March 24, 2026 · Finance · 7,845 words · 7 speakers · 203 segments
Good morning. This is the Senate Standing Committee on Finance. I'm Liz Krueger, the chair of the committee, joined to my right by Tom o', Mara, the ranker for the committee and many of our members. And many guests today. I wonder what feels so exciting to them. We'll soon see. Let's start. Brianna's going to start us off by starting to read three.
All right. S56B Fernandez. Establishes through the Department of Health a drug checking services program to allow individuals to bring drugs or controlled substances and have them tested for contaminants, toxic substances or hazardous compounds. Requires the Department to establish public health surveillance of the unregulated drug supply. Provides exemptions for. For participants in the drug checking program from certain controlled substance offenses.
Thank you. Questions or discussion? Okay. Senator Rivera, Senator Salazar, first and second bill. All those in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? Two, nay. Any without recording? The bill moves to the floor. Thank you. Next.
S329A Bailey. Relates to facilitating appellate review of rulings that implicate issues of public concern.
Any questions or discussions? Senator? I said chairs to pull the notes. I was going to say anyone like to second the bill? Thank you. I'm sorry. Senator Scoof has seconds. All those in favor?
Aye.
All opposed? Two, nay. Any without rec? Bill moves to the floor. Next.
S403AMyri establishes a snap and cash assistance Fraud Victims Compensation Fund.
Any questions or discussion? Second. Senator Henchy, Senator, Mayor. First and second. All those in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? Any without rec? Okay. Helming and Amera. And we just want to join by one more Republican. Are you without rec by chance?
403.
Let's see. Without rec. Sounds good to me.
Okay. It was just a guess. The bill moves to the floor. Thank you.
S561A Krueger. Requires certain agencies and individuals to provide notice regarding the rent increase exemption for low income elderly persons and persons with disabilities programs to tenants upon the occurrence of certain events.
Any question or discussion? All right.
So, Senator.
Mayor, move the bill. Senator Sepulveda, move the bill. All those in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? Any without rec? The bill moves.
Next as 614A Rivera. Provides presumptive eligibility for medical assistance benefits for persons released from correctional facilities for at least 60 days following release. Provides for enrollment of such individuals upon release upon application, if eligible.
Any questions or discussion? Move it. Senator Hinchey moves the bill. Senator Salazar moves the bill. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? 3. Nay. Any left to be without record? No. The bill moves to the floor. Thank you.
Act 1048, Salazar. Requires public Agencies to establish preliminary license application Application procedures to determine whether an applicant for a license would be ineligible for such license based on criminal history. Establishes time frames for public agencies to respond to such applications. Requires public agencies to report information regarding granting license annually.
Any questions or discussion? First, the bill. Seney seconds the bill. All those in favor? Any opposed?
Awr.
Awr? Any other? Without rec. Without rec. Okay. For those who are new to us, AWR is the same as without rec. Just to let everyone know. Thank you. The bill moves to the floor. Next.
S1457B. Can Kavanaugh provides for adjustment of the maximum income threshold for eligibility for the senior citizen rent increase exemption, disability rent increase exemption, senior citizen homeowners exemption and disabled homeowners exemption by any increase in
the consumer price index.
Any questions or discussion? Anyone like to move the bill? Senator Helming moves the bill. Senator, Mayor seconds the bill. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any without wrap? The bill moves to the floor. Thank you. Next.
S1574a. Krueger establishes the electric landscaping equipment rebate program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality and reduce noise pollution by promoting the adoption of quieter zero emission landscape landscaping equipment. Provides for rebates at the point of sale for applicants purchasing or leasing certain equipment. Provides for the repeal of such provisions.
Any questions or discussion? Thank you. Senator Salazar moves the bill. Senator, Mayor seconds the bill. This is very popular in the suburbs, just FYI. So if I don't really even have landscape in my hand. Sorry. Those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any without right?
Without right.
You should ask your people at home. The bill moves to the floor. Thank you.
If it's all important, though. I mean, the governor vetoed it.
Well, she's allowed to be wrong,
but
maybe something to address her point that the shift to electric law is already underway. And is it necessary to incentivize? Would it be something worth looking into?
Well, I'm actually hearing that it is necessary to incentivize because it's a win win. Particularly from a noise perspective. Even if you're not so concerned about the climate issues. And the climate issues are big deals. Also. These are so much quieter than the gas driven device in there. Okay. Sorry. Next.
Bill S1833Amay annex the Harmful Algal Bloom Monitoring and Prevention Act. Establishes the Harmful Algal Bloom Monitoring and Prevention Fund.
Any questions or discussion?
Second.
Okay. Senator Sutolveda. Senator Helming. All those in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? Any without bill? Moose
S 1913 Rivera relates to establishing the 340B prescription drug anti Discrimination act prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers from discriminating against covered entities and New York State pharmacies based on participation in the drug discount program program authorized by section 340B of the Federal Public Health Service Act.
Questions or discussion? Toby?
Yeah.
Can you give us a brief explanation of the bill and who, what it does in terms of the rebates from the pharmacies, from the drug manufacturers?
Yep. So the 340B program is a federal program, the purpose of which is to, to provide certain facilities with discounts at purchasing of drugs. The idea is that the savings would then be reinvested into for community purposes. It was aimed at giving an opportunity to community based centers, fairly qualified health centers, safety net hospitals, et cetera, to be able to save money on their drug purchases, to then be able to invest in different things. And the goal of the program has always been to allow flexibility so that each one of these institutions that serve different communities, different populations can figure out the best way to use those savings. This bill in particular. Now the thing is to back up for a simple background is certainly the argument that is made by folks in the opposition is that there are some people who are taking advantage of this program and therefore are. What pharmaceutical companies have done is that they set certain, they prohibited certain practices. So it's a federal program, but the state can certainly regulate it and companies themselves can make, can make standards, can set standards of how they actually run the program, which has meant that certain organizations, particularly fairly qualified health centers in the state of New York have been hit by these changes in these. What the pharmaceutical companies have done and at times have lost. I think the estimate last year was about $80 million that they don't have, they don't have access to. So what this bill would do, it would prohibit manufacturers, PBMs, outsourcing facilities or third party logistics from denying, prohibiting conditioning or otherwise limiting the dispensing of drugs from a covered entity or contract pharmacy. Other than limitations explicitly identified or authorized by federal law or regulation,
my question really is the same. The money that is going that you're going to have reinvested in local community infrastructure for what lack of a better word. It was my impression that the 340B program is designed to have the discounts go to the patient, the consumer, the insurance company, the patient's insurance provider.
The discount does not go to the consumer, the discount goes to the entity.
No, I understand that, but I thought the 340B program requires the consumer to benefit the patient to benefit, not the community.
Well, the patient does benefit because we're talking about populations that are served by these clinics. For example, take Ryan White clinics that specialize in HIV positive patients. They use the savings that they accrue to invest directly in trying to find extra services to provide to that particular community. And you have a federal qualified health center that is either in a rural setting or an urban setting. They have populations that they serve. They can take the savings and they can reinvest it in something that's very specific to the populations that they serve. So it is. So it is. It does benefit the individual patients by, because of the services that are the extra services that are provided by the FQHCs, et cetera. But it's not directly to them because particularly remember, and what we're talking about here is that most of these, certainly we're talking about Medicaid patients, they're not paying for their drugs anyway.
Can I just follow up real quick? The reason for my question is I understand that a large number of labor unions are opposed to it, and that's
what's called coming to mind.
So in other words, the patient does not benefit from this, but the community does.
Communities are made up of patients. I'm not, I'm not sure where.
All right, thank you.
Yes.
So I, I wanted to add on to what Senator river shared, and that's in our rural communities, our FQHC and our community hospitals, et cetera, that's who is serving people. And with changes to the part 340B program not having that additional funding, it literally has resulted in some of them cutting their hours down like this funding allows them to keep the lights on and to serve the public. The only question Senator Rivera, I do have for you is is there anything in the bill language that would address some sort of better accountability practices to ensure that the funds are being reinvested into like our FQHES, our community hospitals, etc.
Actually, thank you for asking this question. So the reality is that, and everybody in this room knows it, and certainly maybe that's why we have so many guest today, Madam Chair, there's many folks in this room who are opposed to this and the conversations that we've had with them are like, because it is true that if there are, that I, the entities that I care about, the entities that I want to make sure are well served, safety net institutions, FQHCs, et cetera on the state, the institutions that are large, they are non profit because by law they are non profit in the state of New York but if there's a large institution that is basically run as a for profit institution, I'm not particularly, I don't particularly necessarily want to protect those folks because they're doing fine. Right. So it is true that if that I'm certainly interested in making sure that the money is being used for things that are going to benefit communities that are in need, as the program was originally designed. And so if the response is, well, this is being misused by different organizations, then my question to folks, some of them in this room or some of them represented by some of the folks in this room, it's like, okay, then work with us to find the reason we built, we put the bill like this is because the practices that your companies, the companies that you represent have followed have impacted everybody. Y' all could have really targeted the changes in your policy so that you would impact those institutions that you believe are abusing the program and let the organizations that benefit from it, that should benefit from it, like the rural hospitals or safety net institutions in your district. So you could have set policies that would have only impacted the big ones or the ones that are really taking advantage of the program. So since you didn't do that, the reason we put the bill like this that is so broad is precisely because you all should have made it more specific, but you didn't. But if you're willing to work with us on putting together, because I believe in transparency as well, so work with us to see if we can put some language together to do just that. And the response has been like, oh look, a squirrel. And the engagement hasn't actually been there. So in good faith, if folks, and I'm just saying it now on the record, on a weird camera here and recorded for the future, anybody wants to come to us in good faith and say, let's actually put some language here that says that the institutions that might be taking advantage of it and not using it correctly shouldn't benefit from the program. I got no problem with that. But nobody has actually engaged with us in good faith to actually come up with language to do so. This is the reason why it's so broad. Somebody wants to help us come up with something that's more specific, more than willing to, but they really haven't been willing to.
So I'm going to raise my hand is I will be one of the people who will help champion that because I want to make sure that the funding goes to those who need it where it was intended to go.
Absolutely.
I can't continue to see healthcare providers in my district shuttered because they just can't afford to continue operating. And just to be clear for the record, when these reporting and saying you and you all, you are talking about me?
Oh, no, no, no, ma'. Am.
No, no, no, no.
Not at all. Not at all. As you make clear the concern that you have, because this is something that we have. It's not just urban hospitals. It's not just hospitals that serve urban communities. Matter of fact, rural hospitals and safety and institutions there are even more at risk because they have less population to serve. And every time that you change the ability of them to serve people, then they get even less revenue. And so it's more problematic. So I certainly believe very. I'm certainly not saying like it's not you, Senator Helm. And one thing that I would want to say just again for the record, the fact is there is, I do not believe that there, at least I have not been shown the supposed overwhelming evidence that exists that says that these institutions, that there are institutions that are just willy nilly, you know, taking advantage of the system and tearing it to pieces like we have. The fact is that each one of these institutions, the State of New York, is non profit, and they have to file all sorts of paperwork with the IRS that demonstrates that they are doing charity care. And while certainly I wouldn't say that everyone is perfect, I don't think that there's. I haven't seen overwhelming evidence that says that. The thing is just like it's this crazy program that we just need to do away with, it certainly might cut into the, into the profit of some of the pharmaceutical companies, again, many of them represented in this room, but I think that they care also about patients. So I say let's work together to actually come up with language that actually targets those bad actors and leaves the good actors alone.
Thank you.
Any other questions? Oh, sorry, Senator Barrella.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So I guess, you know, first of all, let me say that I understand the hospital organizations are under tremendous pressure largely from the fact that, you know, we have so many people on Medicaid in New York State every time they come into a hospital or into a nursing home or into a sensitive living facility, New York State pays below the cost of care. And we also put no guardrails whatsoever on people on Medicaid treating the emergency room like it's their primary care physician. So let's make sure we place the blame where it belongs, and that's in Albany. But for the core reimbursement rates for Medicaid and the Fact that we have likely millions of people that are not qualified on Medicaid. So let's start with that. But I really, my question here is I have to disagree with you. My understanding is the purpose of the 340B program is to provide low cost life saving medication to people that otherwise cannot afford it. And I would reference an article that was just in Buffalo News by the debt infusion center, basically saying.
By the what center?
Sorry, Dent, it's a neurological hospital. I shouldn't say hospital. It's a neurological practice in the Buffalo area. It's very, very well known in western New York and they have an infusion center and these infusion drugs, which they're getting 90% off are actually going to people that are otherwise unable to afford those life saving infusions in people who have life threatening illnesses and chronic illnesses. So I guess the question is, are we saying that we're supposed to be providing this money for essentially the promise that is going to be used, I guess judiciously by these hospitals or is it supposed to be for providing low cost pharmaceuticals to people who truly need it? I think it's the latter.
So again, the way the program is structured, it is, it is to provide savings as in the institutions like federally qualified health centers, safety net institutions like hospitals in your district and mine who purchase drugs can do so at a discounted rate. And the savings that they approve by paying less for these drugs, they can then invest on the populations that they serve. And you just pointed out, and I agree with you, that there are. The fact is that most institutions in the state of New York that serve large Medicaid populations lose money every time somebody walks in the door because Medicaid rates are garbage and they lose money every time somebody walks in the door. So they have to consistently try to figure out how to make, as we say in Spanish, hacer de tripas corazon out of guts to make a heart. Right? To figure out how to do the best they can with what they've been given. So that's precisely what this program is intended to do, to provide those institutions with savings so that they can invest that savings into services for the folks.
Well, it sounds like a pretty convoluted process here. I mean, the program was created to provide discounts on medication. How that translates to the. But again,
to provide not for individuals, but for institutions. That is as it was designed. I can point you to the federal website that describes the program. Okay, so this is the accrue. It does accrue to again to individuals because Individuals are patients that serve, that are served by FQHCs in your district of. Served by FQHCs of mine. Very important. But it's, but ultimately it's not. The program was created for institutions to save money on purchases of drugs.
Okay, so that being said, then shouldn't there be some kind of, I guess, check and balance, an audit program to determine how these funds are being invested? Is there anything in this legislation that would provide some kind of audit and oversight?
Well, certainly each one of these institutions are required to provide information both to the federal government as well as to the attorney general's office because they are non profits. So they are public documents that they have to provide that demonstrate what they. Because they're also required by law to provide the percentage like of charity care. So all of this information is public. And again, that's. This is what I'm saying that it is the claim which certainly sounds good on paper because there are bad actors and everything. They're bad actors. So certainly there are knuckleheads that run hospitals, right? Just like there's knuckleheads and runs. There's knuckleheads in here. And there are the evidence, the evidence that there is a, that there is an abuse of the program to the tune of billions of billions and billions of dollars. I don't necessarily see it if there was. And again, and I'll repeat it once again, there is. If the goal here is to make sure that those folks who are abusing the program are not using it correctly, do not continue to abuse it and therefore providing some transparency to make sure, like some added transparency from what they're already required to do by law to maintain their nonprofit status. If that should be provided, then cool, let's work on what that is. Let's work on what that language looks like. And let's leave the folks who are serving the most vulnerable alone, the people who are closing hospitals in your district.
So it's not currently in your bill. We want to provide some treatment, transparency and accountability. But that's not your.
No, I know it's not in my bill. And the reason it's not in my bill is because I didn't see it as necessary at first. But when somebody says to me we're opposed to it because we're opposed to your bill because this is a terrible program that's being abused by a bunch of people like, okay, cool, so how do you think we can establish that? Can you help us to. If you're so convinced that this is a program that is so abused and it's so.
I don't think I said that. I'm just saying.
No, I know, but bro, hear me out. What I'm trying to tell you is that I've approached the folks who are concerned about the bill for that supposed reason and I've asked them to give me language that we could then introduce in this bill or in a separate bill to provide that level of transparency that they insist is necessary to see this terrible like, you know, fraud that's being perpetrated or whatever it is that they argue. They haven't given me anything.
Senator Barrett, question along those lines though. Have you looked at our contract pharmacies, the big chain pharmacies, PBMs, are they benefiting from the Part 340B program?
They're the ones who actually are not benefiting from the 340B program. Are the ones. And this would actually, this would, as I stated at the beginning, this bill would actually cover manufacturers, PBMs, outsourcing facilities and third party logistics providers. So all of them would be prohibited from doing the types of things that they're doing now that, that are actually impacting community based organizations, federally qualified health centers and safety net institutions, et cetera. The ones, the folks that I want to protect and that you want to protect.
Sorry, I just want to go back to that. Look, I think everyone is concerned about the cost of pharmaceuticals, the cost of drugs, okay? You have people that are denied every day drugs that they need by their insurance companies. You have people that choose if they're able to pay out of pocket, if they really need something. So if you were to ask the average person on the street anywhere in the United States, what do you think this program is for? They're going to think it's to provide drugs, life saving drugs to people that
bro, if you ask people in the street in the United States about this program, they're going to say, what are you talking about?
If you think people think that drugs are affordable, they don't. And this program is under the, I guess the auspices of providing drugs affordably to people that truly need it, that perhaps cannot get coverage. And that may not be the case. That may not be the case. But then we need to have guardrails in place. That's what we find.
The folks who have a hard time getting access to care and getting access to drugs who are either underinsured or uninsured or with Medicaid and are served by safety NET institutions and FQHCs and everything, those are the folks that this would, that this Ultimately benefits.
Right. So, but, but, but that's only anecdotal evidence. I think that we need to, we need to provide what is actually happening. And, and, and what is the, what is the system in place to make sure that that's getting.
Sorry, Joe, but you're incorrect. The opposite is true. It is not anecdotal to say that you can go, you can go to, you can go to the Vetanses Health center in downtown Manhattan. You can go to Callen Lord, which is an FQHC that serves, that serves LGBTQ HIV positive folks. You can go to Charles B. Wan Community Health Center. You can go to Harlem United, you can go to Morris Heights Health Center. Hold on, hold on. And you can go to any of them, and every single one of them will be able to tell you you want to list. Every single one of those that I mentioned can get you a list of what they use that money for. That's not, that's not hypothetical. That's a real thing. And just last year, because of the imposition of the changes that the pharmaceutical companies have imposed, have actually lost $80 million. And that is not show change to these organizations. So it is not hypothetical. They are indeed able to do less for the most in need and not just in the Bronx, but in your district. All right,
yes.
Just to summarize, my concern is obviously we want to help the rural districts, the herb, everybody who will benefit. But it's my understanding that this program is designed to reduce the cost of medic prescription medications because our rates are much too high, people can't afford their medications. And that was the reason I raised this question. No one questions using the money for a community benefit. But this is reducing prescription costs.
To me, this is not about. Toby, with all due respect, this is not about reducing costs. It has nothing to do with that. That is a separate thing. This is to provide savings to folks who are, to folks who are purchasing them. The reduction in prices is a completely separate and apart. And if you want to introduce a bill, I'll support it. But this has nothing to do with reducing prices for drugs.
So last question. Go back to Toby's original question. If this is just about taking profits from pharmaceutical companies to subsidize hospitals, why are so many labor unions opposed to that?
What's so many what?
Why are so many labor unions opposed to that? Why would they be opposed to taking pharmaceutical profits and investing in hospitals?
Why is it. Well, you got, you got to read their opposition memos. I'm not going to make the case for them. I believe that the bill is necessary and important because folks like FQHCs in my district, in your safety net institutions in my district and yours in rural parts of the state, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, have less resources to serve the most vulnerable because they don't have access to this program or have limited access to the program because of decisions that have been made by corporations, not by governmental entities and not by the federal government, but by individual corporations that are to their benefit, which what it is, they are trying to maximize the amount of profit that they get. So that's what they're trying to do. And what I'm trying to do is to maximize the amount of money that this program, if the program ceases to exist at the federal level, then then you know, it is what it is. But the program exists right now. And the purpose, the stated purpose of the program is to have institutions be able to get savings on drug purchases so that they can invest those savings into things that they do in the community, which again, are not hypothetical. I can take you to any of these. Just pick one and I'll give you a list of 5, 10.
I didn't say hypothetical.
I said anecdotal. I will let you. Not anecdotal. I will tell you because it's an anecdote. I can actually give you a list of what these things are and the impact that they've had. Pick one. Pick one and I'll give you the last 10 years and what they've done with that money for the last 10 years. Not so much last year because they lost money because of things that the pharmaceutical companies have done twice. Can you give me an output, not anecdotal, but actual things that these folks do?
So we're going to take the vote. Yeah, I'm going to guess.
I think I'm supportive of the vote.
I just want to.
So I'm going to guess that it's going to move to the floor and I'm going to recommend to all lobbyists here that you should get the memos pro and con to the central staff for both the Democratic and Republican members of the Finance Committee so we can make sure everyone has a chance to review the arguments pro and con before it comes to the floor. And I think it's been a very worthwhile discussion.
So I've had fun.
Well, I have, too. And I've been watching and I'm supporting the bill also, by the way. So I'm going to. Do we get the motions yet?
So moved?
Nope.
No thank you. All right. So moved by Beardis and Salazar. All those in favor?
Ay.
All those opposed? Without rec.
Look, I just like to see you get wound up. Not difficult to do, honestly.
All right, the bill moves to the floor. Thank you.
S. 1946. Rivera.
Another one.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Minus five. Somebody else on the system. Let's go.
Relates to the expungement of syringe convictions of criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument.
Any questions or discussion? Senator Sevulveda and Senator Bailey, in favor? Excuse me. Yeah. Move the bill. All those in favor?
Aye.
All those opposed?
Two or three?
Any without?
Three.
Your? No. Okay. So three. No, no. Without recording. Thank you.
S 2666 A. Salazar. Relates to the provision of breast pumps and related collection and storage materials to certain incarcerated nursing birth parents who are confined in or committed to an institution or local correctional facility with or without their child, subject to specific time limitations. Requires institutions and local correctional facilities to provide pumps and related materials to such incarcerated birth parents, but not yet beyond the date such child reaches 24 months of age, except in limited circumstances related to parole. Allows children to remain with their incarcerated birth parents in a Correctional institution until 24 months of age or longer in certain cases related to parole. Requires the commissioner of corrections and community supervision to issue an annual report on data relating to incarcerated birth parents.
Discussion.
Move it.
Move it.
All right, so, Senator Bailey, Senator Hinchey. Move the bell out. All those in? In favor? Any opposed? Just Senator Baro. Nay. Any without? Senator Marin?
Hel.
Without. They'll move next.
S27:07 May. Requires DHCR to develop a common application and web portal for certain funding tax credits, loans and grants for housing. Require such application to be available upon request from relevant state agencies. Require such web portal to be manageable by relevant state agencies.
Any question or discussion? Anyone like to move the bill? Senator Beardis and Senator Rivera. Move the bill. All those in favor? Any opposed? Any without record? Bill moves to the floor.
S3835. Hinchey. Establishes the manufactured Home Community Preservation act to provide financial and technical assistance within funds available to counties, municipalities, rural preservation companies and other nonprofit housing organizations for their housing preservation efforts. Provides that funds in the mortgage insurance fund can be used to provide financial support to local governments and eligible nonprofit housing organizations.
Any questions or discussion? Second, who was. Who was the first voice I heard? Oh, sorry. Move the bill. Seconded by Senator Hinchy. All those in favor?
Aye.
Aye. And it was Senator Helming Senator Pinchy's bill. But you know, H. Helming H. Whatever. There you go. Okay. All those in favor? I. Any close? Any without wreck.
Without wreck.
Two without wreck. You're going to have to work on. The bill moves to the floor. Thank you.
S4534 SCUs ensures proper administration and enforcement of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Coverage Code and the State Energy Conservation Construction Code. Provides additional additional definitions. Provides remedies for violations of the code. Makes conforming technical changes.
Any questions or discussion? Thank you. Senator Vers moves the bill. Senator Se seconds the bill. All those in favor? Any opposed?
Name?
So no. Without Rex. The bill moves to the floor.
S5535 Baskin requires certain documents and forms to be Provided in the 12 most common non English languages spoken by limited English proficient immigrants of five years or less according to the American Community Survey as published by the United States Census Bureau.
Thank you. Any questions or discussion? Move the bill. Senator Sebalva moves the bill. Senator Hinchy seconds the bill. All those in favor? Any opposed? Without recs. Senator Helman without wreck. Thank you. In two minutes the bill moves to the floor.
S6064 Parker designates March 23rd as Pakistan standing.
Anyone? Question or discussion?
Move the bill.
Senator Beardis moves the bill. Senator Seulvina seconds the bill. Thank you. Well, I know you're our international Senator.
Sorry.
All right. In favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any without rec. The bill moves to the floor.
S6765. A harm relates to the proper collection and disposal of mercury thermostats. Establishes a fund for the stewardship of mercury thermostats. Extends the effectiveness of the Mercury Thermostat Collection Act.
Okay.
Question. Discussion manager. Yes, Senator.
So. And again, I haven't had enough time
to read it is.
But it sounds like it's. We're gonna charge manufacturers of thermostats for the collection. We really don't have a program in place for people to voluntary, voluntarily, like basically hand over their old thermostats with mercury switches. I guess I'm trying to figure out what the bill does. The bill says it's about collecting mercury thermostats, but then I don't really see that as part of this bill. Yes. So, Senator, this is an existing program. It's mercury thermostat epr. So this is an older EPR program established a number of years ago and hasn't been as successful as we would like. So especially compared to other states, have much higher collection rates. So there's been a lot of updates in how we do EPR programs recently. And so this bill is updating the existing program, and there's already a organization of thermostat manufacturers who pay for collecting these mercury thermostats. It just hasn't had very good uptake. And so this bill upgrades the program, requires more education, more collection sites, other ways to enhance the program, including a fee that mercury thermostat manufacturers would pay, which incentivizes collection. So when the contractor goes into a house and upgrades the thermostat they find in mercury thermostat, this gives them an incentive to submit it. And that's been shown to be very effective in other states. Thank you.
That's very helpful.
So I'm not aware of anybody still using thermostats. I don't think. Do they still manufacture them that way? They don't still manufacture them. So it's existing thermostat manufacturers, you know, they were manufacturing mercury thermostats before they were banned. And so they're still manufacturing thermostats, just not mercury runs. But they're still. They're responsible for those thermostats to be in buildings around state. So a lot of these new thermostats are made overseas.
How are we charging those folks?
How are we charging a company in China that manufactures smart thermostats for mercury thermostats that they may not have ever manufactured? So the tracking companies that we know
have produced mercury thermostats in the past. So there were about.
In 2015, there are about 4.18 million
still in use in New York. Okay, can't hear you. Sorry. There were 4.1 million mercury thermostats still in use in New York in 2015, with about 90,000 of them coming out of service annually. All right, thank you.
Thank you. Okay, so anyone like to move this bill?
So moved.
So moved.
Thank you.
Senator Giortis, Senator Rivera, all those in favor? Any opposed? And he was out. Right. Okay, thank you. And if you know you have mercury anything in your home, please get rid of it correctly. It's very, very dangerous. Thank you. Bill moves to the floor.
S7875 Guinardes requires that sales tax exempt precious metal bullion shall be purchased by a bank, a foreign government, the UN or the state, federal or local government.
Okay, Anyone who wants to have a discussion or questions. Senator Barrella.
So is this the tax on bullion sales? Okay, so what if someone goes outside across the border into Pennsylvania to buy gold?
How's that?
Are they going to. Are they going to have to declare. Declare that and pay sales tax when they come.
No, it's just for the sale. Just like any other goods that people purchase within the state of New York, there's a sales tax levied on that purchase. If you buy gold bullion, gold bars in New York state, you would pay that sales tax. This exemption has been on the book since 1989, so it has not been a very long standing exemption. At the time that the legislature passed this bill, the division of budget issued a veto recommendation saying that this bill, bill represents the sort of questionable, piecemeal special interest legislation that has continually eroded the state sales and use tax base since the statewide tax was adopted in 1965 and has complicated tax compliance and enforcement. And for that reason, they recommended a veto. And so we're taking their advice now 40 years later and trying to update, do what we should have done 40 years ago.
So again, the question is, if you were to buy gold outside of New York state and bring it back, would you pay? Would you be subject to the sales tax? Or if you're a New York state resident and you own bullion and you maybe take it in a safe deposit box in Erie, Pennsylvania? I don't do that. I'm just saying that's a hypothetical. But, you know, would you still be responsible for the sales tax?
No. If I go to the state of Pennsylvania and I need to buy a soda can from the gas station, Martin, I come back home to New York, I'm not paying tax on what I bought in Pennsylvania. If I buy clothing in New Jersey, I'm passing by the mall. I'm not charged that tax when I come back over the bridge to New York to pay that tax. If you already have a purchase of this gold bullion, you're not going to be taxed retroactively for that purchase. It's just a prospective. Moving forward, the sales tax would be reinstated on these purchases. This carve out also cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year. This year, the division of budget estimates, I'm sorry, DTF in their tax expenditure report estimates, it's going to cost the state $607 million in foregone tax revenue just on the gold bullion sales alone.
Thank you. I think I would just say that gold to hedge against inflation. It's often used by, you know, senior citizens, people that as a safe way to keep their money physically. I don't think that necessarily this is a bad thing. I don't think we're thinking of some Scrooge McDuck with a big room full of gold. I don't think that's the case? I think it's a safe investment for people, particularly people on fixed income. So for that reason, I'll be a no, thank you. Thank you for the information and just
if I could just respond to that. I think those are fair concerns. The vast majority of people who are investing in gold as a hedge are investing actually in publicly traded stocks that do gold mining, gold operations. That is the more common way that people try to hedge for their personal finances. And when you look at how much in foregone revenue and you do the backwards calculation, it's actually billions of sales of gold bullion that are being transacted here. Those are not all senior citizens on a fixed income trying to buy their Glenn Beck commemorative gold coin that they see on tv. Right. This is, this is much larger scale than that. I think the vast majority of this impact is not going to be on the senior citizen trying to put their retirement savings into purchasing something they see on tv. It's going to be larger institutional players who are buying and trading in these gold transactions tax free right now.
Senator Dinares, I have a question. This is so far outside the realm of anything that I ever even thought of purchasing gold bullions or whatever. I thought that only happened on tv.
I don't know.
But in your justification you talk about coins. So in the case of a senior citizen who has a coin collection that has been passed down in the family for years and years, according to your justification, it sounds like that senior would be subject to a, what is it, a 28% tax under this bill?
No.
So if, if the, if the asset is being passed down through inheritance or gifting purposes, you're not paying, you'd be subject to whatever estate taxes or inheritance taxes that are already on the, if
you sell that coin collection, if you
sell it, the purchaser has to pay that tax, not the seller. So if you inherited your grandfather's gold coin collection, well, that's on the seller, not the, that's on the buyer, not the seller.
It's still we're going to put a 28% tax.
No, I don't know where that it
says while taxpayers do have to remit that capital gains tax that are rated 20% on these collectibles when they go to sell them, the same sales tax exemption is not afforded to other valuable assets that are held for investment. It's made an adjustment.
I'll just go back to you on that specific 28% number. But generally speaking, for the other types of rare gems, other types of rare metals do not enjoy this same type of sales tax exemption. So it really is the gold that is being purchased that is being exempted from this. If you're buying rubies, if you're buying emeralds, if you're buying other things, other rare earths, other rare minerals, other rare gems, you are paying that same sales tax on those purchases. Which is what we are proposing to restore gold coins like they used to be prior to 1989.
The justification includes a lot more than just gold.
But there are. The point is that the law is it only treats certain types of these purchases as tax free. Other types of these purchases are not. So like the gemstones and everything else are.
Let's give everyone a tax free break, not charge more people 28%.
We could do that.
Or I can't go home to my constituents and say we can't help you with your health insurance or the food on your table. Because we think people who are buying more than $1,000 by the way of gold, not, not smaller amounts, more than $1,000 of gold, should be not taxed on that, but everyone else should pay tax on everything.
Move that bill.
Question. Yeah. What if the buyer doesn't take possession of the gold? It just stays in the vault of the person offering, doesn't change? No change. It's still a transaction. It's still a sales. It's still a sales tax. What if that entity holding the gold moves it all out of state to a different vault and sells it from there? They wouldn't be subject to the sales tax. But they're not paying the tax now,
Right?
They're not paying the tax now. And we're not deriving any economic or financial value from just gold sitting in a safe somewhere that is not being transacted or not being sold or not being graded some way, so there'd be no difference.
Thank you. Thank you. All right. Senator Rivera moves the bill. Senator Hinchey seconds the bill. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Senator Ramirez. Nay. Senator Borrello? Three nays. The bill moves to the floor. And last bill for the day.
S8046. A FNO requires an annual inspection and audit process which shall review 5% of individual apartment improvement notifications for rent stabilized apartments outside. Outside of the city of New York. Requires additional audits where violations are found.
Any question or discussion? Move the bill, Senator. Senator Salazar, Senator Rivera. Move the bill. All those in favor? Any opposed? The bill moves to the floor. And with that, we are going to Anton's finance committee. Thank her attending.