Senate Floor Session — Regular Session

The Senate will come to order. I ask everyone present to please rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)

Reading of the Journal.

Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read. Presentation of petitions. Messages from the Assembly. Messages from the Governor. Reports of standing committees. Reports of select committees. Communications and reports from state officers. Motions and resolutions. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Move to reconsider the vote by which that bill was passed.

Ayes, 58.

I offer the following amendments.

On behalf of Senator Cleare, I wish to call up Senate Print 7160, recalled from the Assembly, which is now at the desk.

Calendar Number 494, Senate Print 7160, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the Elder Law.

The Secretary will call the roll on reconsideration. (The Secretary called the roll.)

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

The amendments are received.

The amendments are received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Senator Brisport on the resolution.

Thank you, Senator Brisport and my colleagues, for their song. (Laughter.)

The resolution was previously adopted on May 5th. Senator Gianaris.

There will be an immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in Room 332, while we continue with the resolutions. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Senator Myrie on the resolution.

But when I was ready, Mama Mosley was all in. She put her name, her credibility, her service on the line. And it wasn't just for me. For so many leaders -- local, state, federal -- she has done the same thing, poured into us her entire life -- and was an amazing public servant herself. It is a testament to her that her son, a former member of the Assembly, has risen to be Secretary of State. That she has so many leaders throughout the legislatures. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Marilyn Mosley. So I urge all of my colleagues to not only support this resolution, but to tell your Mama Mosley story to as many people as possible. May her legacy continue to live through all of the people that she has invested in. And we are proud to present this resolution to Secretary Mosley today. I proudly vote aye.

Thank you, Madam President. I wish to start by sharing my deep condolences with Secretary Mosley and with Ms. Mosley's entire family. This is a loss for all of New York. But I know above all it is a loss for you, who knew her best. My thoughts are with you in this painful time. Ms. Marilyn D. Mosley, Mama Mosley, as she is known around Brooklyn, truly was an extraordinary woman. Her light shone so brightly and changed so many lives. When she took the time to talk with me just a few months ago, I remember how much the warmth and kindness she showed me turned my day around. Her positivity, encouragement and passion were a superpower that brought out the best in everyone blessed enough to experience them. For that reason, perhaps, Ms. Mosley is often talked about in association with the many, many powerful people she worked with or helped empower. But for me, when I think of Ms. Mosley, I think of the students she devoted so much of her life to. Their names may not be the ones in newspapers, but Ms. Mosley knew that even in their tweens and teens, each of them mattered. As a former Brooklyn public school teacher myself, I can tell you it's no small task to show up every day with hearts and hope when it feels like the deck is so stacked against your students. But Ms. Mosley not only gave decades as an educator, she also donated her own resources to New York City public schools to help combat those injustices. When students wanted to go to college but couldn't afford it, she worked to help them access grants and scholarships that would open those doors for them. In her role as the director of the citywide Task Force on Pregnant and Parenting Teens, she advocated for resources to ensure young mothers could still get access to an education and a stable future. In this moment, I can't help imagining the future New York could have if all of us fought as hard as Ms. Mosley to ensure every student in New York could get an equitable, quality education. I hope that we will not only remember her with words, but also through our actions to carry forward her dedication to that goal. May you rest in power, Mama Mosley.

Thank you, Madam President. I must admit when I first met her, I thought she was a Queens power broker. I thought that the influence was simply in Queens. And I learned later that, for whatever reason, she decided that Brooklyn was a place that she would put her emphasis. (Laughter.)

Thank you, Senator Sanders. To our very honorable guest, Secretary of State Walter Mosley, we appreciate you for being here today. We are deeply in debt to your mother for her service, for her leadership, for her mentorship of our colleagues, for all that she did for the community. We are pleased to have this resolution in her honor, and we welcome you, as always, to this house and extend the privileges and cordialities to you, our former colleague. Thank you for being here. And in her honor, please rise and be recognized. (Standing ovation.)

Please call on Senator Ashby for an introduction.

Thank you, Madam President. Columbia Kicks Cancer was named the Blood Cancer United 2026 Student Visionaries of the Year at its grand finale in March. The Columbia Kicks Cancer team is a completely student-run organization within the East Greenbush Central School District. It is comprised of 20 team members who raised a record-breaking $239,237. This marks the sixth year in a row that East Greenbush's team has raised the most money for the entire region. Natalie Krisanda and Brady Martyn were both named 2026 Albany Student Visionaries of the Year, and Ty Baron was the top individual fundraiser. All money will be donated to Blood Cancer United, formerly known as Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, for blood cancer research, treatment and care. Natalie and Brady led the Team of 18 other Columbia students to organize fundraisers over the course of seven weeks that included raffles, Dine to Donate events, Valentine's Day flower sales, youth sports clinics, and a bottle drive in a district-wide Wear Red Day. The team doesn't just fundraise, they spread awareness and make an incredible impact on the fight against blood cancer. Joining us today are seniors Natalie Krisanda and Brady Martyn, Caidyn Albano, Ryan Asenbauer, Ty Baron, Katerina Christakis, Keira Cook, Timmy Donnelly, Sophia Galligan, Lincoln Gibson, Thomas Herkenham, Helen Ketzer, Sophia Laquidara, Yash Mansharamani, Ascher Melino, Andrew Mocerine, Charlotte Mueller, Hannah Ortiz, Riley Sheehan, and Carson Wasbes. Please congratulate them on their amazing work and give them all the cordialities and privileges of the house.

Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Move to accept the report of the Finance Committee.

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

Please take up the supplemental calendar.

Calendar Number 1317, Senate Print 9005C, Budget Bill, an act to amend Chapter 268 of the Laws of 1996.

There is a message of necessity at the desk.

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

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

The bill is laid aside. Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of the supplemental calendar.

The Secretary will ring the bell. The Secretary will read.

Madam President, let me remind my colleagues once again that we are asking members of the Minority to identify the parts that they intend to debate so we can assign the debate to the appropriate member. And as it relates to Part LL, if they can identify the subpart, that would also be helpful. Thank you.

Mr. President, would the sponsor yield for some questions regarding Part LL? I guess we'll start at Subpart A.

Murray-Myrie. Senator Myrie, do you yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President, 287(g) agreements, what is commonly referred to as IGSA agreements, and both of those formally and informally.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. On -- I think on page 46, lines 50 through 53, we outline just any formal or informal agreement. There is no further definition beyond that.

Senator Murray on the bill.

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

Senator Myrie on the bill.

Senator Rhoads, why do you rise?

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. That is not a matter of my belief or your belief. It is the law.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and to uphold our laws. I believe in our laws. It is breaking the law to enter unlawfully into the country.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, just say that last part again? I didn't hear it.

Through you, Mr. President, local law enforcement isn't capable of deporting anyone. That is the full province of the federal government. But there are instances where there is cooperation between local law enforcement and the federal government. I think that that is appropriate.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. On the bill before the house is statutory construction around the levels of cooperation, if any, the conduct of state and local employees, if any. And I don't think that that is relevant, my beliefs on whether the federal government should continue -- in fact, I was very clear on the outset of this debate that I do believe that the federal government has the constitutional power to regulate immigration enforcement.

Senator Rhoads on the bill.

Senator Myrie, will you yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President. If I'm understanding the question correctly, I don't think that those two things are necessarily related. You are asking whether law enforcement will be able to continue to do its job in preventing local crime, and then you add whether that requires them to work with the federal government. I've said repeatedly that there are instances where that may be true. But constitutionally, the state is not required to do that. And that is what this bill is trying to clarify, that there are instances where there will be cooperation. There are formal and informal instances where we do not believe that that should be the case. And that is what this bill is establishing.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. I think we have a fundamental difference or disagreement on what carrying out law enforcement duties may be. Local law enforcement will not be hindered in any way in this bill from continuing to keep our communities safe. There is nothing in this bill that will prevent them for continuing to carry out their duties, to continue to fight crime, to continue to keep people safe. I think it is my colleague's belief that every law enforcement agency in this state is also required to do federal immigration enforcement. That is a philosophical difference that we have. That is not a constitutional grounded opinion. The state is not required to do federal immigration enforcement. And in fact, the federal immigration enforcement body is well-resourced and well-funded to do that. This is saying that we should allow for them to continue to do that job, for the local law enforcement to continue to do their job. And if there are instances where they have to cooperate, they will do so. But there should be no formal agreement where taxpayers from New York are carrying out and paying for the federal immigration enforcement apparatus to do its job.

Senator Rhoads on the bill.

Senator Borrello, why do you rise?

Will the sponsor yield?

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

Thank you, Senator Myrie. Senator Borrello, the sponsor has yielded.

Through you, Mr. President, I just want to clarify. Are you referring to 287(g) agreements or the agreements allowing for the detention for immigration purposes of people by local law enforcement?

Through you, Mr. President. I understand that the -- this is probably the policy difference that we have, that you and others feel that localities should have full control over what agreements they sign into the federal government. It is our belief and our intent that the state also has a role in how that relationship is managed. That is a constitutional grounded policy choice that the state can control, the locality's relationship with the federal government. This is an instance where we have made the choice, will make the choice as a Legislature that these agreements with the federal government should no longer advance.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. I think you may have misheard me earlier. I didn't say that the agreements may vary. The bill defines -- or the bill states, rather, informal and formal agreements. What I indicated earlier was that there may be instances where there is cooperation that may not rise to a pattern that would suggest there is some sort of informal agreement absent a contract. I think the answer, in short, is it depends. There may be one-off instances of cooperation that don't suggest an informal agreement. There may be other circumstances where this does appear to be an informal agreement. And that's what we are referencing here in this bill.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. We have, later on in the statute, several ways to enforce this entire Part LL. The Attorney General's office, the Governor's office, the Inspector general's office, a new office that will be created within the Attorney General's office that can receive complaints from the public or other officials and will have subpoena power, will have court order power, will have investigatory power, so that the facts contained within that circumstance would help determine. I don't think law enforcement is in the business of "it depends" either, and it's probably why we should have a uniform policy across the state instead of what we have existing now, which is a patchwork of some counties that have 287(g)s and IGSAs and other counties that don't.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. If I'm understanding correctly, I think that would depend on whether there was a determination made if this was an informal or formal agreement or any action or agreement prohibited by what's in the statute. If it had been found that they were using resources or they themselves were breaking the law, then that would be -- there would be a consequence for that. But there would have to be a factual determination.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I will not address the last sentence there by my colleague. But I will say that there is an attempt in this bill to account for the Attorney General's dual role in representing state employees and potentially having to investigate or enforce the law against those state employees as well. The Office of Immigration Trust will be screened off in the Attorney General's office such that if there are state actors that are running afoul of the law, that the Attorney General can continue to defend while the Office of Immigration Trust can investigate. Local law enforcement, as it relates to information sharing, is exempt from this bill. They are not included -- specifically, local police officers and peace officers as defined in our statutes. That was an intentional choice by the Legislature. This section that we are talking about relates to the agreements. And that is not an individual officer determination. And so the Attorney General's role is more likely than not going to often occur not against local law enforcement, but against state employees.

Senator Borrello on the bill.

Subpart C? Presumably Senator Myrie. Senator Myrie, do you yield?

Part C, excuse me.

Through you, Mr. President. This is the second time our colleagues have referenced New York for All. That is nowhere in this bill and is not what we are passing today. So I just want to correct that for the record.

Senator Borrello, I would not be able to inform you of that, but Senator Myrie has indicated such. Are you asking him to yield for a question?

Senator Myrie, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. That is not the case right now. And let me speak a bit to why we're doing some of what we're doing today. I've heard a lot about whether we're keeping the community safe and how this is walking back what we have done and there is going to be unfettered chaos by what we are doing today. But what we have seen over the course of the past two years, has itself been chaotic, has itself depended on what color your skin is. You guys hate "it depends"? It depends on what language you speak. It depends on what neighborhoods you're in, where we have seen travesties on citizen and noncitizen alike. What we are trying to do today is to help mitigate that impact, taking an important first step in saying you should not be in the business of having to do federal immigrant immigration enforcement, and you shouldn't have the power to violate people's protections. That is a worthwhile fight. And I don't cede to anyone that we care less about the safeties of our communities than you do. We care just as much. And we are within our power as a legislative body to direct our state employees, to direct municipal employees, to say we want you to do the job you were hired for. Not immigration enforcement, we want you to do your state job. We want you to do your city job. That is what this subpart is referencing.

Senator Borrello on the bill.

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

Senator Myrie, is that your section? Senator Myrie, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, that's also a state crime.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. If you're posing a hypothetical on whether robbing a bank is only federal -- again, it is not. It is also a state crime. But for only federal offenses in the criminal context, I think that all officers have a duty to keep the public safe. Immigration enforcement has several procedures put in place when it veers into the criminal context. You can't just bust down somebody's door, even if they are here unlawfully; you have to get a judicial warrant for that. There is a process. There are certain exceptions if there are exigent circumstances and you feel something, a crime, is literally about to happen. But nothing in this bill and certainly not in this subpart would prevent local law enforcement from responding to danger as they see it immediately.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Let me also clarify what this part says before I answer the question. This is for entry into nonpublic areas in these designated locations. It is not that they are wholly prohibited from entering those nonpublic locations. It is, first, that they cannot enter those nonpublic locations absent a warrant. You can get a warrant. You can go to court, you can get a judicial warrant issued by an Article 3 judge in order to enter private property. That is a very well known concept in our legal system. But this doesn't even ban that outright. This actually says you are allowed, if you are a sensitive location, to adopt a policy in order to determine what will happen when they show up without a warrant in a nonpublic area. That is what this section is doing specifically. One of those areas is polling locations, which I think is what you're referencing. And what we're doing in this subpart is simply matching what the federal government has already said is allowable at polling locations. We have about three federal statutes that reference the ability for federal agents to be at polling locations, as you know. The enforcement of election law is not a federal duty, it is a state duty. And so there are regulations in our federal statutes that prevent federal agents from being at our polling locations. This is speaking to that.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. As with all of the other sensitive locations outlined here, it is the judgment of this legislative body that we should clarify what is allowable and what is not allowable. And that is why we have included polling locations. And I will also add that neither I, nor this body, suggested that there will be federal agents at polling locations. It was Steve Bannon and others who said "We should send federal agents to polling locations." And so I think that it is frankly, in our estimation, important for us to clarify what the law already is on regulation of federal presence at polling locations.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, that is not my assumption.

Senator Walczyk on the bill.

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

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Good afternoon.

Through you, Mr. President, yes.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. In a separate subpart, yes.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, almost. Just civilian as it relates to employment either by the state or by locality. I want to make sure that we're clear on that point.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, yes. And let me just clarify. You mentioned prosecution. And there are not criminal penalties attached for violations here.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, not in this subpart. There is another subpart relating to constitutional violations, where damages are available. But that is not for -- that's not in this subpart.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Yes, that is accurate. I'm going to spend a minute here just to clarify and ensure that this is on the record. Our intent here is to uphold the protection of constitutional rights, whoever it is that violates that. So in the Bivens Act, as it is called here in this bill, whether that is a federal, state or local official, if they are violating a New Yorker's constitutional rights, they will have a cause of action created by this bill for damages. And it ranges on what damages may be available. I think this is an important place for us to express clearly that this is not about regulating the federal government, this is about creating equality between the federal, state and local officials on accountability. Right now you can use a federal cause of action to go after a state or local official and get damages if they violate your constitutional rights. That same federal statute, the 1983 that you referenced, Senator, is not available for federal agents, and that is what this bill would do to create equality. Not to discriminate against the federal officials, but to ensure that no matter what badge you're wearing, if you violate a New Yorker's constitutional rights, there should be some measure of accountability.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Any New Yorker that has a constitutional right that is violated.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Senator Palumbo, are you asking Senator Myrie to yield on that subject?

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

I yield. I yield. I yield.

That's correct. Thank you, Mr. President, that's correct.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. And I appreciate my colleague referencing the Ninth Circuit litigation. I think that we have crafted this particular bill with the 10th Amendment in mind, with corrections that were on the District Court level in that same case that said that you can't just target federal officials. This is applicable to every official. So we think that we're on sound constitutional ground. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with California's law. But it is our belief that we are on good constitutional ground here.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I think we might just have a different reading of our statute as it relates to California's. There are a lot of similarities. I do think that this is going to be a live question on the constitutionality. We believe that we are within the bounds of the 10th Amendment, primarily because we are regulating everyone -- not just the federal government, but local and state law enforcement as well.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, yes.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. So a couple of things. One, the I think overall principle undergirding the creation of this office -- I think I mentioned this earlier -- is to firewall within the Attorney General's office the responsibility to defend state employees and the potential of having to bring an action against a state employee for violating the law. But as it relates to the referral, if there's a state employee that has been alleged to have broken this law, the referral to the Governor is intended to allow the Governor an opportunity to issue corrective action over an agency under her or his control. That can be done without a referral back to the Office of Immigration Trust or, if the Governor makes the determination that executive corrective action is not enough, it will then refer it to the office.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Thank you for your patience, Senator Palumbo. As I understand it, because the Governor does not retain control over the State Education Department, that same rationale that applied to Section 4 would not apply to Section 6.

Senator Palumbo on the bill.

Thank you. Senator Gianaris, why do you rise?

Senator Gianaris on the bill.

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

Senator Myrie, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, it is a civil offense.

Senator Myrie, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Yes, I yield.

You don't have the floor, Senator Murray. You could -- thank you.

Through you, Mr. President, there is nothing in this bill that would prevent that.

Senator Skoufis, are you asking the sponsor to yield?

Senator Myrie, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, there is not.

Senator Myrie -- Senator Myrie, do you --

Senator Myrie, do you yield to that question? Senator Myrie yields.

Thank you. Will my colleague continue to yield?

Yes.

Another individual, charged with rape 1 and grand larceny -- anything in this bill that would have prevented the Nassau County PD from coordinating with ICE for that individual?

I can go on, but I think my colleagues get the point. Will my colleague continue to yield?

Yes.

Senator Walczyk --

Senator Walczyk was quoted --

I don't yield to Senator Walczyk.

-- dignified and lacking in personal invective --

-- according to Senate Rule 9, Section 4.

I agree, Mr. President. What I don't agree with is the idea that we can call across the floor of the Senate by name. I'm not even sure what's happening here, but --

No, no, no, hold on.

Mr. President, I said I agreed with you. I'm saying what's happened -- what just happened now is Senator Murray is seated in his chair. Senator Skoufis, from across the chamber, said "Senator Murray" -- I don't know why he's summoning him, but he hasn't gone through the chair.

Mr. President, as a point of Senator Murray's personal privilege, he'll be able to respond to whatever is going to be said now.

Senator Gianaris.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Gianaris. If my colleague will continue to yield.

Yes.

Senator Walczyk -- this is, if not verbatim, very close. I was writing down as quickly as I can -- he was quoted before as saying this bill prevents sheriffs from coordinating with the federal government to deport people here illegally. Regardless of what one thinks about whether individuals should be deported via that kind of coordination, is there anything in this bill that prohibits a sheriff's department -- if there's no local law prohibiting coordination, as exists in some jurisdictions -- in this bill that would prohibit that coordination?

Thank you. On the bill very briefly.

Thank you, Senator Myrie, for clarifying the -- what is actually in this bill. I am going to grant my colleagues across the aisle who have spoken, whose comments I have simply referenced, the benefit of the doubt. This bill was printed last night. It was given to their counsel last night. My colleagues either read it last night or were briefed this morning or midday. And there wasn't a lot of time to perhaps properly, intelligently digest factually what is in this bill. I'm going to grant my colleagues the benefit of the doubt that much of what we heard was -- was incorrect and unintentionally part of this debate. Now, once this debate is done, if there are press releases sent out, there's social media videos sent out repeating what was just very clearly corrected, that false information, that will be an intentional attempt to mislead the people of New York State, to rile up the people of New York State, to anger the people of New York State. Because everything that we just referenced is patently, factually incorrect and baseless. And so, again, I want to give the benefit of the doubt. I hope that it was just being misinformed given the short duration of time between bill printing and this debate. This bill threads that needle of making sure that we continue to live and represent a civil society that takes care and protects people who just want to be here and live peaceably, while also making sure that law enforcement is able to dispose of their obligation to keep our community safe. I look forward to voting yes.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to speak on the bill, if I could.

So in reference to Senator Skoufis, when Senator Skoufis addressed me and Senator Skoufis addressed Senator Walczyk and Senator Skoufis addressed everyone else, and Senator Skoufis then assumed that we were incorrect with everything we said here, let me point out that there's a difference between what's on paper and reality. And here's the reality. The reality is Suffolk County does have the 287(g) agreement, and so they work with ICE on a regular basis. And they've formed those relationships and are comfortable with reaching out. But as was mentioned earlier, it mentions and talks about formal and informal agreements. And when we asked about the definition of "informal," it was simply said that it was formal or informal. Okay, informal what? Picking up the phone? Like cooperation? Like working together, like they've been doing? But now we have a kangaroo court, the Immigrant Trust Office, or the let's say sanctuary office, as I'd like to call it, under the Attorney General's office. And now the concern will be, should we pick up the phone? Will that violate? Will they be coming after us? So it's now going to put questions into law enforcement's mind of can we even work together. So, yeah, the reality of this bill is it would change that -- it would not change it, in fact, and the criminal who raped the 5-year-old child would likely be long gone, Senator Skoufis. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think this bill more than most --

Oh, I'm on the bill, Mr. President.

Yes, on the bill, Mr. President. I think this piece of legislation in this budget bill before us, more than most, really defines the difference between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle, the difference between what Republicans think and Democrats think. And I know my colleagues across the aisle would celebrate that. And so do we. We celebrate that difference. And it was mentioned that ICE is some rogue, dishonorable agency. We don't see it that way. We have borders in this country. By law, ICE is the federal law enforcement agency that is charged with protecting those borders and, by extension, protecting us. So we do not consider them doing their job protecting us as rogue or dishonorable. In fact, we thank them. We see -- we are grateful that they are doing that. It was mentioned that this side of the aisle -- a list of folks that they're trying to protect and why this legislation, from their point of view, is necessary. I can tell you from the Republican side of the aisle the question was asked, Who are you trying to protect? Let me tell you who we're trying to protect. We're trying to protect all American citizens, certainly. But I'll give you an example, because examples were made across the aisle. We're trying to protect the Laken Rileys of the country. Laken Riley, you might remember, was a beautiful young woman who was at school in Georgia, the University of Georgia. My son happens to be on that campus. He attends the University of Georgia Law School. An individual, that's the most -- the best way I can define or name or call this individual, this person crossed our border. And I think there's been a misunderstanding, I don't want to get into law too much on this issue, but if you come into this country and you ask for asylum, there's a process. And now it's a civil matter. You come into this country legally with a visa or whatever, that's a civil process. If you come into this country, if you cut a fence or you jump it, and you get into the country and you don't say "I need asylum," you don't apply, you just -- as is described, you get away, well, you have committed a crime. You've committed a crime. So let's be accurate. You've committed a crime. So someone did that, violated our border, committed a crime, made their way to New York. Why? Why do you think that person came to New York? Because we have a Governor who said "We welcome you." We don't care what your intent is, we don't care what your background is, we don't even need to know you. Just come here if you're looking to hide. If you're up to no good, come to New York. We had a president at the time, President Biden, that said, Come to America. We don't care who you are, what you're up to, whether or not you're up to no good. And by the way, wink, wink, you should go to a place like New York. They call themselves a sanctuary state. Well, this guy came here, committed a crime, he went into a facility in New York. And Governor Hochul, who cares more about people from other countries than she does, evidently, about New Yorkers, cares more about talking about a sanctuary state because someone has decided, some political mind has decided, Well, this is a good issue for Democrats. I'm going to say I don't care who you are, come to New York. So what did she do? She opened the back door of that facility, and he walked out. And went down to Georgia, and he raped and murdered that young, beautiful woman. That sanctuary state, that's what it is, that's who we're trying to protect. We want to make sure that doesn't happen again. I think we have the right as American people, whether a Democrat or a Republican, to know who it is that's coming through our borders. There's a basic right we all as New Yorkers and Americans have. We have a new division, in this legislation, at the Attorney General's office, creating a whole new division just to virtue-signal, to say if you're from another country, we care more about you than we do about New Yorkers. We're going to create a whole new division in the Attorney General's office. No, this division is not going to protect you if you're a New York citizen, an American citizen. This is not going to deal with identity theft, all the various scams that are bilking New York out of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars every single year and nobody seems to be doing a damn thing about it. That's not what this division does. We have a whole new division -- we don't know how many people are going to work there, how much it's going to cost. But they're here to tell the world, Come to New York. If you are in another country right now and you want to come to America in violation of our laws, well, New York's the place to do it. This division is not going to check whether you're coming here because you're a would-be terrorist. This division doesn't even care to look at that issue. Just come here. We don't care. Come to New York. So that's who we're trying to protect. If you don't like -- if you don't like the fact that we're a nation of borders, run for Congress. Go to Congress and change it. You can't do that from New York. You shouldn't do that from New York. But that's what this legislation, to me and to our side of the aisle, seems to be doing. So yes, we think that we ought to have a federal law enforcement agency and that the men and women of that agency ought to protect our people, our country and our borders, and that is a difference between us. I'll be voting no.

You made me question my own identity here. (Laughter.)

That's still Senator Myrie.

Yes.

Through you, Mr. President. So this is dealing with pistol converters. And can you explain to me the change we're making and why?

Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

I think you just said that these are already illegal, right? So -- for the actual converter. So what are we changing with this law?

Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Okay. So what manufacturers of pistols would fall into this convertible area?

Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

So does this outlaw possession of this? I know you've grandfathered in people that already own one. But going forward, would this outlaw the possession of a pistol that can be converted?

Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

So if someone follows the proper procedures and purchases a pistol -- that is not converted, but is convertible -- in Pennsylvania and -- would they be able to come back and add it to their pistol permit in New York State?

Mr. President, on the bill.

Thank you. You know, there's a very popular pistol, the Glock. A lot of people own it. It's probably the most popular in the United States. And it would fall under this category. So we're basically going to say to New York retailers of firearms, You can no longer sell probably the most popular pistol in the United States. And I believe that my colleague is going to say, I think that's great. But it's not going to solve the problem, because we've failed to address the issue. The issue is people who commit violent acts of crime, with or without a gun, that continue to go unpunished here in New York State. So we're going to say to legal, law-abiding citizens, You can't buy it here from a small business, most likely, here in New York State, this very popular piece of home protection, self-defense. Because that's what it is. So we're going to pretend that somehow singling out a particular type of firearm and saying, You can't sell it here in New York State, is going to solve the problem of, quote, unquote, gun violence. It's not about gun violence, it's about people that commit acts of violence here. We just got done talking about the fact that we're going to allow those folks that are here not legally to continue to be here, and protect them. Now we're going to go after the law-abiding citizens here in New York State exercising their constitutional right in a ruse to pretend like we're doing something about gun violence. Let's start doing things about people that commit real acts of violence. Because at the end of the day, most crime committed is not with a firearm. Most people that commit crimes are doing so with various amounts of things. And trying to go after this whack-a-mole idea that somehow violating people's constitutional rights -- we talked about that earlier -- is somehow going to change the results here? We have the most -- we have the most gun laws probably out of any state in the United States, and yet we have some of the worst outcomes when it comes to people that have been tragically injured with or without a gun. So let's not pretend this is going to do anything. It's going to appease some people. It's going to make you pretend like you're doing something. But at the end of the day it's not going to do anything until we start doing the right thing, which is to take dangerous people out of society and truly enforce real laws that prevent new victims from being created, with or without a firearm. So I'll be voting no. Thank you.

Madam President, I hope the sponsor would yield on Part C, Subpart B.

Yes.

Through you, Madam President. This part also bans the sale of 3D printers that have not been equipped with technology that blocks the printing of firearms and firearm parts. Is there a technology that currently exists to do that?

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

Yes.

Yeah, prior to all of the public hearings that you'll require if this bill passes both houses and is signed into law by the Governor, I'll provide you some feedback from concerned hobbyists right now either printing firearm parts or not. Will this require every 3D printer sold in the State of New York to be connected to the internet? (Pause.)

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

Yes.

I'd like to also talk about Subpart A. What is the purpose of a cruciform trigger bar? (Pause.)

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

Yes.

Can you name a single modern striker-fired semiautomatic pistol that cannot be converted if someone custom-manufactures a sear or a backplate for it?

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

Yes.

How do you define "easily converted"?

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

Yes.

But "easily converted," under your definition, could include a few simple tools, is that correct?

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

Yes.

So I guess I'll ask again. Is there any similar modern striker-fired semiautomatic pistol that cannot be easily converted in the State of New York? (Pause.)

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

Yes.

Where exactly in the mechanical blueprint of a standard pistol does lawful design end and convertible pistol begin here? How can we anticipate that? And can you explain the engineering to me?

Senator?

Through you, Madam President. I think that that is the responsibility of the members of the gun industry to ensure that they are aligning with what our statutes dictate. There is, as I've been mentioning, a proliferation of these switches showing up on our crime scenes, and this is an attempt for us to prevent as many of those from showing up as possible. There are companies that have not had their pistols so converted and thus are not showing up on crime scenes. That, to me, demonstrates that it is possible for other companies to do the same.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, no, it would not.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, any firearm that under the definitions in this statute are convertible.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. This is a common principle in consumer protection, in product liability, that if you are going to benefit from the profit of the market and be a participant in the market, that requires you to also ensure that the product that you're putting out is not doing unnecessary harm to the market. And this is an attempt for us to mitigate what we believe to be unnecessary danger because of the ease in which some pistols are converted.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, yes.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, I'm going to confirm the punishable. But we -- what's punishable, the federal crime?

It can't be the state crime.

I am not sure, but I will take you at your word that it is.

Yes.

Through you, Madam President, why hasn't that stopped criminals?

Madam President, on the bill.

While protecting the rights in this very same bill of noncitizens, and giving extra protections to them to live free in New York, this bill restricts constitutional rights for U.S. citizens who live in New York, particularly their Second Amendment rights. There's already a federal ban and a state ban on the mechanisms that we're attacking here. Criminals are going to continue to do crime. That's what makes them criminals. And this bill, as far as I can tell, certainly bans the Glock 19, which is the most popular pistol in New York and I think across the nation. It also, without enumerating, may ban every handgun of its type, as far as I can tell. These are used for personal protection for New Yorkers to protect their homes, to protect their families. And I point to the quote of one gentleman, Frederick Douglass, who said a man's rights rest in three boxes: The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. And I know that the Supreme Court will throw this out if it becomes law. But I hope that before then New Yorkers will remember this at the ballot box. And I do want to go on the bill on another section that we discussed earlier. The Senator from the 42nd Senate District and the Senator from the 20th Senate District were having a discussion and invoking names against the Senate rules. But since we're getting the record straight, it is against the law to enter this country illegally. It is against the law to skip a port of entry and to cut the fence. That is a crime. It is a civil offense to remain here illegally. So I think there's some confusion, but feel free to read up on it, especially for the Senator from the 42nd Senate District, who has accused me of being the only one that reads bills around here. Quick read or not, message of necessity or not, the bill hitting late last night for us to read it for a few hours before we got in here today or not, this debate has already showed us that this will ban 287(g) agreements, formal or informal, with local sheriffs. Yeah, I think that's good on the record. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I was hoping that the sponsor would yield for some questions on Part HH.

Senator Sanders, do you yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President. This proposed legislation of course would allow the members of the commission to be included in a different category of public servants. That is because this is a day and age where, sadly, we live in a New York that will brag that it will sue a hamburger. We live in a New York where the Attorney General of New York has been falsely sued several different times. The climate coming from Washington, D.C., and other places is such that it makes every person consider ways of dealing with the public and making sure that they do an honest work and at the same time protect themselves.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, yes.

Senator Martins on the bill.

Thank you. Senator Helming, why do you rise?

Senator Helming on the bill.

I also wanted to talk about Part B and really implore this body to reverse the action, continue to take the money from the cellphone public safety surcharge and invest it into our fire departments, our EMS workers, and our ambulance services. But after hearing the debate, I'm just going to speak on the bill. Last Friday, my grandson turned five years old. And hearing Senator Murray describe the brutal treatment earlier of that five-year-old little girl, it just made me physically ill, and I feel compelled to speak on another portion of the bill before us. This little girl was repeatedly abused in the most horrific way by the person who was supposed to be taking care of her. Because of the circumstances of the situation, he was going to be charged with a Class A misdemeanor and issued an appearance ticket. Now, he was in this country illegally. I really don't think that anyone in this body could honestly believe that he would show up to court. But thankfully, because there was cooperation at the local level and the federal level, he was apprehended. And that's good for everyone, because this animal is off the streets and people are safe from him. Now, before anyone gets too spun-up here, I heard that this bill is not banning cooperation wholesale. I heard that local law enforcement is exempt. But when I think about that little girl, I think about all of our children. I used to work with adults with developmental disabilities. When I think about all those vulnerable populations and I look at this bill, you know what I don't see? I don't see a carveout for state employees, for those who work for child and adult protective services. I see them banned from being able to do their jobs and protect the most vulnerable. And that's wrong. That's putting more people in jeopardy. I also wanted to mention that during the debate I heard that taxpayers from New York should not be paying for enforcement of federal laws. To me, it's interesting how the Majority is making this a priority on how to save New Yorkers money, when they allow taxpayers to continue to spend money to pay for Medicaid for people who don't even live in our state -- the Comptroller has said it's costing us over a billion dollars, and we're doing nothing about it. And taxpayers from New York are paying for people from out of state -- people who don't live here, don't pay taxes here -- to come here for certain medical services. But, hey, that's all okay. I also heard someone say, I want our state workers and I want our city workers to do their state and their city jobs. Guess what? So do I. You know what I think their number-one priority is? Public safety. Public safety. Public protection, protecting our most vulnerable, protecting all of our citizens -- that should be the top priority. And this bill stands in the way of that. It prevents people from getting their jobs done. I vote no.

Why, thank you, Madam President.

I'm actually going to ask some questions on Part W, which deals with workers' compensation.

Gladly.

All right, thank you. Through you, Madam President. So this would propose essentially strengthening workers' compensation fraud protections. But it's going to do so by creating a fund that would add 0.4 percent, about 40 basis points, to our already very high workers' comp insurance costs. Do you know what kind of impact that's going to have per $100 of payroll? That's how we calculate things. (Pause.)

Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Certainly.

So our interpretation, and maybe it's incorrect, is that we're going to raise workers' comp insurance rates by that 40 basis points. Is that incorrect? (Pause.)

Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Certainly.

So the purpose is to create a fund that can be accessed by local district attorneys -- to do what?

Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

Well, first of all, let the record show that we do agree that the fraud is an issue. And by the way, this workers' comp fraud, it raises the costs for everyone. So anything that helps to bring that down is a good thing. However, I guess my concern is our local district attorneys, are they going to be focused on businesses or the bad actors that are actually the recipients of workers' compensation fraud? (Pause.)

Madam President, one last question for the sponsor.

Yes. Hopefully more than one, Senator Borrello. (Laughter.)

Thank you. So how will the district attorneys then access this fund? Will it be a competitive grant? How's that work?

Madam President, on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Bailey. Yeah, workers' comp insurance is a problem in New York State. We pay the highest in the nation. It's one of the burdens particularly on small businesses. And fraud is certainly a big problem because, you know, that money is paid out in that fund, the workers' comp fund. So I guess my question is -- and it's not a question, it's rhetorical -- is how are we going to create this fund, how is it going to be accessed, and how is it going to be spent? It seems to me that when it comes to workers' comp, it's the bad actors, the folks that are collecting illegitimately, fake claims. You've got bad actors out there that are providers that will, you know, take a payoff in order to say someone has been injured at work. Those are the kind of things that raise our workers' comp costs. And the Department of Labor has an obligation to go after those folks. And I think the district attorneys certainly could benefit from this, but I don't want to weaponize this against our small businesses because somebody got a grant. That's one of my concerns. So while we want to go after fraud because fraud is costly to businesses and to our economy, we want to make sure that we're not incentivizing essentially taxpayer dollars being used against small businesses. And that is a bit of my concern. So thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President.

I'd like to ask some questions about this bill. And I'm told that I should ask Senator Gianaris if he wouldn't mind and --

Yes, it's regarding corrections. That's fine. If Senator Salazar would yield, please.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Salazar. In this Public Protections Budget Bill, is there anything that addresses the work of the HALT Committee that you are a member of that was formed to address the safety concerns that were raised following the end of last year's corrections strike?

Thank you, Madam President. If the sponsor would yield for a quick follow-up.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. My apologies, I understood that you had been a member of that committee. Is there anything in this bill that would address safe staffing levels in our facilities or any of the issues raised with HALT or the issue of rising prison violence or our contraband crisis -- body scanners, et cetera? Is there any language relevant to corrections in this bill?

Madam President, if the sponsor would yield for one final question.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Salazar. Is any of this likely to appear in any of the bills that we haven't seen yet but will be seeing in the coming days?

Thank you. Madam President, briefly on the bill.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Salazar, for answering my questions. It has been 15 months since the corrections strike ended. There were promises made by the Governor and these majorities that their safety concerns would be addressed. This budget bill is the Public Protection and General Government bill. This is where changes to corrections are supposed to appear in the budget. There are none. Nothing on HALT, nothing on safe staffing levels, nothing on combating our contraband crisis. Just last week at Franklin Correctional Facility, a medium-security facility in Malone in my Senate district, from Tuesday to Thursday, while we were in here passing extenders on a budget that's seven weeks late, and 15 months after the strike ended -- from Tuesday to Thursday in Franklin, in Malone, there were at least six violent incidents, fights between inmates involving weapons and contraband, resulting in several injured inmates as well as injuries to a sergeant and three correctional officers, employees of ours and constituents of mine. That's just one recent example. There have been dozens like this all across upstate New York in our facilities in the last 15 months since the strike ended. This entire bill is about how to protect people who have come to this country illegally. There's nothing in this bill about protecting our citizens. In fact, it undermines citizens' constitutional rights to protect themselves and our law enforcement's ability to do their jobs. And particularly, it spectacularly fails and insults the people that work -- our employees and my constituents that work in our correctional facilities on our behalf of public safety. I'll be voting no on this budget bill.

I was hoping that Senator Myrie might yield to one final question. Maybe two, if time permits.

Yes.

Thanks. Through you, Madam President. Senator, my understanding is that this law does prohibit 287(g) agreements. Is that not correct?

Will the sponsor yield to another question?

Yes, although I thought it was one final question. (Laughter.)

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, yes.

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

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

Thank you, Madam President. I am pleased with many of the sections of this bill today. I want to highlight just two of them. On the immigration protections in the bill before us, I want to be able to speak firsthand, as a representative of the City of Buffalo, of the consequences of unnecessary collaboration with federal immigration, as a resident from my district, the 63th District, Mr. Alam was turned over to federal immigration, who left him for dead on subzero streets in Buffalo, New York. This is what this bill is trying to prevent. Another death like the tragic one that happened to a resident in my district who was innocent, died, lost his life. Proud to support it. Also, Madam President, I want to speak to the auto insurance reforms in this bill that will prohibit insurance companies from using criteria that have absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to drive. In my district, the City of Buffalo, we have a long history of redlining discrimination from denying Black World War II veterans GI Bill opportunities, to banks refusing mortgages in Black and brown neighborhoods, and environmental health disparities concentrated in communities of color. For years insurance companies have used factors like education and employment status and zip code as a modern form of this redlining, and it's forced families and communities like mine to pay for more coverage. Now in New York State these factors will no longer be considered when setting car insurance rates. I believe that there is much work still to be done in the space of New York auto insurance reforms, but I am proud that this year's State Budget includes reforms that I fought for to ban insurers from using discriminatory factors when setting rates. And I also want to thank Assemblymember Jen Lunsford in the Assembly for her partnership on this advocacy as well. I proudly vote in favor of the bill. Thank you, Madam President.

Senator? SENATOR SEPÚLVEDA: -- with ICE, they are --

-- focusing on people who don't commit crimes.

How do you vote, Senator?

Senator Sepúlveda to be recorded in the affirmative. I'd like to remind all members that you have two minutes to explain your vote. Please keep looking at me, because I'll signal you when your time is coming close. (Laughter.)

Thank you, Madam President. First I'd like to thank Senator Myrie for his able defense of this piece of legislation. Obviously this bill is a lot more than what we just discussed today, but I want to focus certainly on some of the comments and some of the opinions of some of my colleagues. It's unfortunate that many folks in this room and certainly folks outside seem to use the word "noncitizen" as a slur. You can kind of hear it in the way that it's said, as though they were talking about entitlements. Let's talk about the entitlements of due process. The fact is, the reality is not only, as some of my colleagues have already said, that we're talking about native-born population and immigrant populations; the differences in who commits crimes is enormous. But more than that, the federal government has been lying to all of us. And apparently some of us either have been too naive and believe them or we just ignore what we see with our own eyes. ICE is not out identifying the most dangerous people and putting them away, as they say they are. That's not what they're doing. Their purpose is not that. Their purpose is terrorizing our neighborhoods. It is taking people from street corners, disappearing them. They are literally murdering citizens who are trying to step in when somebody's being potentially detained. That's the reality. And so what we're doing today is we are making a stand and we're defending all New Yorkers. Because yes, New York is for all. I mean, a lot of folks seem to forget that the majority of people from New York -- maybe the Native Americans were born within the boundaries of this state, but the overwhelming majority of us, most of our residents, most of our neighbors, most of ourselves, our parents or our grandparents weren't even born within the four boundaries of this state or this country. So let's just focus on what the bill does and say that this is exactly what is needed in this state. And I'm glad that we're actually defending the people that we're supposed to defend. Thank you, Madam President. I vote in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam President. You know, about an hour and a half ago it was said by one of our colleagues that we should be ashamed for voting on this bill. Well, that member also read off a couple of names who may have committed a crime of rape. They were all of Latino descent. No other names. What a shame. Good old-fashioned fearmongering. Let me tell you a little story. About eight months ago, 60 armed federal agents conducted a military-style raid on a nutrition-bar factory in Senator May's district, rounded up about 160 neighbors while they were hard at work, some of whom had been here for decades, many decades, put down roots, raising families, paying taxes, had a driver's license, doing jobs that nobody else wanted to do. These agents acted without a judicial warrant against innocent individuals, who were detained, they disappeared within hours. Some of those had children and infants that ended their day without a parent. Public safety includes upholding the basic freedoms and civil liberties that are fundamental to this country. The bill we are passing today protects those freedoms but ensures those law enforcement powers rest solely with bona fide authorities, ensuring children go to school, ensuring that if anyone violates your constitutional rights, they will be held accountable. You know, I'm going to tell you a little -- also I think a little spoiler alert, because it's going to be misled, disingenuous information on social media. It probably already is. Nothing in this bill limits law enforcement agents to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities in criminal matters. Let me say it one more time for clarification, so it's not -- because it's already probably on social media. Nothing in this bill limits any law enforcement agency to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities in criminal matters. I vote aye.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I want to thank colleagues for this debate. I think it's important, as others, that we try to separate this confluence of civil and criminal that has attempted to be made today, and I thank Senator Ryan for his comments as well. The overwhelming majority of immigrants, whether they be documented or undocumented, are here peacefully. They are working hard, trying to support a family, have a better life, have a shot at the American dream. And yet the picture that is painted are the horrible monsters of the names that have been mentioned here. We've had examples of crimes in my district. And to a person in this room, we all feel that someone who commits a heinous crime, whether they be a citizen or undocumented, should pay at price for that. But as Senator Ryan and Senator Myrie and others have said, there is nothing in this bill that prohibits law enforcement from cooperating on criminal matters. It's on civil matters. It's on civil matters. And I'd just share two other quick points. When ICE went into Memphis, remember when they flooded the zone, they were going to get the worst of the worst. They arrested over 800 people. Two percent had criminal records -- 2 percent. So when we're looking at who we're trying to protect with this bill, it's the 98 percent. That's who we're trying to protect with this bill. And the last thing I would say, two words: Judicial warrant. That any time someone has a judicial warrant, that takes precedence over anything in this bill, and this bill expressly says so. With that, Madam President, I'll be voting aye.

Thank you, Madam President. On the debate on reparations, my esteemed colleague from Long Island had expressed questions, and I'm trying to see if I can't help clarify some of those things. When the commission was established, they never had their status defined. They were never defined. This merely -- this correction merely defines them as public employees and as public employees of course they have all of the codes of ethics that all public employees have and are indemnified. Hopefully he finds that enlightening. Thank you, Madam President. I vote aye.

Thank you, Madam President. It's hard to listen to this debate and my colleagues on the other side while saying to myself, Where have you been? What have you seen? Are we all seeing the same thing? Have you seen what happened in Chicago, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and in the towns and cities and villages that we represent? To suggest that this bill is anti-law enforcement and anti-public safety is not only erroneous, it is insulting. Everyone here is a strong supporter of the most professional law enforcement that we have in so many of our communities. We stand by them. We support them. We only wish that this current DHS and ICE abided by the high standards of professionalism that we see in so many of our police departments. But they have not, and that requires our state to take action, which we are authorized to do, which is limited, as described by my colleagues. And so today I stand up for the people in my community who are working hard, abiding by our laws, paying taxes, sending their kids to schools, and are afraid to walk or ride their bike to church, to street, to school. I just want to make one other point we did not discuss. This bill codifies the Plyler decision in New York law. Any child can enroll in New York's public schools regardless of immigrant status. This current administration is looking for a way to overturn that. We're not going to let that happen in New York. We're going to make it New York law. And that's a very good reason to be voting yes on this bill.

Thank you, Madam President. So there are many aspects of this bill that are not clear to me and somewhat convoluted. Even after the time ran out for debate, I am still full of questions. On guns, it would be great if the bad guys who own all these illegal guns got the same memo that we did, and the good citizens of New York State did. And it would be great if our prosecutors actually prosecuted firearms-related incidents. So do I qualify to speak about immigrants? I came here when I was 11 years old. So let's talk about immigration. Today I'm not even talking about good immigrant or bad immigrant -- I mean, I'm not talking about legal or illegal immigrant. I'm talking about good immigrant or bad immigrant. There are plenty of great immigrants of all kinds. They came here to build, they came here to dream, came here to toil, came here to love, came here to because a part of us. But there are plenty of bad ones. I know, 4 percent, right, commit 4 percent of the crimes? Included in that 4 percent in 2024, in June, Kissena Park, Flushing Meadows, Queens, New York. A 13-year-old girl, the daughter of an immigrant family, was accosted in the middle of the day, 3:00 p.m. -- did we forget that? -- by an illegal immigrant. Raped, tied up, her friend was tied up. Did we forget that? How do you explain to that family that we now have a blanket policy that protects criminals like that? We should not have a blanket policy that does that, that ties our hands, ties the hands of law enforcement agents across the board. Yes, you know, I believe in immigration. My wife is an immigrant, my cousins, my family. My wife currently has three siblings waiting 16 years for an immigration visa. They're doing things the right way. How do you explain that to my wife, letting everybody else jump the line? Don't get me wrong, I come from a community of great immigrants -- legal, not legal, just good people. With that said, this is not the Holy Grail of bills --

On behalf of District 17, my vote is no.

Thank you, Madam President. You know, we sat here and talked about a lot of things that are in this bill, but there's a lot of things that aren't in this bill. I didn't see a lot of protections for the law-abiding citizens of New York State. In fact, I see restrictions on their constitutional rights. I heard a lot about the Constitution today. We're going to restrict our constitutional rights here in New York State for political reasons. Then I heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to explain away this bill that you waited so long to pass, the New York for All, all these other things. And then all of a sudden you're saying, Well, it's not really going to do any of that stuff. Don't worry, it's not going to do any of that. It's not going to do that, it's not going to do that. One of my colleagues went to great lengths to explain how this bill really does nothing. I think that's a problem too. So are you doing this for political reasons, or are you doing it to actually do what you're saying you're trying to accomplish? But, you know, I heard you talking about what's happening elsewhere in the country. If this bill does what you claim it does, or maybe claim it doesn't do, you're going to bring that type of chaos to New York. That's the problem with this bill. You want to see that stuff happening on our streets, and that's a challenge. You're saying that challenge to the federal administration to come in here and do those types of things, so you can say you've done something about it. Maybe you're jealous. Maybe you're jealous that you haven't had that type of chaos here in New York State, but we haven't. And we should not. And that's what this bill's going to do. So I'll be voting no. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I heard the word "interpretation" over and over today, especially when discussing the role of local law enforcement. Law enforcement officers swear an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of New York State, and to faithfully discharge the duties of their office to the best of their ability. This bill creates a contradiction to that oath of office. This is an anti-citizen bill. It is an anti-New Yorker bill. This bill is pro-criminal and encourages unlawful entry to our country by protecting and providing for anyone who came into this country illegally. This bill rejects our federal government and our constitutional amendments. This is an anti-American bill and an anti-New Yorker bill. And as a New York State Senator, I cannot possibly support a bill that does not put New Yorkers first. I vote no.

Thank you, Madam President. We just heard from a colleague that this bill, the immigration parts of this bill, is a blanket policy for any undocumented person, whether they commit a crime or not, but specifically if they commit a crime. That is just not true. As we continue to say, there is something called a judicial warrant that we all know law enforcement can still look for people who have committed crimes. Let me tell you what my upstate constituents are not afraid of. My upstate constituents are not afraid of immigrants. What they are afraid of, they're afraid of ICE agents coming and taking their law-abiding neighbors, who have started their own businesses, who have been taken off of their streets with ICE agents who have pulled over school buses, gotten out of their cars with rifles and guns in front of children, and taken beloved community members out of our community and taken them out of our state to God knows where. That is happening today in our state. That's what my upstate constituents are afraid of. We know that if we protect people, our economy is stronger because people will feel like they can go to their businesses, they can pick up their kids from school, we can actually have safe communities because we can all live together. And again, if someone commits a crime, law enforcement is still able to go and find them and charge them with whatever it is that they might have done. But the overwhelming number of immigrants in our state and in our communities are here just trying to live a better life for themselves and their children. And we have a responsibility as New York legislators to protect them and to make sure that that next generation can continue to thrive here, just like many of our ancestors did. And so I'm actually incredibly proud of the work that we are doing in this bill to protect our neighbors and to tell them that we hear their plight, regardless of where they live in New York, and we will stand up for them regardless of their background if they are trying to do the right things in New York just to get by. Thank you, Madam President. I vote aye.

Thank you, Madam President. The issues we're discussing today make the atmosphere heavy and really certainly divide us. We've not talked much about money, we've talked about policy. We didn't even get to talk about Part Y of this bill, which will allow almost $3 billion to be spent without Comptroller's oversight, by the estimate of the Comptroller himself. And while we did get this bill very late, and we were only briefed on it this morning, I respectfully disagree with some of the comments that were made, because we are well-prepared. We do understand what this bill is saying. 8 USC 1325 provides that it is in fact a crime, a misdemeanor, if you enter this country illegally, and that includes even falsifying records on the paperwork that you file. It is a civil liability, a civil event, when you stay. But it is -- initially your entry here is in fact a misdemeanor. 8 USC 1326 provides that if you are deported and try to come back, it's now a felony. My grandparents were immigrants. I have no doubt that they came through very clearly through Ellis Island. My grandfather served in World War I. That's how he got his citizenship. He did it the right way. I've heard so many times in this chamber during this session about how we blame our current president for all of our woes. But let's not ignore how we got here. It is the prior administration's open border policy, combined with cashless bail, that has allowed so many of the crimes that we've heard about today that are so heinous. My home county of Nassau has a 287(g) agreement. It is the safest county in the state. And --

-- that didn't happen by accident.

I vote in the negative.

Thank you, Madam President. This bill makes a vast number of changes on critical issues that should be addressed with public involvement and transparency. That is lacking because this rushed and messy bill fails to allow the open scrutiny that is truly needed. The overreaching bill deals with the Second Amendment, drones, auto insurance, public contract oversight, orders of protection. It targets ICE by tying the hands of our law enforcement members, and it makes communities less safe. Even more troubling, it puts our state's men and women in blue, law enforcement, in direct opposition to federal agents. And that is very dangerous. And as we have seen nationally, this topic has spurred energized debate and is clearly something that warrants open discussion in our state. There is more in this bill that protects illegal aliens than it does to protect our legal taxpayers, all New Yorkers. That again shows the lack of consideration for the legal New Yorkers while putting those who illegally crossed our nation's borders under the Biden administration first. And we wonder why New York residents are fleeing this sanctuary state for other states that make public safety a priority. Millions have left, and millions are still leaving. And even with all this bill contains, it fails to address cashless bail, which was hidden in the budget bills years ago. Last year, discovery -- did nothing in the budget. And other policy changes that have our citizens fearing for their safety. My office recently conducted a community survey and the weakening of public safety was very high on the priorities for those I represent. Most of the issues addressed in the budget were not. I would speak on other troubling components of this bill, but there's simply not enough time. It is abundantly clear that the components of this bill are too complex and too --

-- confusion.

I vote no. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'd like to spend a moment on a parochial provision in this bill. The Orange County IDA is supposed to endeavor to support smart economic development and, while doing so, work for taxpayers, protect taxpayers, and act as fiduciary agents of taxpayers. The reason why they're the only IDA in the state with a state monitor embedded within that is a decision that this body made several years ago, because they don't do those things. And they continue to not do those things. In fact, they very expressly, not even hiding it, announced that they in fact work for the applicants and not the taxpayers. Over the last number of years the state monitor identified dozens and dozens of operational failures and have resolved those failures. Very recently he blocked an $80 million proposed tax break for Amazon that was seeking to create a whopping average salary over several hundred employees of $37,000 a year. And yet the IDA continues with their behavior. In fact, they're not even paying the bills to the monitor any longer. For the last six months, they've refused to pay his invoices. They've sued him. They've sued the inspector general. At meetings they curse at the state monitor. They demean him. They treat him like garbage. These are petulant children that require the continued presence of an adult in the room. And so what this bill does is it extends the monitor for another three years at the Orange County IDA, with additional powers, including powers to claw back benefits when applicants are not delivering on the jobs created. Because that's something the IDA is also refusing to do. And it also ensures that the monitor gets the payment from the IDA that he certainly deserves. This is not charity work. So for this provision and many others, I proudly vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, like you and like all our colleagues in this room, I have about 330,000 constituents. And when they call my office, we ask them their zip code so we can make sure that they're calling the right office. But we do not ask them about their citizenship. And we try to answer their questions or solve their problems no matter where they came from. I know in my district that tens of thousands of my constituents crossed a border to come here. Many of them are refugees. Many of them came on H-2A visas or student visas. Many of them are seeking asylum and trying to navigate the legal process, which is very complicated to do that. And I also know that many of them, if they have an accent or if their skin is darker than mine, they are afraid to call law enforcement when -- if they witness a crime, if they're victims of a crime, or if they have an issue that rises to that level. They're even afraid to show up for legal procedures that they're supposed to show up for, immigration hearings or whatever, because they know they can victimized at any moment. So I think this makes us safer, this bill, and certainly it's good for my communities. And I proudly vote aye. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. You know, I am -- in fact, I'm surprised that I've heard from some of my colleagues about a written warrant, a judicial warrant. What that judicial warrant won't do, issued by a federal Article 3 judge, is ensure that a person who's leaving jail or prison here in New York is escorted out of the community and out of the country. Those judicial warrants are issued for federal criminal cases. They're not issued in the instance of us having criminals here in New York coming out of jail and being actually escorted out of the country. And so, Madam President, I know that my county, Nassau County, has a 287(g) agreement. I know that that agreement helps keep our residents safe. It's not a requirement. It just determines the rules of engagement between local law enforcement and their federal law enforcement partners. For those reasons, I'll be voting no.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to say that Erie County is growing for the first time in generations, and it's growing because our community is welcoming and accepting of our immigrant community. We have businesses that were shuttered and empty. They're now thriving, whole streets in our community. We had houses of worship that were boarded up, no one was using, abandoned. They're full and they're vibrant and they're being used in our community. And we have schools that were half-full that are now full, across our region. But they're terrified. I've heard stories of people saying they're packing their kids birth certificates in their lunch boxes when they send them to school. This bill will help alleviate some of that fear. This bill will keep ICE out of their schools. This bill will keep ICE away from polling places. This bill will keep ICE out of hospitals. And this bill will prevent them, ICE agents, from wearing face coverings. And what this bill might have done is save Mr. Alam's life in Erie County. We still don't know what happened with that situation. We're still trying to get answers to that. So I vote aye on this bill, and I think we still have more work to do.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank my colleague Senator Myrie for a masterful defense, all my colleagues for supporting something that's really important. Briefly on the insurance stuff, which we'll get to I'm sure in other bills, the flex rating that we've done is important to make sure that, you know, you've got to go through DFS if you want to increase the rates. And, you know, how good of a driver you are or not is not predicated upon your zip code or your occupation or home ownership status, so I thank Senator Baskin for that. But I just want to talk about some of the stuff that we've been talking about. Growing up, I heard that one of the differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party was states' rights. States' rights. You know, the states. The Constitution is the floor, but the states can go above it. States' rights. Now the state has a right to do something, and we seem to be terrified. We seem to want to forget that due process. I don't want to go against the rules, as invoked by one of my good colleagues yesterday in debate. Due process protects us from the arbitrary exercise of unnecessary governmental power. Everybody is entitled to due process. No matter what you think they've done or didn't do, who they are, where they came from, where they were born, you are entitled to due process. It was a Scalia decision, if I believe so, off the top of my head. So we can't forget about due process. And due process is not happening. When masked agents are snatching people off the streets, that's not due process. Now, we can't stop the federal government from doing it, but we can figure how we as a state -- states' rights -- participate in such an endeavor. And so it's not what's done, it's how it's done. As my good friend Senator Lanza would know, it's not what's done, Senator Lanza, it's how it's done. And it's really important the way that we do these things. And for those reasons, Madam President -- I see you giving me the Roxie's Rules head nod -- (Laughter.)

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

Senator Rhoads to be recorded in the negative. Senator Webb to explain her vote.

Senator Webb, how do you vote?

Senator Webb to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Cooney to explain his vote.

Senator Cooney to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Fahy to explain her vote.

Senator, how do you vote?

Senator Fahy to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Gounardes to explain his vote.

Senator Gounardes to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Liu to explain his vote.

Senator Liu, how do you vote?

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

I'm going to start over. (Laughter; inaudible overtalk.)

I sometimes don't want to hear myself. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Gounardes for that left-handed defense of the honor of Italian Americans. They still say things about Italian Americans and nobody ever seems to care, but I'm glad somebody might care at this moment. It was I who talked about the prospect of terrorist cells coming into the country, and that is what happens when you don't know who it is that is coming across the border. In fact, we do know that thousands of people came into our borders during the Biden administration who are on the terrorist watchlist. That's a fact. And listen, immigration is -- we're all for legal immigration. At least I am. It is one of the things that powers this country and makes it better. All we're saying on our side is that you ought to have a border, you ought to have a policy, you ought to know who it is that's coming in here. And that's not what happened during the Biden administration. It has stopped, thankfully, under this administration. If you don't believe -- I hear some of the conversation. It sounds as though you don't believe we ought to have a border. It sounds as though you believe that anyone from any country at any time can just walk into the country whenever they want. We don't believe that ought to be the way. We believe that that is dangerous. We also believe that we need immigration and we want immigration. But this is about -- it's not about calling a person illegal. It's not about a slur. You can give it any word you want, it's on you if you think it's a slur when we say people have walked across our border, have not applied for asylum and are therefore here unlawfully, and we don't know why they are here. I hope and I believe that most of them are here to live a better life. But if that's what we want, we ought to have borders and we ought to know who's coming here. I vote no.

Thank you, Madam President. At least 29 people have died while being held in immigration detention in our country over just the past six months. They were people who came to the United States for the same reasons as many of our own relatives, with the same motivation of families and ancestors of many of us in this chamber who came to this country to seek a better life. One of those people was Santos Banegas Reyes, who was arrested last September in 2025 by Nassau County police who were deputized by ICE under their 287(g) agreement. They did not charge him with a crime, but he was then transferred to the jail and held under their contract as an ICE detainee. He tragically died in ICE detention at Nassau County Jail the following day. That was a preventable tragedy. New York State's collusion with ICE for enforcement and detention directly contributed to the death of a New Yorker, and it illustrates why we must end 287(g) and IGSA agreements in our state for the protection of the health and safety of New Yorkers. When I visited East Meadow Jail in Nassau County last summer to observe immigration detention, I met New Yorkers who were held there. One of the men detained there who I spoke to was a local shop owner. He had lived and worked in Huntington for 20 years. Like every other detainee I spoke to that day, he had never been charged with a crime. Nonetheless, the 287(g) agreement between Nassau County and ICE allowed for him to be taken from his family and from his community and put in a jail cell. Today, we are finally acting to end these 287(g) agreements and IGSAs in New York. Immigration detention at the hands of ICE is a shameful business that needlessly tears families apart. The fight to effectively end it through the Dignity Not Detention Act in New York has persisted for years, and passing this bill today marks a victory in that fight. It is also a victory for children and for families in our state that this bill protects the right to a public education regardless of immigration status in New York. Contrary to some assertions made during floor debate today by Minority colleagues, this bill regrettably does not include the provisions of New York for All. And I believe that means our work to protect New Yorkers from draconian immigration enforcement, and to prevent ICE from obstructing due process and public safety, must continue. But nonetheless, I am proud to vote in favor of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Let me first thank Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins, all of my colleagues. Thank you to the staff for doing a really excellent job helping us navigate this. I want to, if I can very briefly, return to Subpart B of Part LL, the New York Bivens Act, to ensure that we are clear on what the intentions of this bill are. We of course want to protect the constitutional rights of New Yorkers. We want to ensure that if those rights are violated, that they will have a remedy for that violation. I also want to make clear that nowhere in this bill do we disturb the common-law doctrine of qualified immunity, and certainly not as recognized here in New York or federally. This is a cause of action to give New Yorkers an avenue to have their rights vindicated, but this does not disturb the qualified immunity doctrine. Now, if I may, last month my mom's mom, Adela Brown, passed away in Costa Rica. She was 100 years old, lived a long life. And for those of you who don't know, Black people in Costa Rica could not vote, they did not have full citizenship, until 1949. My grandmother was 23 before she was considered a full citizen in the country of her birth. She was never able to come to the United States. She had seven children, and one of them could come to the U.S. -- my mom, who came to Brooklyn, New York, to work in a factory to try to make ends meet, looking for opportunity. And of course she had me. So if you look at the span, for over 50 years my grandmother, who was not considered a citizen in her own country, could see her grandson not only be born here, but to become a State Senator, to help make the laws. Someone asked, Who are we trying to protect? This is what we're trying to protect. The promise of this country. Opportunity. Protection. The ability to be the best that you can be. I don't cede love for this country to anybody. I love it. I'm proud to be an American. Because this is what this country is about. You can come here from literally anywhere and become anything you want, generations, because you had the courage to make your way here. It's probably why crime rates in immigrant communities are lower than the general population, because they don't want to squander the opportunity that they've been given. It is why they are afraid to go to law enforcement if they know that the first option is going to be them getting in trouble. This is why we're doing this today. It's about upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is the reason that we can have these exchanges in this big fancy building, without having to resort to violence. It's the Constitution. We swore an oath to uphold it. That is what we are protecting today. I am so proud to be voting for this bill. I am proud to be a member of this Majority. And yes, I am proud to be an American. We are a nation of immigrants. We must protect that ideal. Because today you may agree with the attacks; tomorrow the attacks will be against you. Stay strong. I proudly vote aye.

In relation to Calendar 1317, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 39. Nays, 22.

Madam President, returning to motions for a moment, I wish to call up the following bills, which were recalled from the Assembly and are now at the desk: Senate Print 825A and Senate Print 4042A.

Calendar Number 869, Senate Print 825A, by Senator Liu, an act to amend the Labor Law. Calendar Number 1049, Senate Print 4042A, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

The Secretary will call the roll on reconsideration. (The Secretary called the roll.)

The bills are restored to their place on the Third Reading Calendar.

The amendments are received.

The resolutions are open for cosponsorship. Should you choose not to be a cosponsor, please notify the desk. Senator Gianaris.

They'll be playing three more games between today and when we return on Tuesday. Is there any further business at the desk?

This is going to be an early day on Tuesday. I move to adjourn until Tuesday, May 26th, at 10:00 a.m., with the intervening days being legislative days.