state obligations that have been around since COVID.

I believe it's just prepayments.

The total appropriation for the aid to localities. Okay, $242.3 billion.

So the old funds is at 208.2 billion. $2 billion.

The latter.

No, the latter.

The latter.

I don't have access to all of that.

I don't believe that is accurate, sir.

When the executive budget was released...

The way it's reported is being changed, the data hasn't changed. They're not getting any less money.

That hasn't changed.

Well, I don't think we have the funds for that.

We had it in our one house. It didn't make the final cut.

Okay it being used it being calculated based on income tiers similar to how tiers on your income tax forms are

I don't have that available to me.

How much the state has spent? Approximately $2 billion.

We've reimbursed New York City for about $3 billion.

$2 billion.

There's nothing in the current appropriations.

From last year, yeah.

Well, the monies that we were referring to earlier was by law in New York City was responsible for providing housing, and that money was used to pay for housing for them.

We didn't change anything here.

No, the reimbursement methodology has not been changed.

The problem still exists.

No.

Yes.

150 million.

Hopefully.

Hopefully.

That is the aim.

Okay, there's oversight involved.

Hopefully not.

The general cost of living, fringe benefits, so in municipal payrolls, there are a lot of things that cause cities to the inability to collect proper property taxes, the need to reval, you know, to reval property, housing. There are many issues that are causing several of the cities in our state to be on the brink of fiscal disaster. And certainly they're dealing with rising utility costs like families, businesses as well, and certainly they're going to be dealing with rising pension costs because of some of the enhancements that were passed too, right? So they're going to have to deal with

issue. We're going to have to continue to provide extra assistance to these other municipalities, are you? I don't foresee anything, but it wouldn't surprise me. At least in the short

It may be. I'm sorry, what were you saying? It may be.

Okay, I think you're referring to what's available only to volunteer fire departments, and this new funding can be allocated for any municipally used vehicles.

I think that will be administered through ag and markets. Let ag and markets handle the administration. And I'm pretty sure that any farmer that's entitled to it will know how to get it.

Well, you just stated there's $50 million in there now, and nothing new has been allocated.

Well, I think we're expecting a report this coming November to see how the program is working and if it needs to be tweeted.

No.

That will be determined in the report.

No, they'll be the same as last year.

If it's less than $2 billion, I think we'll just continue on the path. If it's more, then we have to take corrective actions.

This is the same as last year.

I'm going to go on the bill now, Madam Speaker.

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

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

Yes, I will.

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

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

Okay, so if there are more seats that are increased in New York City,

Okay, fair enough. So we're doing that for New York City. but there are 73 school districts across the state that also offer three-year-old UPK. Do those school districts have the equivalent increase to their foundation aid to help cover the costs for any new enrollments they face?

Why?

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

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

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

Not public?

On double secret probation? In the executive budget proposal's Medicaid scorecard, it was included approximately $1.9 billion in financial plan resources for the Medicaid global cap due to anticipated changes with the essential plan. However, since the executive budget we have had, the waiver we talked about earlier approved, making that portion of the financial plan unnecessary. Do we know what is the total amount of the financial plan resources being used in this budget to offset Medicaid global cap?

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

Well, yeah, but.

Well, but for the seven people watching.

You have it.

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

Yes.

Okay, so that was, we reallocated that to the tune of $20 million?

Okay.

Pardon? Say that again, please. I'm sorry.

To $5 million?

Okay. How about aligning personal care fee-for-service administrative reimbursement at 15%?

Seven and a half million. Okay, thank you. In the health and mental hygiene budget, there was an amending of the governor's proposed changes to biomarker coverage, which was a proposed saving of $50 million.

Is there a new fiscal attached with the proposal due to the amendments?

There is not?

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

No? What's the difference?

A billion in additional. Okay.

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

In which fiscal year?

27, what would it be for 28?

Combined? Or both years?

Yes, but then we have one fiscal year and then another fiscal year.

No, I asked for 27 and then 28.

Okay. And there's nothing in 26, 27. Okay. Okay. Is there any overlap between the previous MCO tax arrangement and the one we approved a few hours ago?

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

The revenue versus the expenses.

Would that be something that we would see on the financial plan or the Medicaid scorecard once it is public?

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

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

So $3 billion.

Okay, and we anticipate to be consistent over the next few out years, the $3 billion?

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

approaching it now. We're not going to wait till we get there. Okay. But we do know that

from Yorktown brought up the medical indemnity fund. And this budget bill includes $155.5 million in funding for the fund, which is a little over $55 million less than last year. Will this funding be adequate to ensure services for those currently receiving MIFF services?

As well as prospective enrollees?

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

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

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

How much was included for Spina Bifida?

$75,000. $75,000, okay. Is there any funding for the Alliance for Safe Kids? No. Is there any appropriation to fix the long-term inequity of early intervention services across the state and clear backlogs?

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

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

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

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

Do you see J.S.? What's the exact line item for that one?

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

Where can I find that?

general funds balance. So $550,000 is going to be allocated for what exactly?

A task force?

That's going to do what?

Well, but the bill that we've already passed adds a new criminal penalty. So how does that have anything to do with this appropriation bill that we're passing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, but not this bill?

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

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

Anything in this bill that supports the prohibition for law enforcement face coverings No And anything in this bill that supports the Office of Immigrant Trust

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pretlow, for answering my questions.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the chair yield? Mr. Pretlow, will you yield?

Thank you, Mr. Pratlow. I'm sorry I had to get you back out of your chair so quick. I just want to go over a few numbers with the veterans' benefits in this part of the budget. I just got a chance to look at this first thing this morning for the first time. I just want to make sure I'm clear. Is it $9.7 million that we have in the budget this year for veterans' benefits?

And is that an increase or decrease from last year?

Veteran Services used to handle. Yes, I believe that was the $415,000 for the

All right. Legacy policy, yeah. All right. Thank you. So I kind of went through the numbers really quick myself, along with our Ways and Means staff, and it looks like it's about three-quarters of a million dollars less from last year, or from this year, from last year to this year.

You agree? All right. So I'm wondering, you know, year after year, Chair, we see the Veterans budget come through, through and year after year, I always refer to it as a pawn on the chessboard. The Governor uses it to negotiate. But why do you think the Governor constantly wants to either negotiate or gut these benefits for our veterans?

Yes I did see that And there another one too as well So let talk a little bit about the military relief fund family relief fund Why was the decrease from last year to this year

I'm sorry, I did not hear you.

All right. Have we ever took a look at how these families are getting that information?

Has the state?

All right. Who would you suggest I reach out to find that information?

Okay. Secondly, also our Vietnam Veterans of America, New York State Council, they were at 100,000 last year. Now they're at zero this year. I was wondering why. They informed us that they're no longer doing it.

They are no longer operating.

So is that, that's the case they did back away?

All right, Chair, thank you for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bill?

Just one last thought. Again, we constantly shift the monies for our veterans. Our New York State Veterans Department is probably one of the smallest funded departments in New York State government. We constantly see that money getting cut or moved around. I just wonder why we do that. And as I look back to our local districts back home, we have the Veterans Outreach Center of Rochester in Monroe County, Madam Speaker. And they were at $350,000 last year. They're at $350,000 again in this budget. I'm thankful that they weren't cut, but I know with the amount of money that we've cut from our veterans organizations, from this veterans budget, we could use that money to help fund the Veterans Outreach Center at a higher level. I know talking with the director and many of her staff and many of the veterans that go, they're men and women, they do so much for the veterans, short-term and long-term. And again, with a budget that's increased so much, why are we not funding them a little more this year?

We went through the budget process, but yet still it's a flat line stagnant number. And I hope next year when we get back to this budget that you all will take a hard look at what we do for our veterans and make sure we fund them at a proper level. So thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words.