SUNDAY, MARCH 31, 2019 12:13 P.M.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL COME
TO ORDER.
IN THE ABSENCE OF CLERGY, LET US PAUSE FOR A MOMENT OF
SILENCE.
(WHEREUPON, A MOMENT OF SILENCE WAS OBSERVED.)
VISITORS ARE INVITED TO JOIN THE MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE.
(WHEREUPON, ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY LED VISITORS AND
MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.)
A QUORUM BEING PRESENT, THE CLERK WILL READ THE
JOURNAL OF SATURDAY, MARCH 30TH.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE TO
1
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DISPENSE WITH THE FURTHER READING OF THE JOURNAL OF MARCH THE 30TH AND
THAT THE SAME STAND APPROVED.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WITHOUT OBJECTION,
SO ORDERED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. TO MY COLLEAGUES, STAFF AND GUESTS IN THE CHAMBERS, HAPPY
SUNDAY. TODAY IS THE LAST DAY OF MARCH, MEANING IT IS ALSO THE LAST DAY
THAT WE ARE -- WOULD BE OFFICIALLY CELEBRATING WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH;
ALTHOUGH WOMEN HAVE PRODUCED THE KIND OF HISTORY IN THIS COUNTRY THAT
SHOULD BE CELEBRATED YEARLONG. I DO HAVE A QUOTE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO
SHARE AND IT SAYS, TO GET A CHOICE -- I GET A CHOICE EVERY TIME I OPEN MY
MOUTH: THAT IT CAN BE WITH CIVILITY, IT CAN BE WITH DIGNITY, IT CAN BE
WITH GRACE - OR NOT. THAT QUOTE IS FROM DANA PERINO. SHE'S A FORMER...
PRESS SECRETARY, AND A CURRENT POLITICAL COMMENTATOR. AGAIN, IT'S DANA
PERINO. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE.
THE MEMBERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT WE DO -- WE HAVE
COMPLETED A COUPLE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS ALREADY, SO THERE IS A NEED
TO ADVANCE THE A-CALENDAR, WHICH WE WILL BE TAKING UP UNDER DEBATE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MRS.
PEOPLES-STOKES, THE A-CALENDAR IS ADVANCED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: SO, THERE IS A GOOD
POSSIBILITY -- OR I SHOULD SAY THERE IS A REAL POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WILL BE
A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CONFERENCES DURING THE COURSE OF TODAY. BUT AT
2
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THIS MOMENT, MR. SPEAKER, WE SHOULD TAKE UP THE -- MOVE FORWARD
CALENDAR A THAT WE JUST MOVED FORWARD, ON DEBATE BY MS. WEINSTEIN.
PAGE 13 -- I'M SORRY, MR. SPEAKER, PAGE 13, RULES
REPORT NO. 47, ABBATE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: PAGE 13, RULES
REPORT NO. 47.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A06965, RULES REPORT
NO. 47, ABBATE. AN ACT TO AMEND THE EXECUTIVE LAW, IN RELATION TO THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE COLLECTIVE
NEGOTIATING UNIT CONSISTING OF TROOPERS IN THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE
AND SALARY SCHEDULES FOR MEMBERS OF SUCH UNIT; TO AMEND THE STATE
FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO THE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUND FOR MEMBERS
OF SUCH UNIT; MAKING AN APPROPRIATION THEREFOR; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW AND THE STATE FINANCE LAW RELATING
THERETO (PART A); TO AMEND THE EXECUTIVE LAW, IN RELATION TO THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE COLLECTIVE
NEGOTIATING UNIT CONSISTING OF COMMISSIONED AND NON-COMMISSIONED
OFFICERS IN THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE AND SALARY SCHEDULES FOR
MEMBERS OF SUCH UNIT; TO AMEND THE STATE FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO
THE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUND FOR MEMBERS OF SUCH UNIT; MAKING AN
APPROPRIATION THEREFOR; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
EXECUTIVE LAW AND THE STATE FINANCE LAW RELATING THERETO (PART B); TO
AMEND THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND THE STATE FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO
COMPENSATION, BENEFITS AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
3
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OF CERTAIN STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE
SECURITY SERVICES COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATING UNIT; AUTHORIZING FUNDING OF
JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES; IMPLEMENTING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE STATE AND AN EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION; MAKING AN
APPROPRIATION THEREFOR; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE LAW RELATING THERETO (PART C); AND TO AMEND THE CIVIL SERVICE
LAW AND THE CORRECTION LAW, IN RELATION TO SALARIES OF CERTAIN STATE
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES EXCLUDED FROM COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATING UNITS; AND
MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF EFFECTUATING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS THEREOF (PART D).
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MEMBERS, THIS IS THE
FIRST VOTE OF MANY TODAY. IF WE ARE IN AND AROUND THE CHAMBERS, IF WE
COULD COME IN AND CAST OUR VOTES, IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
FIRST VOTE OF THE DAY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: FIRST VOTE OF THE DAY,
MEMBERS. PLEASE, IF YOU'RE IN YOUR SEATS, CAST YOUR VOTE. IF YOU ARE IN
THE SOUND OF OUR VOICE, COME TO THE CHAMBER AND VOTE. IT'S ONLY THE
FIRST. LET'S GET IT DONE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
4
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, I WANT TO
TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO, BEFORE WE GO TO OUR NEXT BILL, TO INTRODUCE A
GUEST THAT WE HAVE IN THE CHAMBERS WITH US TODAY. HIS NAME IS LOGAN
DALMATA. LOGAN IS THE THIRD-GRADE SON -- THERE HE IS OVER THERE -- OF
CHRIS. CHRIS IS THE OPERATIONS MANAGER HERE, AND THIS IS LOGAN. HE'S
VISITING WITH US, MR. SPEAKER. I DID MAKE HIM AWARE THAT HE PICKED
ONE OF THE LONGEST DAYS OF SESSION TO COME.
(LAUGHTER)
BUT WE'RE ALWAYS PLEASED TO HAVE HIM.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY. ON BEHALF
OF THE SPEAKER, ALL THE MEMBERS, YOUR DAD, WELCOME, LOGAN, TO THE
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY. WE EXTEND TO YOU THE PRIVILEGES OF THE
FLOOR. I'M MADE TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ON THIS FLOOR MANY
TIMES HELPING YOUR DAD, BUT THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU'VE BEEN HERE WHEN
WE'VE BEEN IN SESSION. SO, WELCOME. WE HOPE TO SEE YOU AGAIN AND
AGAIN AND AGAIN. THANK YOU, YOUNG MAN.
(APPLAUSE)
MAYBE THE BEST THING WE'LL DO TODAY.
(LAUGHTER)
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. CHILDREN CAN ALWAYS BRING OUT THE BEST IN US. SO, MR.
SPEAKER, IF WE COULD NOW MOVE TO PAGE 10, RULES REPORT NO. 46, ON
5
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DEBATE WITH MS. WEINSTEIN.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: PAGE 10, RULES
REPORT NO. 46.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02008-C, RULES
REPORT NO. 46, BUDGET BILL. AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
LAW, IN RELATION TO CLARIFYING THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY'S AUTHORIZATION
TO FINANCE CERTAIN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES (PART A); TO AMEND CHAPTER 58
OF THE LAWS OF 2012 AMENDING THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW RELATING TO
AUTHORIZING THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CERTAIN DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH AUTHORIZATION (PART B); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION TO THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY (PART C); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART D); TO AMEND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, IN RELATION TO WASTE TIRE
MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING FEES (PART E); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART
F); TO AMEND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, IN RELATION TO
ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY TO SOLICIT FUNDS OR GIFTS AND ENTER INTO
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (PART G); TO AMEND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION LAW, THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LAW AND THE STATE
FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR BAG WASTE
REDUCTION (PART H); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART I); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
(PART J); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART K); TO AMEND THE BANKING LAW, IN
RELATION TO STUDENT LOAN SERVICERS (PART L); TO AMEND PART FF OF CHAPTER
55 OF THE LAWS OF 2017 RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH
6
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY, IN RELATION TO THE SUBMISSION OF
REPORTS AND IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF (PART M);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART N); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART O);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART P); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART Q); TO AMEND
CHAPTER 21 OF THE LAWS OF 2003, AMENDING THE EXECUTIVE LAW RELATING
TO PERMITTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE SPECIAL HANDLING FOR ALL
DOCUMENTS FILED OR ISSUED BY THE DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS AND TO
PERMIT ADDITIONAL LEVELS OF SUCH EXPEDITED SERVICE, IN RELATION TO
EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF (PART R); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
(PART S); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART T); AUTHORIZING UTILITY AND CABLE
TELEVISION ASSESSMENTS TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
FROM CABLE TELEVISION ASSESSMENT REVENUES AND TO THE DEPARTMENTS OF
AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, OFFICE OF
PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND STATE FROM UTILITY
ASSESSMENT REVENUES; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF SUCH PROVISIONS
UPON EXPIRATION THEREOF (PART U); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART V); TO
AUTHORIZE THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY TO FINANCE A PORTION OF ITS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION, POLICY AND PLANNING, AND FUEL NY PROGRAMS, AS WELL AS
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION'S CLIMATE CHANGE
PROGRAM AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS' FUEL NY
PROGRAM, FROM AN ASSESSMENT ON GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATIONS (PART
W); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART X); TO AMEND CHAPTER 393 OF THE LAWS
OF 1994, AMENDING THE NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION ACT, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE NEW YORK STATE URBAN
7
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO MAKE LOANS, IN RELATION TO THE
EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF (PART Y); TO AMEND THE NEW YORK STATE URBAN
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE EMPIRE STATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
(PART Z); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART AA); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART
BB); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART CC); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART DD);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART EE); TO AMEND THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW,
THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, THE TAX LAW AND THE STATE FINANCE LAW,
IN RELATION TO PROVIDING CERTAIN METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMUTER
DISTRICT SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, SURCHARGES AND FEES TO THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY WITHOUT APPROPRIATION (PART FF);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART GG); TO AMEND CHAPTER 929 OF THE LAWS OF
1986 AMENDING THE TAX LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO THE
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS THEREOF APPLICABLE TO THE RESOLUTION OF LABOR DISPUTES (PART
HH); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART II); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART JJ); TO
AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION TO AUTHORIZING THE NEW
YORK POWER AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
(PART KK); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION TO THE
PROVISION OF RENEWABLE POWER AND ENERGY BY THE POWER AUTHORITY OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF SUCH LAW RELATING THERETO (PART LL); TO AMEND THE STATE
FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO ESTABLISHING THE PARKS RETAIL STORES FUND,
AND THE GOLF FUND, AS ENTERPRISE FUNDS (PART MM); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION TO ALLOWING THE NEW YORK STATE OLYMPIC
8
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS
CONTAINING INDEMNITY PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO HOST THE 2023 WORLD
UNIVERSITY GAMES TO BE HELD IN LAKE PLACID, NEW YORK (PART NN);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART OO); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART PP);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART QQ); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART RR); TO
AMEND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, IN RELATION TO THE
DONATION OF EXCESS FOOD AND RECYCLING OF FOOD SCRAPS (PART SS); TO
AMEND CHAPTER 123 OF THE LAWS OF 2014, AMENDING THE VEHICLE AND
TRAFFIC LAW, THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW
RELATING TO OWNER LIABILITY FOR FAILURE OF OPERATOR TO COMPLY WITH
TRAFFIC-CONTROL INDICATIONS, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 101 OF THE LAWS OF 2014, AMENDING THE
VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, AND THE PUBLIC
OFFICERS LAW RELATING TO OWNER LIABILITY FOR FAILURE OF OPERATOR TO
COMPLY WITH TRAFFIC-CONTROL INDICATIONS IN THE CITY OF MT. VERNON, IN
RELATION TO EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 19 OF
THE LAWS OF 2009, AMENDING THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND OTHER
LAWS RELATING TO ADJUDICATIONS AND OWNER LIABILITY FOR A VIOLATION OF
TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNAL INDICATIONS, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF SUCH CHAPTER; TO AMEND CHAPTER 99 OF THE LAWS OF 2014,
AMENDING THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW,
AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW RELATING TO OWNER LIABILITY FOR FAILURE OF
OPERATOR TO COMPLY WITH TRAFFIC-CONTROL INDICATIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW
ROCHELLE, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND
CHAPTER 746 OF THE LAWS OF 1988, AMENDING THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC
9
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LAW, THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW RELATING
TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF VEHICLE OWNERS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
VIOLATIONS, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND
LOCAL LAW NUMBER 46 OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK FOR THE YEAR 1989,
AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK RELATING TO
CIVIL LIABILITY OF VEHICLE OWNERS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL VIOLATIONS, IN
RELATION TO EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 23 OF
THE LAWS OF 2009, AMENDING THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND THE
PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW RELATING TO ADJUDICATIONS AND OWNER LIABILITY FOR A
VIOLATION OF TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNAL INDICATIONS, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING
THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH CHAPTER; TO AMEND CHAPTER 222 OF THE LAWS OF
2015, AMENDING THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
LAW, AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW RELATING TO OWNER LIABILITY FOR FAILURE
OF AN OPERATOR TO COMPLY WITH TRAFFIC-CONTROL INDICATIONS IN THE CITY OF
WHITE PLAINS, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH CHAPTER;
AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 20 OF THE LAWS OF 2009, AMENDING THE VEHICLE
AND TRAFFIC LAW, THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAW, RELATING TO OWNER LIABILITY FOR FAILURE OF OPERATOR TO COMPLY WITH
TRAFFIC CONTROL INDICATIONS, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF; AND TO AMEND THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, IN RELATION TO
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC-CONTROL PHOTO VIOLATION MONITORING
SYSTEMS (PART TT); AND TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW, IN RELATION TO
A WESTCHESTER COUNTY RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
RESOURCES PROGRAM (PART UU),
MR. GOODELL: LAY IT ASIDE.
10
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE BILL IS LAID ASIDE.
(LAUGHTER)
MS. WEINSTEIN: I THOUGHT WE WERE HAVING SOME
COOPERATION.
MR. GOODELL: HOW ABOUT AN EXPLANATION, PLEASE?
(LAUGHTER)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: HOW -- HE DEVELOPED
A SENSE OF HUMOR LATE IN LIFE. MR....
MS. WEINSTEIN, AN EXPLANATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURELY. AND I WILL DO A LITTLE BIT
OF AN EXPLANATION AS RELATING TO THE -- THE BUDGET AS A WHOLE BEFORE WE
ADDRESS THIS SPECIFIC BILL.
SO, GOOD AFTERNOON, COLLEAGUES. I STOOD HERE BEFORE
YOU WITH WHAT FEELS LIKE AN -- AN ETERNITY AGO PRESENTING OUR
ONE-HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION, OUR FIRST STEP ON THE JOURNEY TO PASS A
BUDGET FOR THIS UPCOMING STATE FISCAL YEAR. SINCE THAT TIME, SPEAKER
HEASTIE, MEMBERS, COMMITTEE CHAIRS AND STAFF HAVE WORKED TO DELIVER
THE BUDGET THAT IS BEFORE US TODAY. PREPARATION OF THIS BUDGET HAS NOT
BEEN EASY. WE STARTED NEGOTIATING FROM A BASE WHERE REVENUE
PROJECTIONS HAD BEEN REDUCED BY $6 BILLION BETWEEN TWO FISCAL YEARS.
THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS MADE TO MEDICAID AND TO LOCAL
ASSISTANCE. THIS FISCAL CHALLENGE COMPELLED US TO PRIORITIZE SPENDING.
WE FIRST RESTORED CUTS TO MEDICAID AND MATCHED LAST YEAR'S INCREASE IN
FOUNDATION AID. WE THEN LOOKED TO INVEST IN THE CONTINUATION OF
PROGRAMS THAT HAVE LONG -- HAVE A LONG AND PROVEN TRACK RECORD.
11
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INITIATIVES LIKE OPPORTUNITY AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS PROGRAMS,
CHILDCARE, FACILITATED ENROLLMENT, SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS,
AFTER-SCHOOL AND AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS. WE RESTORED FUNDING FOR THE
DWYER PEER SUPPORT PROJECT, WHICH ENJOYS TREMENDOUS SUPPORT IN THIS
BODY.
MANY OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS IN THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET, AS I MENTIONED DURING OUR ONE-HOUSE DEBATE, WERE REMOVED
AND MAY BE TAKEN UP IN THE COMING MONTHS OF SESSION. CERTAIN
PROVISIONS REMAINED WHICH REQUIRED INTENSE DELIBERATIONS AND
CONSENSUS BUILDING. AMONGST THOSE THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING TODAY AND
VOTING ON ARE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS -- LONG-AWAITED REFORMS IN
DISCOVERY, BAIL, SPEEDY TRIAL; MTA REFORMS; A SYSTEM TO AUTHORIZE
TOLLING IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF MANHATTAN; AND A BAN ON
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS. THIS BUDGET MAKES THE PROPERTY TAX CAP
PERMANENT. ON TAXES, THE BUDGET CONTINUES AN ENHANCED RATE -- TAX RATE
ON HIGH-INCOME EARNERS AND PROVIDES FOR A CONTINUED PHASE-IN OF THE
MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT. IT ESTABLISHES A PROGRESSIVE PROPERTY TAX FOR
HIGHER-END PROPERTIES IN NEW YORK CITY, WITH REVENUES SUPPORTING
TRANSIT IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. THE BUDGET WOULD REQUIRE THE
TAXATION OF PURCHASES ON THE INTERNET, LEAVING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR OUR
LOCAL RETAILERS, LEVELING IT, AND PROVIDING AN INCREASED REVENUE SOURCE
TO STATE -- TO THE STATE AND TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
IN TERMS OF OTHER ACTIONS, THE BUDGET PROVIDES $2.3
MILLION TO CONVERT REDUCED PRICE TO FREE LUNCH; $10 MILLION FOR THE COST
TO IMPLEMENT EARLY VOTING; $14.7 MILLION FOR POLL BOOKS AND
12
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ON-DEMAND PRINTERS; AND A $59 MILLION RESTORATION TO -- TO AIM
FUNDING; $27 MILLION TO FUND THE SENATOR JOSEPH [SIC] PERALTA DREAM
ACT; $20 MILLION TO CONTINUE FORECLOSURE PREVENTION SERVICES; AND $20
MILLION FOR OUTREACH EFFORTS RELATED TO THE 2020 CENSUS. THERE IS MUCH
MORE IN THE BUDGET WE WILL BE ADOPTING TODAY, AND WE WILL DISCUSS
THOSE AS WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THOSE BILLS.
MY COLLEAGUES, I -- I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG WEEK AND
WE'RE IN FOR A -- A LONG DAY -- AND -- AND NIGHT. SO I WANT TO THANK ALL
OF OUR -- ALL OF THE MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE -- THE AISLE FOR YOUR
COOPERATION AND PATIENCE IN ADVANCE OF OUR DELIBERATIONS TODAY, AND I'D
BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO SOME QUESTIONS BOTH ON THIS BILL AND ON THE -- I
ASSUME ON THE GENERAL BUDGET AS WE MOVE FORWARD TODAY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BARCLAY.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AND I
APPRECIATE THE CHAIRWOMAN'S WILLINGNESS TO YIELD.
WILL YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, OF COURSE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. BARCLAY: WE HAD A NICE QUOTE FROM... THE
MAJORITY LEADER, AND WE HAVE LOGAN HERE, I GUESS AS THE SPEAKER SAID,
IT'S ALL DOWNHILL FROM THERE, BUT...
(LAUGHTER)
LET'S HOPE NOT. THANK YOU FOR LAYING OUT -- YOU LAID
13
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OUT, OBVIOUSLY, THE BUDGET, AND -- THE FULL BUDGET --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. BARCLAY: WE, UNFORTUNATELY, HAVE NOT BEEN
ABLE TO SEE EVERYTHING IN THE FULL BUDGET, SO, WE -- I GUESS WE HAVE TO
TRUST YOU, OR --
MS. WEINSTEIN: TAKE MY WORD.
MR. BARCLAY: -- BUT WE'D LIKE TO VERIFY --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU --
MR. BARCLAY: WE WOULD LIKE TO VERIFY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: BEFORE THE DAY AND NIGHT ENDS
WE'LL -- WE'LL SEE THOSE NUMBERS.
MR. BARCLAY: SO, CAN WE -- THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR.
CAN WE GO THROUGH ALL -- FOR THE PUBLIC THAT DOESN'T KNOW, WE VOTE ON
TEN BUDGET BILLS. IT'S NOT ALL CONTAINED IN ONE BUDGET BILL. COULD YOU
GO DOWN THROUGH EACH OF THOSE TEN AND JUST TELL US WHERE YOU ARE AND
WHEN WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE MAYBE THE FULL, COMPLETE BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. SO, WE HAVE -- WE ALREADY
DID DEBT SERVICE. WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION HERE. WE HAVE EDUCATION
(ELFA) IS ON THE FLOOR. WE HAVE PUBLIC PROTECTION IN THIS CALENDAR ON
THE FLOOR. WE DID REPORT, AS YOU KNOW, FROM WAYS AND MEANS, THE
HEALTH -- MENTAL HEALTH. WE -- THAT BILL IS NOT LIVE, SO WE WILL AWAIT A
MESSAGE ON THAT. LOCAL ASSISTANCE IS PRINTED. THE CAPITAL IS PRINTED.
AND -- SO, THE OUTSTANDING IS STATE OPS, REVENUE AND THE JUDICIAL-LEGI
BUDGET.
MR. BARCLAY: AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN
14
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THOSE LAST THREE -- ARE WE ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT, OR ARE WE 24 HOURS TO
MIDNIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- THEY WILL BE --
MR. BARCLAY: IN BETWEEN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE SOME --
PRINTED SOMETIME TODAY.
MR. BARCLAY: AND THEY -- IS IT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REVENUE BILL WILL BE WHAT THEY CLAIM IS "THE BIG
UGLY" THAT EVERYTHING THAT DOESN'T GET INTO THESE OTHER BILLS THAT MAYBE
TRADITIONALLY WOULD GO IN THOSE BILLS ARE ALL GOING TO BE JAMMED INTO
THE REVENUE BILL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE REVENUE BILL WILL CONTAIN
SOME OF THE MORE DIFFICULT ISSUES THAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH IN
COMPLETING THIS BUDGET, SO THEY WILL, IN FACT, BE INCLUDED IN -- IN THE
REVENUE BILL.
MR. BARCLAY: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, HELENE.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES -- I MENTIONED THIS IN WAYS AND
MEANS, AND I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE ON THIS SIDE IS WE
DON'T HAVE A FULL PICTURE. SO, EVEN ON SOME OF THESE BILLS, WE MIGHT
AGREE WITH THE FUNDING, WE MIGHT AGREE WITH THE PROGRAMS, BUT WE
DON'T KNOW WHERE THE FUNDING IS COMING FOR THOSE PROGRAMS, IT'S HARD
FOR US TO SUPPORT THEM. SO, I JUST WANT TO -- YOU WERE KIND ENOUGH TO
SHARE SOME OF THIS INFORMATION IN WAYS AND MEANS, AND I WANT TO --
MAYBE YOU CAN SHARE WITH THE FLOOR AND WHOEVER IS --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
15
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. BARCLAY: -- HAPPENS TO BE WATCHING IN
PUBLIC. WE HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, FOUR MAJOR FUNDS THAT WE PUT IN -- IN OUR
BUDGET. WE HAVE THE ALL FUNDS, THE STATE OPERATING FUNDS, THE
GENERAL FUNDS AND THE STATE FUNDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. BARCLAY: YOU SHARED WHAT THOSE AMOUNTS
WERE GOING TO BE IN EACH OF THOSE. COULD -- WOULD YOU MIND DOING
THAT FOR EVERYBODY, AND THEN, ALSO, WHAT PERCENTAGE THEY ARE OVER WHAT
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE. I'D BE HAPPY TO. SO, WHY
DON'T WE START -- WE'LL START ON THE BIGGER NUMBER, IS OUR -- THE ALL
FUNDS BUDGET IS $175.39 BILLION. IT'S AN INCREASE OF $247 MILLION, OR.1
PERCENT OVER THE EXECUTIVE. THEN MOVING TO THE GENERAL FUND, THAT IS
$76.425 BILLION, AN INCREASE OF $197 MILLION, OR .3 PERCENT OVER THE
EXECUTIVE. STATE OPERATING FUNDS IS $102.190 BILLION, IT'S AN INCREASE
OF $232 MILLION, OR .2 PERCENT OVER THE EXECUTIVE. AND THEN FINALLY,
STATE FUNDS IS $113.83 BILLION, WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF $247 MILLION, OR
.2 PERCENT OVER THE EXECUTIVE.
MR. BARCLAY: SO -- I APPRECIATE THAT. SO, WE
OBVIOUSLY, IN EACH FUND ARE ADDING MORE SPENDING. IS IT OUR CONTENTION
-- THEN, OBVIOUSLY, AS THE GOVERNOR MADE A POINT EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT
WE HAD A $2.3 BILLION SHORTFALL. OTHER ECONOMISTS HAVE SAID IT'S NOT
THAT MUCH, BUT ALMOST EVERYBODY SAYS IT'S LESS THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT
WE HAD. I GUESS WE CAN DIVINE FROM THE TEA LEAVES THAT OBVIOUSLY
THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SUBSTANTIAL REVENUE RAISERS IN THIS, OR
16
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ENHANCEMENTS, I THINK AS YOU LABELED THEM, IN THIS BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE ARE, BUT IN PARTICULAR, AS
WE'LL SEE IN THE REVENUE BILL, SOME OF THE -- THE INCREASES ARE FOR THE
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AND -- WELL, THE MTA TRANSIT.
MR. BARCLAY: AND JUST TO PROVIDE CLARITY FOR MY
COLLEAGUES, SETTLEMENT FUNDS, WE WERE ABLE TO SETTLE WITH A LOT OF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE PAST THAT RAISED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
MONEY FOR THE STATE. ARE WE USING THOSE TO BALANCE OUR BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE HAVE MADE NO CHANGE FROM
THE EXECUTIVE IN THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS.
MR. BARCLAY: AND THEN ONE LAST GENERAL
QUESTION, IF YOU COULD ENLIGHTEN ME ON HOW MUCH DEBT IS IN THIS
BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S -- IT'S THE SAME AS THE
EXECUTIVE'S PROPOSAL, THE --
MR. BARCLAY: AND WHAT IS THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: JUST A VERY SMALL CHANGE.
(PAUSE)
JUST -- JUST OVER $7 BILLION NEW DEBT IS BEING ISSUED.
BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT IS NEW DEBT IN THE BUDGET THAT'S AUTHORIZED IS -- IS
FOR POLL BOOKS AND... AND THEN $100 MILLION AS AN MTA -- A LOAN TO THE
MTA THAT WILL BE PAID BACK.
MR. BARCLAY: AND THAT WILL BE IN THE REVENUE
BILL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
17
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. BARCLAY: OKAY. THANKS. NOW, COULD I --
THANK YOU FOR THE -- ANSWERING THE GENERAL QUESTIONS. I MOVE TO SOME
QUESTIONS I HAD ON THIS TED BILL. YOU KNOW, I WAS READING THROUGH
THESE BILLS, THE ONE THING THAT STRUCK ME WAS THE "SUSTAINABLE
MANAGEMENT OF FOOD WASTE." I HADN'T SEEN THAT BEFORE. I -- IT WAS KIND
OF A NEW IDEA TO ME. HAS ANY OTHER STATE IMPLEMENTED THIS TYPE OF
LEGISLATION?
OR MAYBE JUST BACK UP. COULD SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE
BILL BRIEFLY, OR THAT PROPOSAL IN THIS BILL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, NEW YORK CITY DOES HAVE A
-- A PROPOSAL. IN TERMS OF OTHER STATES, I'M -- I'M NOT SURE. BUT IT -- IT
DOES REQUIRE LARGE-SCALE FOOD SCRAP GENERATORS TO SEPARATE AS MUCH
EDIBLE FOOD AS POSSIBLE FOR DONATION AND SEPARATE FOOD SCRAPS FOR
ORGANIC RECYCLING IF WITHIN 25 MILES OF AN ORGANICS RECYCLER. WE
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES, ADULT CARE FACILITIES,
ELEMENTARY AND -- AND HIGH -- SECONDARY SCHOOLS. AND "LARGE SCALE" IS
DEFINED AS GENERATING TWO TONS OR MORE OF FOOD WASTE PER -- PER WEEK.
BECAUSE OF THAT STANDARD, MOST RESTAURANTS WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM
BEING REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL, THOUGH, OBVIOUSLY,
THEY COULD PARTICIPATE.
MR. BARCLAY: ANY IDEA OF HOW MANY FOOD SCRAP
GENERATORS THERE ARE GOING TO BE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT -- I THINK IT'S REALLY GOING
TO BE HARD TO FIGURE OUT THAT NUMBER UNTIL WE ACTUALLY START TO SEE --
MR. BARCLAY: AND THE DEC'S GOING TO -- WHO'S
18
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
GOING TO DO THE WEIGH-IN? SELF -- SELF REPORTED --
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE WILL BE WAITING FOR DEC TO
ESTABLISH RIGHTS AS TO HOW THEY'RE GOING TO CALCULATE IT. THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO BE BRINGING SCALES TO EACH ESTABLISHMENT.
MR. BARCLAY: I THINK ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE
HAVE, OR WE OFTEN HAVE MAYBE WITH SOME OF THE BILLS THAT ARE PROPOSED
BY THE MAJORITY IS UNFUNDED MANDATES. WE -- WE'VE PUT A LOT OF
BURDEN NOT ONLY ON OUR TAXPAYERS, BUT ALSO ON OUR LOCALITIES AND
BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT NEW YORK STATE. IT'S ONE OF THE CONSTANT
REFRAINS WE HEAR, AT LEAST ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE. AND SO THE CONCERN
WE HAVE ON THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE COST IS GOING TO BE AND WHO'S
GOING TO BEAR THE COST. SO, IF I UNDERSTAND IT RIGHT, EITHER YOU'VE GOT TO
DONATE THE EDIBLE FOOD SCRAPS, OR IF YOU LIVE WITHIN -- OR YOU'RE LOCATED
WITHIN 25 MILES OF AN ORGANIC RECYCLER, YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE IT THERE.
WHO PAYS FOR THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, I MEAN -- THE GENERATOR OF
THE -- OF THE FOOD SCRAPS --
MR. BARCLAY: RIGHT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- WOULD -- WOULD PAY FOR IT.
AND, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF -- WHEN YOU MENTION MANDATE, OBVIOUSLY,
LOCALITIES ARE NOW PAYING FOR THIS, AND THE GENERATORS OF THESE FOOD
SCRAPS ARE PAYING FOR IT IN TERMS OF THEIR SANITATION COSTS. THEY'RE
PAYING COMMERCIAL FACILITIES, THEY'RE PAYING FOR THE REMOVAL OF THIS
MATERIALS --
MR. BARCLAY: WELL --
19
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- ANYWAY AS TRASH --
MR. BARCLAY: YEAH, IF THEY'RE SEPARATED, THAT'S --
THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL --
MS. WEINSTEIN: AND THE LOCALITIES ARE PAYING TO --
EITHER PEOPLE PAYING FOR THE -- IN SOME LOCALITIES PEOPLE INDIVIDUALLY
PAY FOR TRASH, IN SOME LOCALITIES THE MUNICIPALITY IS PROVIDING THE -- THE
SERVICES THROUGH TAX DOLLARS. SO IT WILL CERTAINLY --
MR. BARCLAY: SO, IT'S YOUR CONTENTION --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- REDUCE COSTS.
MR. BARCLAY: -- THAT IT'S GOING TO BE COST NEUTRAL?
IS THAT YOUR CONTENTION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, THAT'S -- YES, THAT IS WHAT WE
--
MR. BARCLAY: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- BELIEVE. IT'S COST NEUTRAL AND
SAVES AND HELPS THE ENVIRONMENT.
MR. BARCLAY: ALL RIGHT. I WILL COME BACK IN A
FEW YEARS AND WE'LL SEE IF THAT -- IF I'M STILL HERE, WHETHER THAT'S THE CASE
OR NOT. THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN.
SWITCHING OVER TO ENERGY, YOU HAVE A LOT OF
PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL ALLOWING NYPA TO DO A NUMBER OF THINGS. FIRST,
CHARGING STATIONS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. BARCLAY: AND WHAT ARE THE DETAILS ON THAT?
IT -- IT'S A -- IT GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO PUT CHARGING STATIONS
20
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. HOW MANY, HOW THEY WORK, HOW MUCH CAN THEY
SPEND ON THEM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE DON'T HAVE THE -- I MEAN,
THERE AREN'T SPECIFIC NUMBERS THAT WE REQUIRE IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF
CHARGING STATIONS THIS GIVES THEM THE AUTHORITY TO DO --
MR. BARCLAY: ISN'T THAT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THIS.
MR. BARCLAY: -- A PRETTY WIDE OPEN AUTHORITY? I
MEAN, THEY COULD PUT IT ON EVERY BLOCK. WHAT'S...
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE IS AN ANNUAL REPORT THAT'S
REQUIRED BY -- BY NYPA ONCE THEY START TO --
MR. BARCLAY: SO, IF THEY GO HOG-WILD, WE CAN --
WE'LL KNOW ABOUT IT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE CAN ALWAYS ACT ON IT HERE.
MR. BARCLAY: -- WE CAN PULL BACK. ALL RIGHT.
THE TRANSMISSION SITING OF WIND FACILITIES AND BUILDING
THE TRANSMISSION LINES FROM THAT, IT'S A CONCERN WHERE I LIVE, BECAUSE
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF - OF WIND FACILITIES BEING PROPOSED THERE. WOULD
NYPA UNDER THAT SITUATION STILL BE SUBJECT TO ARTICLE VII SITING LAWS, OR
ARE THEY EXEMPT FROM THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, THEY WOULD -- THEY WOULD
STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE SITING LAWS.
MR. BARCLAY: AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS IS --
ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW IF IT SAYS IT SPECIFICALLY IN THE BILL, IT'S REALLY
21
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LOOKING AT THE OFFSHORE WIND IN LONG ISLAND, OR IS THIS REALLY APPLYING
TO ANYWHERE THEY WANT TO PUT TRANSMISSION LINES TO TRY TO HOOK UP WIND
POWER?
MS. WEINSTEIN: OFFSHORE IN GENERAL.
MR. BARCLAY: BUT IS THERE ANY PROHIBITION ON
THEM FROM DOING IT ELSEWHERE?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: EXCUSE ME, ONE...
RIGHT. I -- I THINK THE ONLY RESTRICTION IS THAT THEY ARE
FEDERAL WATERS THAT THESE ARE GOING TO BE IN, AND THEN THE ENERGY HAS TO
COME INTO NEW YORK STATE --
MR. BARCLAY: WELL --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THAT'S GENERATED BY THEM.
MR. BARCLAY: JUST -- OKAY. SO MY QUESTION,
THOUGH, I -- AGAIN, THIS IS MORE MY LOCAL CONCERN IS --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. BARCLAY: -- IS THE TRANSMISSION FROM WIND
POWER BEING DONE IN THE NORTH COUNTRY. THIS ISN'T ENVISIONING NYPA
BUILDING TRANSMISSION LINES UP THERE, THIS IS ENVISIONING THEM BUILDING
TRANSMISSION LINES TO GET THE WIND POWER, ELECTRICITY, ONTO THE SOUND --
OR ONTO THE ISLAND, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. BARCLAY: YES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. BARCLAY: OKAY. AND JUST, THEN MY FINAL --
22
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
JUST MOVING OVER TO MWBE. YOUR BILL REQUIRES MUNICIPALITIES NOW TO
BE SUBJECT TO MWBE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YEAH. THIS IS JUST A ONE-YEAR
EXTENDER.
MR. BARCLAY: BUT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO IT NOW.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YES.
MR. BARCLAY: OKAY. THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN. I
MAY COME BACK FOR MY SECOND 15 --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. BARCLAY: -- BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR
INDULGENCE.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. FRIEND.
MR. FRIEND: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD THE
SPONSOR YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. FRIEND: I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. FRIEND: I'LL START OUT WITH TRANSPARENCY. AND...
DOES THIS BUDGET STILL INCLUDE SPECIFIC ARTICLE VII LANGUAGE TO CREATE A
23
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DATABASE FOR DEALS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. FRIEND: HOW ABOUT, DOES THE BUDGET RESTORE
THE COMPTROLLER'S PREAUDIT AUTHORITY FOR STATE-AUTHORIZED FOUNDATIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. FRIEND: DOES THE BUDGET CONTAIN ANY
MEANINGFUL TRANSPARENCY TO PROTECT THE TAXPAYERS FROM EITHER THE
GOVERNOR OR THE LEGISLATURE THROWING $25,000-A-PLATE FUNDRAISERS FOR
FRIENDS AND EXISTING BUSINESSES BEFORE THE STATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE'S NOTHING... THERE'S NOTHING
IN THIS BILL THAT WOULD RELATE TO THAT.
MR. FRIEND: WOULD THERE MAYBE BE SOMETHING
COMING UP IN FUTURE BILLS FOR A DATABASE OF DEALS, OR SOMETHING TO
PROVIDE THAT OVERSIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NOT... AS IT RELATES TO DATABASE OF
DEALS, NOT IN THIS BUDGET. BUT CERTAINLY, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE
ARE POLICY ISSUES THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS AS OUR -- OUR SESSION
CONTINUES.
MR. FRIEND: I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ACCORDING
TO THE CITIZENS BUDGET COMMISSION, NEW YORK SPENT $9.9 BILLION ON
STATE AND LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN 2018. THAT WAS UP
$1.4 BILLION, AND 17 PERCENT FROM $8.5 BILLION IN 2016. MANY OF THESE
SUBSIDIES CAME IN THE FORM OF TAX ABATEMENTS, TAX CREDITS, LOW- OR NO-
INTEREST LOANS, GRANTS, CAPITAL INVESTMENTS. AND I BELIEVE THAT THESE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND INCENTIVES ARE SEVERELY LACKING
24
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IN OVERSIGHT AND -- AND A RETURN ON INVESTMENT. JUST IN -- IN THE
SOUTHERN TIER ALONE, WE HAVE OVER 5,000 JOBS THAT ARE READY FOR
SOMEBODY TO FILL THOSE POSITIONS. WE'RE NOT HAVING THE AMAZONS COME
INTO OUR REGION. WE DON'T HAVE THE BUFFALO BILLION. WE DON'T HAVE THE
PHOTONICS PLANT THAT WAS SOLD FOR A DOLLAR UP IN ONONDAGA COUNTY. BUT
WE DO HAVE THESE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE READY TO EMPLOY PEOPLE AND
PUT THEM TO WORK, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY TO BRING THAT
MONEY IN. IF WE HAD THIS DATABASE OF DEALS THAT KIND OF MAKE SURE THAT
THERE'S MORE TRANSPARENCY, MAYBE THE MONEY WOULD BE SPENT MORE --
MORE EFFECTIVELY.
I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER TOPIC. MY COLLEAGUE
JUST BROUGHT UP THE MWBE. THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED SEVERAL CHANGES
TO THE MWBE PROGRAM, INCLUDING MAKING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SUBJECT
TO MWBE QUOTAS. I REALIZE THAT THIS HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
FROM THIS PORTION. ARE WE STILL DISCUSSING THAT IN A FUTURE PORTION OF
THE BILL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE -- WE ARE DISCUSSING THE
PROGRAM AND CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM THAT THE MEMBERS AND
ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN OUR STATE HAVE BROUGHT UP. AND AS I SAID EARLIER,
THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION HAS -- ONCE WE ADOPT THE BUDGET, WE STILL HAVE
SEVERAL MONTHS AND WE ANTICIPATE WORKING ON THAT ISSUE AS WELL AS
OTHERS THAT WE HAVE OMITTED FROM THE BUDGET.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE REFERENCES TO
THE 2016 DISPARITY STUDY, THE DATA THAT THEY USED FOR ROLLING OUT THE
INITIAL PLAN THAT THE GOVERNOR USED?
25
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: YEAH, THE -- YOU KNOW, IT IS STILL
IN LAW, THE REGS ARE STILL IN LAW. BUT AS I SAID, WE'RE -- HERE WE'RE JUST
DOING THE ONE-YEAR EXTENDER, AND WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE SOME LATER
DISCUSSIONS ON THIS --
MR. FRIEND: CAN YOU JUST REFRESH --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- OUTSIDE OF THE BUDGET.
MR. FRIEND: WHAT -- WHAT IS THE CURRENT
REGULATION, THEN? IS IT 30 PERCENT THAT WE HAVE TO CONTRACT OUT, OR...
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. PURSUANT TO THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER, 30 PERCENT.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO ON THE BILL, BUT
I'M GOING TO ASK A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS, JUST -- I JUST HAVE SOME
LETTERS I'D LIKE TO READ.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
MR. FRIEND: SO, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. FRIEND: I HAVE A LETTER FROM THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS. THEY HAVE A MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO THE MWBE POSITION THAT'S OUT THERE. FIRST OFF, THE 2016
DISPARITY STUDY, IT IS IN THEIR POSITION THAT THE METHODOLOGY OF THE 2016
DISPARITY STUDY IS FLAWED. IT FAILS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES IN
LOCATIONS OF MWBE AVAILABILITY IN THE REGIONS OF UPSTATE NEW YORK,
PARTICULARLY THE SOUTHERN TIER, THE NORTH COUNTRY, AND CENTRAL NEW
YORK. ANY DISPARITY IN THOSE REGIONS ARE DUE TO RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS
BASED ON DEMOGRAPHIC POPULATIONS. THIS BILL WOULD ADOPT THE
26
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CONCLUSIONS OF THE 2016 DISPARITY STUDY DESPITE CURRENT LITIGATION
REVIEWING SUCH METHODOLOGY.
THEIR SECOND POINT, CITY OF RICHMOND V. J.A. CROSON.
THE EXECUTIVE'S MEMO STATES THAT THIS LEGISLATION MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CROSON FOR AN MWBE PROPOSAL TO NOT VIOLATE THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT. THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS DISAGREE WITH THAT POINT. THEIR
CLAIM IS THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT A NARROWLY-TAILORED REMEDY. IT VIOLATES
CROSON'S PROHIBITION THAT A MINORITY ENTREPRENEUR FROM ANYWHERE IN
THE COUNTRY ENJOY AN ABSOLUTE PREFERENCE OVER OTHER CITIZENS BASED
SOLELY ON THEIR RACE. WE THINK IT IS OBVIOUS THAT SUCH A PROGRAM IS NOT
NARROWLY TAILORED TO REMEDY THE EFFECTS OF PAST DISCRIMINATION.
THEIR THIRD POINT, LOCATION. LOCATION, LOCATION. THE
GOVERNOR'S BILL SPECIFICALLY REMOVES THE CRITERIA OF MWBES LOCATED IN
THE REGION OF PROPOSED PROCUREMENT TO AVAILABILITY ANYWHERE INSIDE OR
OUTSIDE THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS TO WHETHER A WAIVER SHALL BE GRANTED.
IT ALSO GIVES ALMOST ABSOLUTE DISCRETION TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE MWBE
DIVISION TO DECIDE WHAT "AVAILABILITY" MEANS. THIS IS
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VOID FOR VAGUENESS IN CONSIDERING THE POWER OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND VIOLATES CROSON.
THIS IS ALSO A MAJOR ISSUE IN THE SOUTHERN TIER. WE
DON'T HAVE A 30 PERCENT MWBE PARTICIPATION RATE IN THE SOUTHERN TIER.
THE MAJORITY OF OUR CONTRACTORS END UP HAVING TO GO OUTSIDE OF NOT
ONLY OUR REGION AND SPEND LOCAL TAX DOLLARS, STATE TAX DOLLARS EITHER IN
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK CITY OR EVEN OUT OF STATE. AND AT MOST TIMES, IT
27
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DELAYS THE RATE AT WHICH WE CAN GET PROJECTS DONE IN THE SOUTHERN TIER.
THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD'S FOURTH POINT: THEY
SUPPORT THE MWBE GOALS OF 2018 A.10713 (PEOPLES-STOKES)/S.8880
(SANDERS) TO FUND MENTOR-PROTEGE UNION TRANSITION TRAINING, SURETY
GUARANTEE AND THE PROPOSED BLUE RIBBON MWBE COMMISSION TO
COMMIT INCREASED MWBE NEW YORK RESIDENTS IN ALL PARTS OF THE STATE
TO REFLECT DEMOGRAPHIC PARTICIPATION IN PROCUREMENT. AND I'M HOPEFUL
THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS ARE WORKING ON AND WILL BRING FORWARD IN THE
FINAL PROJECT.
A SECOND LETTER I HAVE ON MWBE FROM A LOCAL
ELECTRICIAN IN THE SOUTHERN TIER, FROM BOUILLE ELECTRIC. DEAR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER FRIEND: AS AN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, BUSINESS OWNER
AND CONSTITUENT, I'M WRITING TO URGE YOU TO REJECT THE MWBE AND
WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION AMENDMENTS OBTAINED IN PART AA OF THE
TRANSPORTATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VII BUDGET BILL.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY, MWBE GOALS CAN BE A POWERFUL TOOL IN
PROMOTING BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISADVANTAGED CONTRACTORS,
CREATING GREATER ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND POOLS OF CONTRACTORS AND
WORKERS WHO REFLECT THE DIVERSITY OF THEIR COMMUNITIES. UNFORTUNATELY,
IF ENACTED, THE PROPOSALS IN THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE BUDGET WOULD
STRIP THE LEGISLATURE OF ITS ROLE IN ASSESSING DISPARITY, BACKDOOR THE
ACCEPTANCE OF A DEEPLY FLAWED 2016 DISPARITY STUDY, AND PERMANENTLY
REMOVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ACCEPT APPROVED FUTURE
DISPARITY STUDIES.
AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, THERE ARE MAJOR CONCERNS
28
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REGARDING THE DATA AND METHODOLOGY USED IN THE STATE'S 2016
DISPARITY STUDY THAT DETERMINED THAT 53 PERCENT OF THE STATE'S PRIME
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS AND ALMOST 54 PERCENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION
SUBCONTRACTORS ARE MWBE FIRMS, FIGURES THAT APPEAR TO BE
SIGNIFICANTLY INFLATED. WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY AND LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT,
IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO VALIDATE THE ACCURACY OF THE STUDY, WHICH MAY
BE USED TO IMPOSE UNREALISTIC AND UNACHIEVABLE WORKFORCE
PARTICIPATION GOALS IN MANY AREAS OF THE STATE. COMPOUNDING THOSE
FLAWS, THE PROPOSAL WOULD EXPAND THE STATE MWBE PROGRAM GOAL TO
TOWNS, VILLAGES, COUNTIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR WHICH ANY STATE
FUNDING IS RECEIVED. THIS WILL LIKELY REDUCE THE LOCAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT
OF THE PUBLIC WORK IN AREAS IT IS NEEDED THE MOST BY ELIMINATING MY
ABILITY -- THAT IS BOUILLE ELECTRIC -- AS A LOCAL CONTRACTOR TO BID ON
PUBLIC WORK OR BY FORCING ME TO USE NON-LOCAL CONTRACTORS, EVEN
OUTSIDE OF THE STATE, TO ATTEMPT TO MEET PARTICIPATION GOALS.
IF I CHOOSE TO BID ON AND PERFORM STATE WORK, THE
PROPOSALS UNFAIRLY ADDS SIGNIFICANT RISK FOR ME BY CREATING NEW CRIMES
OR DEFRAUDING AND/OR PROVIDING MISINFORMATION IN REGARD TO MWBE
PROGRAM FOR UTILIZING FIRMS THAT PORTRAY THEMSELVES AS MWBES, BUT IN
REALITY ARE NOT; PLACING ME AT THE RISK OF COMMITTING A FELONY, AND MY
COMPANY AT RISK FOR DEBARMENT DUE SOLELY TO THE DECEPTIVE PRACTICES OF
OTHERS.
FOR THE REASONS NOTED ABOVE, I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO
REJECT, AS THE LEGISLATURE DID LAST YEAR, ALL OF THE CHANGES CONTAINED IN
PART AA OF A.2008-A, AND TO SUPPORT A NEW DISPARITY STUDY AND REFORM
29
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE MWBE PROGRAM AS SET FORTH IN AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT AND CONTINUATION OF NEW YORK STATE'S MWBE PROGRAM
THAT WAS BASED ON LEGISLATION INTRODUCED LAST YEAR BY ASSEMBLY
MAJORITY PEOPLES-STOKES AND SENATOR SANDERS.
SINCERELY, BOUILLE ELECTRIC, MICHAEL SINCOCK.
AND ONE FINAL PIECE I'D LIKE TO ENTER ON THE MWBE
FROM THE BUSINESS COUNCIL. "GOVERNOR'S CALL FOR RENEWAL OF MWBE,
ARTICLE 15(A), COMES WITH MANY CONCERNS." AND THIS IS WRITTEN BY
JOHNNY EVERS, PH.D, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AT THE BUSINESS
COUNCIL. AS PART OF HIS EXECUTIVE BUDGET PROPOSAL, GOVERNOR CUOMO
CALLED FOR THE RENEWAL OF ARTICLE 15(A) OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, A LAW
AUTHORIZING THE STATE'S MINORITY AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS
ENTERPRISE. AS THE BUSINESS COUNCIL HAS CONSISTENTLY STATED, WE
SUPPORT THE STATE'S EFFORTS IN PROMOTING MINORITY AND WOMEN
BUSINESSES' PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING. HOWEVER, WE
FIND THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS PROBLEMS IN BOTH THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND
THE PROPOSED CHANGES SET FORTH IN THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET.
TO BEGIN, THERE ARE MANY FLAWS IN THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSED PROGRAM, THE MOST GLARING PROBLEM BEING THE RELIANCE ON A
FLIMSY 2016 DISPARITY STUDY THAT IMPLIES 53 PERCENT OF ALL CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTORS IN THE STATE ARE MWBE FIRMS - A FIGURE STRONGLY DISPUTED
BY THE INDUSTRY. THE IMPORTANCE OF A TRUE AND ACCURATE DISPARITY STUDY
CANNOT BE EMPHASIZED ENOUGH.
AS SUCH, AN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY BASED ON OBJECTIVE
FACTS SHOULD BE USED TO JUSTIFY PREFERENCE TO MINORITY- AND
30
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES IN THE AWARDING OF
GOVERNMENT-LET CONTRACTS. WITHOUT THE COMMISSIONING OF A NEW STUDY
BASED ON SUCH FACTORS, WE BELIEVE THE SERIOUS FLAWS IN THE 2016 STUDY
RISK -- SUBJECT -- SUBJECTING THE ENTIRE PROGRAM TO RISK UNDER LEGAL
CHALLENGE.
OTHER CONCERNS WITH EXISTING LAW INCLUDE DIFFICULTIES
IN OBTAINING WAIVERS FROM THE CONTRACT-SPECIFIC MWBE PARTICIPATION
TARGETS, A PROCESS THAT OUR MEMBERS SAY IS SLOW AND INCONSISTENTLY
APPLIED. LIKEWISE, MANY CONTRACTORS HAVE STATED THAT THEY WERE
UNABLE TO OBTAIN A RATIONALE FOR THE MWBE PARTICIPATION TARGET SET FOR
SPECIFIC PROJECTS DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS FOR SUCH INFORMATION. THE
DELAY IN OBTAINING MWBE CERTIFICATION OR RE-RECERTIFICATION ALSO NEEDS
TO BE ADDRESSED. AND THESE ARE FACTORS I SEE QUITE FREQUENTLY IN THE
SOUTHERN TIER, ESPECIALLY -- SPECIFICALLY IN THE 124TH ASSEMBLY
DISTRICT. THE BUSINESS COUNCIL GOES ON TO SAY, IN ADDITION TO A LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY IN THE SETTING OF CONTRACT-SPECIFIC PARTICIPATION TARGETS,
THERE ARE MAJOR CONCERNS IN THE BUDGET PROPOSAL, SUCH AS: DELETING
THE LISTING OF WAIVERS ON AGENCY WEBSITES; EXPANDING THE MANDATE TO
LOCALITIES AND GRANTING EXPANDED POWERS TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE
DIVISION OF MWBE TO CONDUCT STATE AGENCY AUDITS. THE NEW PROGRAM
WOULD GIVE A 10 PERCENT BID PREFERENCE TO MWBE BIDDERS, A CHANGE
THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE STATE'S LONG-ACCEPTED PRACTICE OF AWARDING
CONTRACTS TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER. FURTHER, THE BILL CREATES
NEW CRIMES OF DEFRAUDING AND/OR PROVIDING MISINFORMATION IN REGARD
TO MWBE FOR PURPOSE OF BEING AWARDED CONTRACT. VIOLATIONS CAN BE
31
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FELONIES AND LEAD TO DEBARMENT FROM STATE WORK.
IN A PROGRAM THAT APPEARS SIMILAR TO EXECUTIVE ORDER
162, THE BILL CREATES A NEW "WORKFORCE DIVERSITY PROGRAM" TO SET
"ASPIRATIONAL GOALS" FOR MINORITIES AND WOMEN IN "EACH TRADE,
PROFESSION AND OCCUPATION FOR "EACH COUNTY OF THE STATE."
"ASPIRATIONAL GOALS" WOULD REQUIRE A BREAKDOWN OF EACH TRADE,
PROFESSION, OCCUPATION AND SEPARATE LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION BY MALE
AND FEMALES IN THESE CATEGORIES IN EACH CONTRACT. THE LONG AND
CONVOLUTED ROUTE THAT A CONTRACTOR MUST FOLLOW TO OBTAIN WORKFORCE
PARTICIPATION GOALS WITHIN THE ABOVE JOB CLASSES AND CATEGORIES IS ALL
BUT UNWORKABLE.
GENERALLY, THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR A NEW
ITERATIONS OF EXECUTIVE LAW ARTICLE 159(A) WILL CREATE NEW AND
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR CONTRACTORS RATHER THAN CONCENTRATING ON
IMPROVING THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND ENSURING THE TIMELY DESIGNATIONS
AND RE-AUTHORIZATIONS OF STATE-CERTIFIED MWBE COMPANIES AND THEIR
ENTRY INTO THE... UNIVERSITY -- UNIVERSE OF STATE CONTRACTING. THE LAW
INCREASES THE ARBITRARY POWER OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE PROGRAM WHILE
COMPLICATING THE REPORTING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS OF CONTRACTORS.
THERE ARE, OBVIOUSLY, LOTS AND LOTS OF CONCERNS WITH
THE MWBE PROGRAM WITHIN MY DISTRICT. I HEAR THIS CONTINUALLY. BASED
ON THE DISPARITY STUDY PARTICIPATION RATES, THE FACT THAT WE'RE SPENDING
OUR STATE TAX DOLLARS OUT OF OUR LOCALITY AND EVEN OUTSIDE THE STATE. SO,
I'M VERY HOPEFUL THAT THE PROGRAM THAT YOU BRING FORWARD IS MORE IN
THE REFLECTION OF WHAT I MENTIONED WITH THE PREVIOUS -- WITH THE BILLS
32
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD.
AND WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD AGAIN?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. FRIEND, YOU HAVE
TEN SECONDS. YOU CAN COME BACK AGAIN --
MR. FRIEND: I WILL BE BACK, THEN. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: YOU'RE WELCOME.
MR. BRIAN MILLER.
MR. B. MILLER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
SPONSOR YIELD FOR QUESTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MRS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. B. MILLER: I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS HERE. FIRST
IS ON THE PLASTIC BAG BAN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. B. MILLER: IN COUNTIES AND CITIES THAT CHOOSE
TO OPT INTO THE -- IMPOSING THE PAPER BAG FEE, STORES WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR A LOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND TRACKING OF FEES THEY COLLECT AND
TRANSMIT TO THE STATE. WILL THESE STORES BE REIMBURSED FOR THESE
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I MEAN, WE DON'T IN THE BILL
ENVISION THE STORES BEING -- BEING REIMBURSED. SO, YOU KNOW, WE DO
HOPE THAT THE STORES WILL AID THE STATE IN ENCOURAGING THE USE OF -- OF
33
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REUSABLE BAGS.
MR. B. MILLER: OKAY. WELL, WE'RE ASKING THEM TO
DO ANOTHER SERVICE FOR THE STATE, AND WE'RE IMPOSING A FIVE CENT...
MIGHT WANT TO CALL IT A "TAX" --
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL --
MR. B. MILLER: -- ON THIS PLASTIC BAG --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT, IF A -- IF A COUNTY, CITY,
OPTS IN. WE -- THE BILL IS ACTUALLY SILENT ON WHETHER OR NOT RETAILERS CAN
CHARGE A FEE FOR BAGS AND RETAIN THE -- THE MONIES.
MR. B. MILLER: OKAY. SO, YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT
THEY WON'T RECEIVE ANYTHING FOR THE REPORTING OR -- OR ANYTHING ON THIS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE DON'T -- WE DON'T MANDATE
THAT THEY RECEIVE A FEE. WE DON'T PROHIBIT THEM, EITHER, FROM RECEIVING
-- FROM CHARGING A FEE.
MR. B. MILLER: OKAY. SECOND QUESTION: WILL THE
COUNTY AND CITY SHARE GO TOWARDS PROVIDING PEOPLE WITH THESE FEES
WITH FREE REUSABLE BAGS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, THE -- THE LOCAL PART OF THE
FEE, THE THREE -- THE THREE CENTS --
(SIDEBAR)
TWO -- THE TWO CENTS, THE THREE GOES TO THE FUND.
(SIDEBAR)
SO, OF THE NICKLE, THREE CENTS GOES TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND, TWO -- TWO CENTS GOES TO THE LOCALITIES
THAT OPT IN, AND IT IS TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS.
34
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. B. MILLER: SO, HOW ARE THESE COUNTIES AND
CITIES EXPECTED TO GET THESE BAGS OUT TO THE TARGETED POPULATION THAT
THEY'RE ASKED TO -- TO DISTRIBUTE THEM TO?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE DON'T DICTATE HOW THEY
WILL USE THOSE -- THE MONIES THEY COLLECT. WE WOULD HOPE THAT THEY
WOULD BE USED TO BOTH EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS PROVIDE REUSABLE
BAGS, AND THEY HAVE DISCRETION AS TO HOW TO DISTRIBUTE THE BAGS THAT
THEY PURCHASE AND HOW TO RUN THEIR INFORMATIONAL CAMPAIGNS.
MR. B. MILLER: SO, ARE THESE BAGS FOR DISTRIBUTION
TARGETED AT A CERTAIN POPULATION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTIES OR CITIES, OR
JUST BROAD-BASED ACROSS THE WHOLE COUNTY --
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE ENCOURAGE THE
DISTRIBUTION FOR PEOPLE ON LOWER INCOME AND FIXED INCOME SO THAT THEY
WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY THE -- THE NICKEL CHARGE EACH TIME THEY SHOP.
MR. B. MILLER: OKAY. THIRD QUESTION HERE:
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FOOD WASTE. UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, ALL LARGE
SUPERMARKETS, FOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, HOTEL,
FOOD PROCESSORS, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT
VENUES PROCESSING FOOD SCRAPS AT THE DESIGNATED THRESHOLD WILL BE
REQUIRED TO SOURCE -- REQUIRED TO SOURCE OR SEPARATE EDIBLE FOODS FOR
DONATION, AND ALSO SOURCE SEPARATE INEDIBLE FOOD SCRAPS FROM OTHER
SOLID FOOD WASTE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. B. MILLER: THEY WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO FIND
SOME WAY TO STORE THE -- THE NOT EDIBLE FOOD SCRAPS SECURELY ON SITE
35
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
UNTIL THEY CAN BE TRANSPORTED TO A RECYCLER. HAS THERE BEEN ANY SORT OF
COST ANALYSIS DONE THAT WOULD ESTIMATE WHAT KIND OF IMPACT THIS WOULD
HAVE ON -- ON BUSINESSES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE -- THERE HAVE BEEN IN THE
PAST SOME GRANTS TO SUPPORT REFRIGERATION FOR THESE TYPES OF -- OF FOOD
WASTE, BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, AS -- AS I DISCUSSED WITH MR. BARCLAY, THE
-- THEY'RE -- THEY ARE ALREADY -- ALL OF THESE SITES ARE ALREADY DISPOSING
OF -- OF THEIR -- WHAT THEY WERE CALLING "TRASH" THAT WE'RE NOW CALLING
"FOOD WASTE," AND ARE EXPENDING MONIES ON THAT. SO, WE DON'T THINK
THAT THERE --- THERE WILL BE THAT MANY ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR THEM TO DO
THIS.
MR. B. MILLER: BUT -- BUT FOR THE BILL WE'RE GOING
TO BE SAYING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SEPARATE THE DIFFERENT TYPE OF
WASTES AND EDIBLE AND INEDIBLE REQUIREMENTS. SO YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO
HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF HOW MUCH WEIGHT YOU GENERATE, YOU KNOW, TO --
YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO -- IF YOU GO BELOW A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, IT TAKES YOU
-- IT'LL TAKE YOU OUT OF THIS CATEGORY OF DOING THIS. SO, YOU KNOW, IT
LOOKS TO ME THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A COST TO BUSINESS, THERE'S GOING TO
BE MORE EMPLOYEES. AND I REALLY WISH IT WAS SOMETHING WE TOOK A
GOOD LOOK AT BEFORE WE PUT THIS OUT THERE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, AND -- AND OBVIOUSLY,
YOU KNOW, WE -- WE DO EXEMPT... REQUIREMENT OF THIS IF YOU ARE BEYOND
25 MILES OF A -- OF A -- OF A SOURCE CENTER -- OF A RECOVERY CENTER.
MR. B. MILLER: THAT'S ALL I -- I HAVE. THANK YOU.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THANK YOU.
36
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. SMITH.
MR. SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
CHAIRWOMAN YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: DOES THE
CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. SMITH: OKAY. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: THE CHAIRWOMAN
YIELDS.
MR. SMITH: THANK YOU. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE STUDENT LOAN SERVICING AND THE SERVICERS IN THE FINANCIAL
SERVICES PART. THE PROPOSAL TO REGULATE AND LICENSE STUDENT LOAN
SERVICERS NOW INCLUDES PUBLIC POST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,
AND ALSO PRIVATE NON-PROFIT POST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AS
EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS. DO WE KNOW -- COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT
THOSE TWO WERE ADDED TO THE LIST OF EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SOME OF THIS RELATES TO FEDERAL
BANKS THAT WE CAN'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER AND (PAUSE)... AND -- AND
THEN WE -- WE ALSO EXEMPT THE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES THAT ARE NOT
THEMSELVES SERVICES.
MR. SMITH: OKAY. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY -- PROBABLY
ROLLS INTO MY SECOND QUESTION OF EXPLAINING -- I WANTED TO KNOW WHY
THAT THE FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN SERVICERS WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DEEMED BY
OPERATION OF LAW AS HAVING BEEN ISSUED A LICENSE BY DFS. IS IT SIMILAR?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE DID MODEL THIS AFTER
37
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OTHER STATES THAT HAVE -- THAT ARE ALSO TAKING THIS POSITION.
MR. SMITH: OKAY. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION:
WHAT TYPE OF AN ORGANIZATION WOULD FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF A
FEDERAL LOAN STUDENT SERVICER -- RATHER, FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN SERVICER,
WHICH DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF AN EXEMPT ORGANIZATION BUT
DOES NOT STILL REQUIRE A LICENSE?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, AT THE -- THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE --
MR. SMITH: NO, THANK YOU.
MS. WEINSTEIN: AT THE MOMENT, WE REALLY DON'T
KNOW OF ANY THAT FIT THAT CATEGORY, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE WILL BE
SOME, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAPTURE THEM.
MR. SMITH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR.
MCDONOUGH.
MR. MCDONOUGH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD, PLEASE, FOR A QUESTION?
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: DOES THE
CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: THE CHAIRWOMAN
YIELDS.
MR. MCDONOUGH: THANK YOU, HELENE. I HAVE A
38
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CONCERN THAT -- AND THE GOVERNOR HAS SAID IN THE PAST THAT HE'S VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT LIMOUSINE SAFETY. NOW, AS YOU ALL KNOW, AND I THINK
EVERYBODY REMEMBERS THIS, THERE WAS A TRAGIC DEADLY ACCIDENT NOT THAT
LONG AGO WITH A LIMOUSINE, A STRETCH LIMOUSINE, WHERE 20 PEOPLE WERE
KILLED. ALL 20. AND THE GOVERNOR HAS COME OUT AND SAID THAT HE WOULD
DO ALL SORTS OF THINGS AND REQUIRE MORE CERTIFICATION OF THE VEHICLES,
BETTER DRIVER TRAINING, REQUIRING SEAT BELTS FOR EVERYBODY IN THERE, AND
ADDITIONAL INSURANCE COVERAGE. AND YET I SEE IT SAYS, "INTENTIONALLY
OMITTED." CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME, PLEASE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, WE -- WE DID LOWER THE FEE
FROM THE GOVERNOR'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, FROM $120 TO $85, I BELIEVE.
AND WE DO HAVE RESTRICTIONS FROM U-TURNS (PAUSE - SIDEBAR)... RIGHT.
SO, YOU KNOW, I -- I PROBABLY WOULD PREFER TO HAVE --
IF WE COULD HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WHEN WE GET TO THE REVENUE BILL
BECAUSE THE DETAILS ARE IN THE REVENUE BILL, NOT IN -- IN THIS BILL BEFORE
US --
MR. MCDONOUGH: THERE'S MORE DETAIL --
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS
BEING NEGOTIATED.
MR. MCDONOUGH: THERE'S MORE DETAILS IN THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. MCDONOUGH: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'LL --
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS -- IT -- IT'D
BE BETTER TO GO THROUGH THE SPECIFICS ONCE WE GET TO THAT REVENUE BILL --
MR. MCDONOUGH: OKAY.
39
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- BECAUSE THERE'S --
MR. MCDONOUGH: I'M SURE YOU RECOGNIZE HOW
IMPORTANT SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
MR. MCDONOUGH: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I'LL WAIT FOR THAT.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. RAIA.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL
CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: DOES THE
CHAIRWOMAN --
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: SHE YIELDS.
MR. RAIA: I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
PLASTIC BAN --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. RAIA: -- PLASTIC BAG BAN. THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT MY COUNTY OF SUFFOLK HAS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED. I -- I'LL START WITH
THE BASICS. WHY? WHY ARE WE BANNING PLASTIC AND PAPER BAGS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE'RE NOT BANNING -- FIRST,
JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE NOT BANNING PAPER BAGS.
MR. RAIA: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WHERE -- AS RELATES TO PAPER BAGS,
WE ARE AUTHORIZING A COUNTY THAT THE CITY OPTS IN TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE
40
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FIVE CENTS FOR THE BAG WITH, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, SOME OF THE MONEY
GOING -- BEING RETAINED BY THE LOCALITY, THREE CENTS -- SO, TWO CENTS
BEING RETAINED, THREE CENTS GOING TO THE EPF.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I --
MS. WEINSTEIN: BUT, THE -- YOU KNOW, THE ANSWER
AS TO -- TO WHY, IS THE -- JUST THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF PLASTIC WASTE
THAT WE HAVE IN OUR...NOT JUST OUR STATE, BUT THROUGHOUT THE -- THE WORLD.
AND PLASTIC DOES NOT DISINTEGRATE, IT JUST STAYS IN THE -- IT FILLS UP LAND --
LANDFILLS, IT BLOWS -- THE BAGS BLOW IN THE -- IN THE TREES. SO IT --
MR. RAIA: I -- I AGREE WITH YOU. THE PLASTIC, BAD
STUFF. MY -- MY -- MY RUB, I GUESS, COMES WITH THE PAPER. AND
GENERALLY, PAPER BAGS -- PAPER BAGS ARE USUALLY MADE OF RECYCLABLE
MATERIAL ALREADY. IF YOU DROP THEM IN THE WATER, THEY DISINTEGRATE AND
DISSOLVE. THEY BREAK DOWN IN LANDFILLS. SO, I GUESS I -- I HAVE A
CONCERN THAT WE WOULD CHARGE FIVE CENTS FOR -- FOR -- FOR SOMETHING THAT
A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL IS -- IS BEING ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE. THAT
BEING SAID, DOES THIS LAW SUPERCEDE ANY LOCAL LAW CURRENTLY IN EFFECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, ANY LOCAL LAW WITH A FEE ON
PLASTIC BAGS CAN CONTINUE ONLY UNTIL THE STATE LAW TAKES EFFECT ON
MARCH 1ST OF 2020. AND ANY LOCAL LAW SIMILARLY WITH A FEE ON PAPER
BAGS CAN CONTINUE FOR A YEAR AFTER THE COUNTY ADOPTS A -- A LOCAL LAW.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. SO, THE FACT THAT MY COUNTY IS
ALREADY CHARGING FIVE CENTS FOR PAPER AND FIVE CENTS FOR PLASTIC, THEY
WON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PLASTIC DISAPPEARS AND
HOPEFULLY, THE STORES BRING BACK THE PAPER, BECAUSE THERE'RE NOT A LOT OF
41
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
STORES WITH -- WITH PAPER.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, I AM -- JUST SO YOU KNOW, IN
TERMS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THIS STARTS IMMEDIATELY. IT REVERSES -- WHEN
THIS TAKES EFFECT, IT REVERSES THEIR CURRENT --
MR. RAIA: ALL RIGHT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- LAW.
MR. RAIA: SO -- BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK,
THEN, AND RE-IMPLEMENT THE FIVE CENT FEE ON PAPER BAGS BECAUSE THEY
ALREADY HAVE IT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. THAT -- IF THEY WANT TO HAVE
THAT FIVE CENT FEE ---
MR. RAIA: SO, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO IT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THEY WILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO DO
THAT.
MR. RAIA: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. RAIA: ALL RIGHT. I SEE THERE'S A BUNCH OF
EXEMPTIONS. GARMENT BAGS IS AN EXEMPTION. WHAT IS A GARMENT BAG?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ON
YOUR DRY CLEANING HABITS OR NOT, BUT IF YOU GO TO A -- YOU KNOW, WHEN
YOU GO TO A DRY CLEANER AND YOU PICK UP YOUR CLOTHING THEY PUT A THIN
PLASTIC BAG ON IT.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT BAGS WHEN YOU --
WHEN YOU SHOP FOR NEW CLOTHES AND YOU GET BAGS THAT YOU PUT GARMENTS
IN? ARE THEY EXEMPT?
42
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. RAIA: SO, STRICTLY GARMENT BAGS THAT YOU GET
FROM A DRY CLEANER ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE EXEMPT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. SO, WHEN I GO TO, YOU KNOW,
BANKS TO GET MY SUIT, I COULDN'T GET -- I'M NOT ALLOWED TO -- TO PUT THAT
IN A GARMENT BAG OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW, MANY -- YOU
KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE IT IN A -- MANY STORES CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE PLASTIC
BAGS FOR CLOTHING, BUT THEY CERTAINLY CAN HAVE THEIR BAGS -- GARMENT
BAGS MADE OUT OF OTHER --
MR. RAIA: WELL, I DO, I BRING THAT UP --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- FABRIC.
MR. RAIA: -- BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE
GARMENT BAG WITH THE HOLE THAT GOES IN THE HANGER. IT'S GOT A ZIPPER,
AND -- AND I USE IT, ACTUALLY, TO -- TO BRING MY CLOTHES UP TO -- TO ALBANY
EVERY WEEK. THAT IS MADE OUT OF PLASTIC. SO, I'M JUST WONDERING IF
THAT'S EXEMPT. BECAUSE TECHNICALLY, THAT IS ACTUALLY A REAL GARMENT BAG.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, WE -- WE -- ACTUALLY, YOU'LL
BE PLEASED TO KNOW YOU CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE YOUR SUITS BAGGED IN
THOSE GARMENT BAGS.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY CARVE-OUTS?
IN OTHER WORDS, ANYBODY THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY THIS TAX?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. PEOPLE -- WIC AND -- AND
SNAP.
43
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. RAIA: NOW, WHY IS THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THE -- IT HAS TO DO WITH --
THEY'RE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON... THESE LIMITED INCOMES, AND WE HAVE -- IN
THE PRIOR DISCUSSION WE TALKED ABOUT THE -- THE COUNTY, THE LOCAL FEE
GOING TOWARDS PURCHASE OF RECYCLABLE BAGS TO ASSIST PEOPLE IN THAT AREA
--
MR. RAIA: SO, WE'RE ACTUALLY -- WE'RE DIRECTING THE
COUNTY OR ENCOURAGING THE COUNTY TO TAKE THAT TWO PER -- THAT TWO CENTS,
OR TWO PERCENT ON A DOLLAR AND APPLY THAT TOWARDS GIVING REUSABLE BAGS
FOR PEOPLE ON -- ON SPECIAL PROGRAMS --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. RAIA: -- CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. RAIA: WELL, AT WHAT POINT, THEN, DOES
EVERYBODY GET A REUSABLE BAG THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO HAVE... PLASTIC
BAGS AS WELL? AND THE REASON I BRING THIS UP IS -- IS THERE'S COUNTLESS
SENIOR CITIZENS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS ON A FIXED INCOME THAT'S -- THEY
LITERALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T AFFORD A BAG TAX EITHER. AND MY GUESS
IS, IS, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD APPLY TO EVERYBODY. THOSE --THOSE PEOPLE
THAT GET A PLASTIC BAG, MAYBE THEY CAN REUSE IT. WHEN IT COMES TO
RECYCLING, IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD APPLY TO EVERYBODY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW, WE -- THE -- THE
COUNTIES, LOCALITIES, RUN THE SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS, THEY CERTAINLY CAN
BE DOING DISTRIBUTIONS OF REUSABLE BAGS AT THOSE LOCATIONS. I KNOW THAT
THAT EXISTS TODAY IN -- IN MANY PLACES WITHOUT THIS -- WITHOUT THE BAN ON
44
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PLASTIC.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT OF --
OF SUPPLEMENTING THIS WITH A... OH, I DON'T KNOW, A -- A BILL THAT I
HAPPEN TO HAVE WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU A DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR TAX CREDIT TO
BUY REUSABLE BAGS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE
DISCUSSION IN -- IN THIS BUDGET.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BARRON.
MR. BARRON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. BARRON: THIS BUDGET PROCESS, I HAVE GRAVE,
GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCESS REACHING INTO THESE BILLS AND THE END
PRODUCT. THE PROCESS, WE THOUGHT, WOULD BE DIFFERENT. WE THOUGHT FOR
SURE, WITH THE CHANGE IN THE LEADERSHIP IN THE SENATE AND THE MAJORITY
LEADERSHIP HERE IN THE ASSEMBLY, THAT THE END RESULTS WOULD BE VERY
DIFFERENT, AND BILLS LIKE THIS AND THE BILLS TO COME -- I CERTAINLY THOUGHT
IT WOULD BE SOME DIFFERENCE, EVEN THOUGH I HAD MY SCEPTICISM AT THE
BEGINNING, WHEN ONE REPORTER ASKED ME WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT THE
CHANGE. I SAID, DON'T DANCE TOO SOON. WAIT 'TIL THE BUDGET PROCESS
BEFORE YOU DANCE AND CELEBRATE ABOUT THE CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP. AND
WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND COME UP WITH THE END PRODUCT
IN THESE FORTHCOMING BILLS, INCLUDING THIS ONE, TO ME, WAS WORSE THAN
45
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WHAT WE HAD IN THE LEADERSHIP IN THE SENATE LAST YEAR. THOSE NUMBERS
WILL SHOW THEMSELVES AS WE GO ALONG.
SO, YOU ALL KNOW I HAVE A CRITIQUE OF A CAPITALIST
TWO-PARTY SYSTEM. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE OTHER PARTIES, THERE'S TWO MAJOR
PARTIES. WELL, I'M NOW NO LONGER CALLING IT A CAPITALIST TWO-PARTY
SYSTEM, I AM RENAMING IT A CAPITALIST ONE-PARTY SYSTEM OF REPUBLICRATS.
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE END RESULTS AND IT'S VERY SERIOUS
IMPACT ON OUR PEOPLE. SO, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS BUDGET PROCESS, I'M
REGISTERING A PROTEST VOTE. I'M VOTING NO ON EVERY ONE OF THESE BUDGET
BILLS, EVEN THE ONES THAT HAVE SOME GOOD STUFF IN IT, BECAUSE THE
UGLINESS IN IT IS UGLIER THAN EVER BEFORE. AND I KNOW PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO TRY TO PAINT IT AS SOME GOOD AND SOME BAD AND CAN'T GET EVERYTHING
YOU WANT. THIS IS ABOUT COMPROMISE, CHARLES. MY PRESENCE HERE IS A
COMPROMISE. WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THESE BUDGETS DON'T
REFLECT THE REAL NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY -- WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, NOT FOR A SPEAKER, NOT FOR A
HEAD OF A SENATE, AND CERTAINLY NOT FOR A GOVERNOR. BUT FOR THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE.
SO, I'LL BE VOTING NO. AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE
TIRED A LITTLE LATER, BUT STAY UP, BECAUSE MY REAL SPEECH IS COMING FOR
THE "BIG UGLY."
(LAUGHTER)
IT IS JUST TOO MUCH UGLY IN THAT, AROUND EDUCATION AND
AROUND SO MANY OTHER THINGS.
BUT I DO WANT TO REFLECT ONE THING, AND I'LL SAY IT LATER
46
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AS WELL, THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM BILL IS THE HIGHLIGHT OF ALL
THAT'S COMING FORWARD. THERE WAS SOME GOOD THAT CAME OUT OF THAT.
SO, I WILL BE VOTING NO. AND AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO
TAKE A STANCE AND VOTE NO, EVEN WHEN THEY COME TO US THE LAST MINUTE
AND SAY, GUESS WHAT? IF YOU VOTE NO, THERE'LL BE NO BUDGET. HERE
COMES THE FEAR TACTICS, THE SCARE. THERE'LL BE NO BUDGET. IF YOU VOTE NO,
YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN? THERE'S GOING TO BE AN EXTENDER BILL THAT COMES FROM THE
GOVERNOR, AND THEN EVERYTHING IN THAT EXTENDER BILL WOULD BE WHAT HE
WANTS AND NOT WHAT YOU WANT, SO YOU BETTER VOTE YES. IF YOU VOTE NO TO
THE EXTENDER BILL, BY THE WAY, WHICH YOU CAN -- AND ONE TIME THERE WAS
AN EXTENDER BILL AND PEOPLE MADE HIM CHANGE SOME THINGS IN HIS
EXTENDER BILL BEFORE YOU VOTED FOR IT, SO THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR
CHANGE. BUT IF YOU VOTE NO FOR THE EXTENDER BILL, THEN GUESS WHAT
HAPPENS? THE STATE SHUTS DOWN. YOU WON'T GET YOUR CHECK UNTIL
AUGUST. FORGET YOUR RAISE, YOU WON'T GET YOUR CHECK 'TIL AUGUST. THEN
SOME WILL GET UP AND REMIND US THAT THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THEY VOTED
NO AND THAT THEY SUFFERED. SO THEY'LL REMIND YOU OF THAT AND TELL YOU IF
YOU VOTE NO YOU'RE GOING TO SUFFER LIKE WE DID YEARS AGO WHEN WE
VOTED NO. WE SUFFERED. THE STATE SUFFERED. EVERYBODY WAS IN A
CRISES. AND THAT'S HOW THEY GET YOU TO GO FORWARD AND VOTE FOR BILLS
THAT YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW THESE BEING BILLS ARE NOT WHERE THEY'RE --
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. YOU KNOW THAT. AND IT'S NOT ABOUT BEING FOR
OR AGAINST A LEADER, IT'S ABOUT BEING FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE.
SO I'M VOTING NO ON EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. NO ON THE
47
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC FINANCING THAT'S COMING UP LATER. WE NEED A
COMMISSION. WE NEEDED A BILL AND MONEY TO IT TO HAVE IT FOR THOSE
WHO ARE FOR THAT. I'M VOTING NO ON ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE COMING
BECAUSE WE SHOULD HAVE HAD MORE IN THE REVENUE PACKAGE AND ALL OF
THOSE OTHER PACKAGES. THIS BILL WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER HAD WE DONE
THE REVENUE RIGHT. YOU DON'T GIVE RICH PEOPLE A BREAK AND THEN SAY WE
DON'T HAVE MONEY TO DO THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO DO. HOW ARE WE
GOING TO HAVE MONEY IF YOU DON'T RAISE THE TAX ON THE PIED-À-TERRE TAX
AND OTHER THINGS? IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY, THEN YOU CAN'T PAY FOR THE
THINGS. SO, WHAT -- WHAT YOU DO WHEN WE GET UP? I SAID, BUT I WANT
THIS, I WANT A BILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR IT,
CHARLES? WELL, I COULD'VE PAID FOR IT IF YOU ALL HAD PASSED THE REVENUE
THAT YOU SHOULD'VE PASSED. SO, YOU GET CAUGHT INTO THAT.
SO, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, WHICH YOU
PROBABLY ALREADY KNEW WAS COMING, THAT I'M VOTING NO ON ALL OF THESE
BILLS, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S SOME GOOD IN SOME OF THEM, BECAUSE THIS HAS
TO STOP. AND THIS WAS THE TIME TO STOP IT, WHEN YOU HAD CONTROL OF BOTH
HOUSES. AND WE DIDN'T. ON THIS PARTICULAR BILL HERE, I'M GLAD TO THE
SPONSOR OF ONE OF THE PIECES OF THIS BILL. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PAYING FIVE CENTS MORE FOR PAPER BAGS, YES, WE NEED TO CLEAN THE
ENVIRONMENT UP AND WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE PLASTIC AND ALL OF THAT.
BUT AS I TOLD THE SPONSOR, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT NOT THE BAG, BUT THE
FOOD THAT WE'VE GOT TO PUT IN THE BAG IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THE FOOD
THAT WE HAVE TO PUT IN THE BAG IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS TO BE DEALT
WITH. AND WHEN YOU HAVE ECONOMICALLY-OPPRESSED NEIGHBORHOODS,
48
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
EVEN FIVE CENTS IS ANOTHER PIECE OF ECONOMIC STRAIN THAT THEY DON'T NEED
TO HAVE, THE WORRY ABOUT PAYING EXTRA MONEY. AND THEN IF YOU PUT IT IN
THE EPA AND OTHER PLACES, WE'VE GOT TO HOPE THAT IT REALLY COMES BACK
FOR RECYCLABLE OR RENEWABLE BAGS OR REUSABLE BAGS TO US. WE'VE GOT TO
HOPE THAT REALLY HAPPENS. AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEES FOR THAT.
SO, AS WE GO FORWARD AND DEAL WITH THE BUDGET
PROCESS, REMEMBER, WE'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH A GREATER SOCIETY, A MORE
EGALITARIAN SOCIETY, WHERE PEOPLE ARE TREATED FAIRLY AND MORE EQUALLY,
EVEN IF YOU LIVE IN PUBLIC HOUSING. WE NEED TO HAVE MORE MONEY FOR
NYCHA AND THE PUBLIC HOUSING, THAT WE DON'T HAVE. SO, IF WE DON'T
MOVE TOWARD SOME KIND OF SYSTEMIC CHANGE AND KEEP TAKING THESE
MARGINAL STEPS, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A GREATER CRISIS. I WAS JUST HEARING
ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES TALKING ABOUT MWBES. DON'T EVEN WANT TO DO
30 PERCENT WITH MWBES. YOU'RE LUCKY WE WANT TO BE A PART OF THIS
SYSTEM. SOME PEOPLE NEED -- DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT THE -- SOME PEOPLE
WANT TO CHANGE THE WHOLE THING AND NOT BE A PART OF THEM. HOW COULD
YOU TALK ABOUT A RACE-NEUTRAL PROCESS IN A RACIST SOCIETY? YOU DON'T
EVEN WANT TO DEAL WITH RACE. IT'S INSANE WHAT'S GOING ON, AND I'M JUST
HOPING YOU, MY COLLEAGUES, I WANTED TO HIT YOU EARLY WHILE YOU'RE STILL
THINKING AND UP A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE LATER ON YOU MIGHT NOT HEAR
NOTHING. SO, I JUST WANTED TO COME BEFORE YOU TO SAY WE HAVE TO DO
BETTER, WAY BETTER. AND WE CAN'T FALL SHORT OF THE MARK FOR OUR PEOPLE.
THEY'RE COUNTING ON YOU TO STAND UP FOR YOUR PRINCIPLES. MOST OF YOU
KNOW THIS STUFF. I'VE TALKED -- SPOKEN TO MANY OF YOU AND YOU SAID THIS
IS THE UGLIEST UGLY WE'VE EVER HAD. BUT YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE YES
49
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ANYWAY AND NOT TAKE A STANCE AND SAY NO TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT JUST,
AND NOT HAVE PEOPLE SCARE YOU INTO THINKING YOU'RE GOING TO WRECK THE
WHOLE STATE IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT JUST.
SO, I ENCOURAGE YOU, VOTE YOUR PRINCIPLES, VOTE FOR
YOUR PEOPLE AND VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE. I VOTE NO ON THIS BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LALOR.
MR. LALOR: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
CHAIRWOMAN YIELD FOR A FEW QUESTIONS?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MS.
WEINSTEIN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MR. LALOR: I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
PLASTIC BAG BAN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. LALOR: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A STUDY FROM THE
CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY IN LOMA LINDA? IT SAYS THAT 50 PERCENT OF
REUSABLE BAGS HAD BACTERIA INCLUDING CHLOROFORM IN THEM. ARE YOU
FAMILIAR WITH THAT STUDY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. LALOR: ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE SAME STUDY
SAID THAT 12 PERCENT OF REUSABLE BAGS HAVE E. COLI IN THEM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. LALOR: HAVE YOU SEEN THE RESEARCHERS AT
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY AND UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, THEY
50
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PUT OUT A STUDY AFTER SAN FRANCISCO BANNED PLASTIC BAGS AND IT SAID THAT
ER VISITS FOR BACTERIA-RELATED ILLNESSES SPIKED IN SAN FRANCISCO AFTER
THE BAN. HAVE YOU SEEN THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- NO. AND I --YOU KNOW, I --
YOU'RE CITING STUDIES. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY WERE INDUSTRY-RELATED
STUDIES OR SORT OF PUBLIC HEALTH STUDIES, SO WITHOUT THAT KNOWLEDGE I
REALLY CAN'T COMMENT ON ANY OF THAT.
MR. LALOR: THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. I THINK IT
MIGHT SPEAK TO THE IDEA OF DOING THIS AS A STANDALONE BILL VERSUS
JAMMING IT INTO A BUDGET BILL. BUT I'LL GO ON.
DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT
AGENCY STUDY THAT FOUND THAT COTTON BAGS HAVE TO BE USED 131 TIMES TO
YIELD AN ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. LALOR: DO WE KNOW THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF
TIMES A COTTON BAG, REUSABLE BAG IS USED IN THIS STATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I DON'T -- I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE
KEPT THAT ON THAT ISSUE.
MR. LALOR: ISN'T THAT THE KEY QUESTION, THOUGH?
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THIS -- ISN'T IT POSSIBLE IF IT TAKES 131 USES TO GET THE
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT OUT OF THE REUSABLE BAG, IF SAY THE AVERAGE IS 60
TIMES WE'RE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGING THE LESS-ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY
POLICY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE KNOW THAT -- WE KNOW
THAT PLASTIC DOES NOT DEGRADE, AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE OLD ENOUGH
51
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TO REMEMBER, AND CERTAINLY EARLIER THAN THAT, OBVIOUSLY PLASTIC BAGS
WEREN'T AROUND. PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE PLASTIC BAGS FOR THEIR GROCERIES.
MR. LALOR: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE RESEARCH THAT
SAYS IT TAKES 71 PERCENT LESS ENERGY TO MAKE A PLASTIC BAG WHICH, AGAIN,
SPEAKS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WHAT THIS BILL IS GOING TO DO?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE
STUDIES THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING.
MR. LALOR: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE
OF PLASTIC IN THE WATERWAYS COMES FROM THE UNITED STATES VERSUS OTHER
COUNTRIES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. THAT, CERTAINLY, I DON'T
KNOW.
MR. LALOR: WELL, THERE'S AN ARTICLE AND A STUDY
FROM SCIENCE MAGAZINE. IT SAYS ONE PERCENT COMES FROM THE UNITED
STATES, SO NEW YORK STATE IS ABOUT SIX PERCENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
SO WE'RE DOING THIS. THERE'S GOING TO BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT
WE CAN TALK ABOUT. AND WHAT WOULD BE THE TANGIBLE BENEFIT ON PLASTIC
IN THE WORLD'S WATERWAYS IN PASSING THIS BILL HERE TODAY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YEAH. YOU KNOW, IT -- IT'S NOT
JUST THE, YOU KNOW, THE WATER, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL APPEARANCE IN -- IN
LAKES AND OCEANS, BUT THE -- BESIDES THEY'RE NOT DEGRADING IN THE -- IN
THE LANDFILL. THEY ARE BEING -- ANIMALS ARE AND CERTAINLY THERE -- WATER
ANIMALS ARE INGESTING THESE BAGS. THESE BAGS ARE SHOWING UP IN OUR
WATER TREAT -- WATER WASTE TREATMENT CENTERS. THEY'RE SHOWING UP IN
LOTS OF PLACES, CAUSING MALFUNCTIONING OF MACHINERY.
52
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. LALOR: CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE -- ANY -- IS THERE
ANY METRIC THAT SAYS THOSE PROBLEMS THAT YOU INDICATED WILL BE REDUCED
BY A CERTAIN AMOUNT IF WE PASS THIS, OR WE'RE JUST HOPING FOR THE BEST?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WHEN THEY'RE -- WHEN THEY'RE
GONE WE KNOW THAT WE -- THEY WON'T BE SHOWING UP, SO THAT THERE WILL
BE SOME REDUCED COST.
MR. LALOR: SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE 100 PERCENT
GONE WHEN THIS BILL TAKES EFFECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'M TOLD THAT WITHIN NEW YORK
STATE -- IN SUFFOLK COUNTY ONCE THIS -- IN THE FIRST YEAR THIS WAS IN
EFFECT THERE WAS A REDUCTION OF 1.2 MILLION -- BILLION, 1.2 BILLION BAGS,
AND THEY HAD A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE THAT THEY WERE
SEEING IN THESE -- IN THESE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS.
MR. LALOR: GREAT. LET ME SHIFT GEARS TO THE FIVE-
CENT FEE ON PAPER BAGS. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT FEE AS PROGRESSIVE OR
REGRESSIVE? IN OTHER WORDS, IF A MILLIONAIRE GOES TO THE STORE AND HE
HAS FIVE PAPER BAGS AND A PERSON OF MODEST MEANS, A LOWER
MIDDLE-CLASS PERSON OR A MIDDLE-CLASS PERSON, DO THEY PAY THE SAME
FIVE CENTS PER BAG?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT IS AN OPTIONAL, NOT A MANDATORY
FEE, AND IT WOULD BE CHARGED TO ALL INDIVIDUALS EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE, WHO I
MENTIONED EARLIER, ARE EXEMPT FROM THAT FEE WHO ARE ON LOW -- WHO ARE
LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
MR. LALOR: SO, IT COULD BE APPLIED TO SOME NEW
YORKERS AS A REGRESSIVE FEE, CORRECT? NOT ALL, BUT SOME.
53
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S -- WELL, IT -- IT'S AN INCENTIVE
FOR PEOPLE TO BRING THEIR OWN BAGS AND HAVE REUSABLE -- REUSABLE BAGS.
MR. LALOR: WHICH MAY HAVE E. COLI AND OTHER
BACTERIA.
MS. WEINSTEIN: BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT
YOU'VE REFERRED TO, BUT I -- YOU KNOW, I -- I HAVE NOT AGREED WITH YOU
THAT, IN FACT, THAT EXISTS.
MR. LALOR: WELL, IT'S NOT ME. IT'S, YOU KNOW,
UNIVERSITIES AROUND THE WORLD AND RESEARCHERS AROUND THE WORLD. BUT
LET ME -- LET ME FOLLOW UP ON THE PAPER BAG QUESTION. IF A COUNTY OPTS
IN TO THE PAPER BAG FIVE CENTS, THE MONEY'S COLLECTED, IT COMES UP TO
ALBANY OR TO THE STATE AND SOME GOES BACK TO THE COUNTY, 40 PERCENT
GOES BACK TO THE COUNTY. WHAT IS THE COST TO THE STATE TO MANAGE AND
ADMINISTRATE -- ADMINISTER THIS -- THIS PROGRAM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT --
MR. LALOR: I MEAN, IT IS THE BUDGET, RIGHT? WE
SHOULD PUT A DOLLAR FIGURE ON EVERYTHING.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. NO. THE TWO PERCENT
GOES -- THE TWO CENTS STAYS IN THE LOCALITY. THE THREE CENTS IS REMITTED
TO THE STATE TAX DEPARTMENT. THEY'RE KNOWN -- AND THAT THEN GOES TO
THE -- DISTRIBUTED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND. THERE IS NO
ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
MR. LALOR: BUT AREN'T THERE GOING TO BE STATE
EMPLOYEES THAT ENFORCE THIS PROVISION AND DEAL WITH THE CASH FLOW FROM
THE STORES TO THE STATE BACK TO THE COUNTY?
54
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S -- IT'S GOING TO BE COLLECTED
THE SAME WAY -- ON THE STATE LEVEL, IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME AS WE DO
SALES TAX, SO THEY -- THEY HAVE --
MR. LALOR: NO INCREASE IN EMPLOYEES? WE WON'T
NEED ANY NEW EMPLOYEES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE DON'T THINK SO.
MR. LALOR: ARE THERE EMPLOYEES NOW IN THE STATE,
TAX AND FINANCE, THEY'RE NOT BUSY, THEY'RE NOT OCCUPIED ALL DAY, THEY
HAVE TIME TO HANDLE THIS OTHER PROGRAM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. ALL OF THIS IS REALLY DONE --
THEY'RE NOT SITTING THERE -- THEY'RE NOT SITTING IN TAX AND FINANCE
COUNTING OUT THE PENNIES. THEY WON'T BE COUNTING THE, YOU KNOW,
SITTING -- GETTING THOSE AND SITTING AND ROLLING THE PENNIES AND
DEPOSITING THEM. IT'S ALL DONE -- IT'S REALLY BEING DONE ELECTRONICALLY
AND WITH THE SUPERVISION OF -- OF THE STAFF. SO I DON'T -- I DON'T -- WE
DON'T ANTICIPATE ADDITIONAL COSTS.
MR. LALOR: OKAY, THANK YOU. I REALLY APPRECIATE
IT.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. LALOR: YOU KNOW, I THINK WE GET THE BENEFITS
OF A PLASTIC BAG BILL FOR A FEW MILLION DOLLARS IN PUBLIC SERVICE
ANNOUNCEMENTS TELLING PEOPLE, HEY, DON'T BE CARELESS WITH YOUR PLASTIC
BAGS. IF YOU USE THEM, REUSE THEM A FEW TIMES, THROW THEM AWAY
PROPERLY, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE ALL THESE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
55
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HEAVY-HANDED AS A STATE WHERE WE'RE REACHING
DOWN INTO COMMUNITIES SAYING, THIS IS HOW YOU HAVE TO BUY YOUR
GROCERIES. THIS IS HOW YOU HAVE TO CARRY YOUR GROCERIES HOME.
THERE'S A -- THERE'S A MUCH BETTER WAY, THAT'S ONE -- ONE BETTER WAY. I
THINK WE'RE -- I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SPIN OUR WHEELS HERE. I THINK THERE
IS GOING TO BE COSTS TO THE STATE. AND I'M NOT CONVINCED THERE'S GOING
TO BE ANY POSITIVE IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT, AND I OUTLINED SOME
REALLY -- REALLY TROUBLING POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. MONTESANO.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. MONTESANO: REGARDING THIS
MUCH-TALKED-ABOUT PLASTIC BAG BAN. YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE QUESTIONS
FROM MY COLLEAGUE FROM SUFFOLK COUNTY BEFORE AND SOME OF THE
STATEMENTS BY THE OTHER MEMBERS, THIS PROVISION IS JUST TROUBLING IN
RESPECT TO WHILE I AGREE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD
DEAL WITH THE PLASTIC BAG ISSUE. ALL THE EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE PROVIDED
FOR IN THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE BILL, AND THEY'RE VERY LENGTHY, ALL THE
EXEMPTIONS THAT THEY PROVIDE FOR. IT'S LIKE WE'RE NOT ELIMINATING PLASTIC
BAGS AT ALL. THE ONLY PLASTIC BAGS THAT SEEM TO BE ELIMINATED BY THIS
BILL ARE THE ONES THAT YOU ACTUALLY CARRY YOUR GROCERIES OUT OF THE
56
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SUPERMARKET, AND THAT'S IT. EVERYTHING ELSE AS FAR AS PHARMACIES FOR
PRESCRIPTIONS, FOOD STORAGE BAGS, NEWSPAPER DELIVERIES AND MANY OTHER
DIFFERENT PACKAGING OPTIONS ARE ALL -- ARE ALL EXEMPTED UNDER THIS BILL.
SO WHAT ARE WE REALLY DOING? AND WE'RE TELLING THE STORES TO GO BACK
AND USE PAPER, AND IF THEY -- IF THE PERSON DECIDES TO TAKE A PAPER BAG
AND NOT A REUSABLE BAG THEY BRING FROM HOME, IT'S FIVE CENTS PER BAG.
SO WE'RE IMPOSING A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ON PEOPLE. IT WAS POINTED OUT
BEFORE, SENIOR CITIZENS ARE NOT EXEMPTED FROM THIS. MANY OF THE
LOW-INCOME PEOPLE AREN'T EXEMPTED EXCEPT IF YOU'RE ON A WIC
PROGRAM OR A SNAP PROGRAM. BUT THERE ARE MANY LOW-INCOME PEOPLE
THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THOSE PROGRAMS AND STILL STRUGGLE
FINANCIALLY WITH THEIR GROCERY BILLS AND OTHER TYPES OF BILLS THAT THEY
HAVE. WHILE I REALIZE THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT STUDIES OUT THERE THAT TALK
ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH NOT ONLY THE PRODUCTION OF THE
PLASTIC BAG, BUT ITS DISPOSAL, WE'RE ALSO CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME ISSUES
WITH BROWN PAPER BAGS. THE MANUFACTURING OF THE BROWN PAPER BAG,
THE HARVESTING OF THE TREES, THE PROCESSING OF THEM, THE UTILIZATION -- THE
LARGE AMOUNTS OF UTILIZATION OF WATER THEY TAKE UP FOR THEIR PROCESSING,
THE FUEL THAT'S BURNED FOR THE PROCESSING OF BROWN PAPER BAGS. AND
THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS BIODEGRADABLE, EITHER, DEPENDING ON WHAT LANDFILL
THEY WIND UP IN, AND THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS RECYCLABLE BECAUSE COMPANIES
ARE NOT ALWAYS INTERESTED IN PUTTING THEM THROUGH THE RECYCLING
PROGRAM. SO, REALLY, BOTH BAGS ARE A POTENTIAL PROBLEM TO THE
ENVIRONMENT AND HAVE CONSEQUENCES. SO, IF WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS IT
THE RIGHT WAY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, LET'S BAN ALL THE BAGS AND MAKE
57
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PEOPLE COME WITH REUSABLE BAGS WHEN THEY GO SHOPPING FOR
EVERYTHING. WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO THE DRUGSTORE TO PICK UP A
PRESCRIPTION, WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO THE DRY CLEANERS. LET'S JUST DO IT
ACROSS THE BOARD AND -- AND REALLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
THE RIGHT WAY. BUT THE WAY WE'RE DOING IT THIS WAY, WE'RE STILL
CONTINUING THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS. AND I SAW SOME PICTURES OUT THERE
FOR THE ADVERTISEMENTS FROM THE DIFFERENT PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL, AND THEY SHOW YOU LIKE, YOU KNOW, PLASTIC BAGS
HANGING FROM TREES AND IN THE WATERWAYS AND LAYING ON THE FLOOR IN THE
PARKS. AND ONE OF THE BIG EXEMPTIONS HERE IS PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS
PROVIDED BY RESTAURANTS, TAVERNS, SIMILAR FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS TO
CARRY OUT AND DELIVER FOOD. OKAY? WELL, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU
COMMONLY FIND IN THE PARK, THAT WIND UP EVERYWHERE ELSE IN TRASH
BASKETS OR LOOSE ON THE STREETS. SOMEBODY BUYS A SANDWICH FROM A
DELI, CONSUMES THE SANDWICH, TAKES THE BAG AND TOSSES IT. IT EITHER GOES
INTO A RECEPTACLE ON THE STREET WHERE IT BLOWS OUT LATER OR THEY THROW IT
ON THE STREET. GENERALLY, PEOPLE THAT TAKE PLASTIC BAGS HOME FROM
SHOPPING, REUSE THOSE BAGS. THEY TAKE THEIR LUNCH TO WORK IN THAT BAG
AND THEY USE IT FOR MANY OTHER DIFFERENT ITEMS TO TRANSPORT THEIR
BELONGINGS AROUND. SO IF WE'RE REALLY GOING TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT THESE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, LET'S STOP TAXING PEOPLE ON THE ISSUE. LET'S DO
LIKE WE DO WHEN YOU GO TO COSTCO, WHEN YOU GO TO BJ'S OR ALL THESE BIG
WHOLESALE CLUBS. THEY GIVE YOU NOTHING TO TAKE YOUR BELONGINGS OUT
WITH. YOU PUT IT IN THE SHOPPING CART AND YOU GO LOAD IT INTO THE BACK
OF YOUR CAR. AND IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT, YOU PICK UP A COUPLE OF THEIR
58
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DISCARDED CARDBOARD BOXES AND YOU CAN PUT A FEW ITEMS IN THERE. A
REGULAR THING FOR ME ALL THE TIME. THEY DON'T GIVE YOU BAGS. SO LET'S
TURN AROUND AND TELL PEOPLE TO GO OUT AND GET THE REUSABLE BAGS, DO ALL
YOUR SHOPPING THAT WAY AND LET'S REALLY PUT AN IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT AND ELIMINATE THE BROWN PAPER BAGS, ALSO.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. PALMESANO.
MR. PALMESANO: YES, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
CHAIRWOMAN YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS, PLEASE?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIRWOMAN. A FEW QUESTIONS. THERE'S -- THERE'S A COUPLE ITEMS WHEN
I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THAT WERE LISTED AS INTENTIONALLY OMITTED, AND I
JUST KIND OF -- MY QUESTION IS, REALLY, ARE THEY PERMANENTLY OMITTED OR
ARE WE GOING TO POSSIBLY SEE THEM OR WE'LL SEE THEM LATER? THE FIRST
PART OF THE PROVISION I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT IS THE PROVISION THAT WAS
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED ON NET NEUTRALITY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YEAH. I BELIEVE THAT WE'LL BE NOT
LOOKING AT IT TODAY, BUT OUTSIDE OF THE BUDGET, HAVING CONTINUED
DISCUSSIONS.
59
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU. THE OTHER ONE WAS
RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSAL ON THE CLIMATE LEADERSHIP ACT WHICH CREATES A
COUNCIL ON CLIMATE CONTROL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT WE WILL NOT BE DISCUSSING
LATER ON TODAY.
MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE
PERMANENTLY OMITTED FROM THE BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. THANK YOU.
RELATIVE TO NYPA - I KNOW WE WERE TALKING A LITTLE
EARLIER ABOUT GIVING THEM CONTRACTS TO DO RENEWABLE PROJECTS. DO WE
HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT, OR CAN YOU QUANTIFY HOW MUCH WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE ALLOCATED? IS IT UNLIMITED, OR IS
THERE A BUDGET FOR THAT OR NO?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO THEY -- THEY CAN FINANCE SIX
PROJECTS THAT ARE 25 WATTS, THE MINIMUM.
(PAUSE)
ACTUALLY, SINCE IT'S -- NYPA IS OFF-BUDGET, THEY DO
HAVE FUNDS THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO USE FOR THESE PROJECTS.
MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. SO IT'S UP TO THEIR
DISCRETION WITH THE FUNDING THEY HAVE AVAILABLE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. PALMESANO: SO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE -- WE
HAVE SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS THAT GET FUNDED THROUGH NYPA LIKE
60
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RECHARGE NY WHICH PROVIDES LOW-COST POWER TO MANUFACTURERS AND
BUSINESSES SO THEY CAN HELP LOWER THEIR ENERGY COSTS AND BE MORE
COMPETITIVE IN THE -- IN THE BUSINESS CLIMATE THAT WE FACE IN NEW YORK
STATE AND COMPETITIVELY, AND HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THOUSANDS OF
JOBS CREATED OVER THE YEARS. IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT FUNDING FOR
RECHARGE NY, THE DOLLARS THAT GO FOR THOSE PROGRAMS, COULD BE
JEOPARDIZED IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO FUND MORE OF THESE PROGRAMS RATHER
THAN FUNDING RECHARGE NY? IS THAT NOT POSSIBLE?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE -- YOU KNOW -- RIGHT. SO THIS
IS THE AUTHORIZATION FOR NYPA TO DO THESE OTHER PROJECTS --
MR. PALMESANO: RIGHT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THAT WE SPOKE OF, BUT NOT THE
RECHARGE NY. SO THE TRUSTEES WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE OTHER
RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO DO THOSE OTHER PROJECTS, AND WE WOULDN'T
ANTICIPATE THE REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF THE RECHARGE NY PROGRAMS.
MR. PALMESANO: SO WE DON'T EXPECT IT, BUT IT IS
POSSIBLE. IF THE -- IF THE FUNDING IS THERE, IT IS A POSSIBILITY? THAT'S ALL
I'M ASKING. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, BASICALLY, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- THIS DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT THEY
CAN DO TODAY.
MR. PALMESANO: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD TODAY
REJIGGER THEIR -- THE FUNDS FOR DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, SO THIS DOESN'T
CHANGE THAT.
61
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. PALMESANO: ONE OTHER -- ONE OTHER
QUESTION. RELATIVE TO THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROJECT, DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY IS BEING ALLOCATED FOR THAT? I
KNOW THAT'S BEING DONE THROUGH NYSERDA. I KNOW NYSERDA'S OFF
THE BOOKS, TOO, SO THERE'S NO DOLLAR LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD COST
AND THEY COULD SPEND AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY NEEDED TO DO THIS
WESTCHESTER COUNTY RENEWABLE PROJECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE AREN'T DOLLARS ASSOCIATED
WITH THAT THAT I COULD DESCRIBE TO YOU. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS -- WILL
BE A PUBLIC PROCESS. THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO CON EDISON'S -- I THINK WE
DISCUSSED THIS DURING THE ONE-HOUSE --
MR. PALMESANO: YES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THE CON EDISON'S STATEMENT AND
DECISION TO NOT DO NEW HOOK-UPS.
MR. PALMESANO: AND PART OF THAT PROBLEM WITH
THE NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE THE NATURAL GAS IS BECAUSE THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS SINGLE-HANDEDLY BLOCKED THREE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE
PIPELINE PROJECTS FROM BEING DEVELOPED IN THE STATE, WHICH MEANS THERE
IS -- THERE IS A DEMAND FOR A NATURAL GAS. WE HAVE PLENTY OF SUPPLY, IT'S
JUST THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET IT THERE. I -- I'M NOT
SAYING THAT WESTCHESTER DOESN'T HAVE THE RETAIL CAPACITY, BUT I'M TALKING
ABOUT THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE CAPACITY IS BECAUSE THIS ADMINISTRATION
HAS SINGLE-HANDEDLY BLOCKED INTERSTATE PIPELINE PROJECTS FROM BEING
CONSTRUCTED. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS, BECAUSE THERE'S A LACK OF SUPPLY
BECAUSE -- NOT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF SUPPLY, BUT BECAUSE OF THE
62
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INFRASTRUCTURE NOT TO GET THERE. IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THAT -- THAT IS NOT PART OF THE
-- THE DISCUSSION BUT, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY, WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE
TOWARDS RENEWABLE ENERGY AND SAVING -- AND SAVING OF OUR -- OUR
RESOURCES. SO THIS IS A MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.
MR. PALMESANO: THE ONLY REASON I ASK THE
QUESTION IS BECAUSE YOU SAID THE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS BECAUSE
CON ED HAS PUT THE MORATORIUM, AND THAT'S THE REASON THE MORATORIUM'S
IN PLACE. I UNDERSTAND THE PHILOSOPHY OF MANY FROM YOUR SIDE OF THE
AISLE AS RELATIVE TO (INAUDIBLE) RENEWABLES, AND I CERTAINLY SUPPORT
RENEWABLES, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE NATURAL GAS SHOULD BE A PART OF THAT
PORTFOLIO. AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEM SO WE CAN'T GET NATURAL GAS TO GET THERE RIGHT
NOW. IF THE CAPACITY WAS THERE, WE'D BE ABLE TO HAVE THE NATURAL GAS,
YES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: ALL RIGHT --
MR. PALMESANO: IT'S JUST A YES OR NO. THAT'S ALL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IS THAT A QUESTION?
MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. SO HERE'S A QUESTION. SO
WHEN -- WHEN -- IS IT UNDER THE COMMON ECONOMICS WHEN THE -- WHEN
THERE'S A STRONG DEMAND BUT NO SUPPLY, PRICES -- COST GOES UP, GENERALLY
SPEAKING, DOESN'T IT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW -- YOU KNOW, WE DO
HAVE A GOAL TO TRY AND MOVE TOWARDS RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND THIS
PROJECT FOR WESTCHESTER IS TO MEET THAT -- TO MOVE TOWARDS THAT GOAL.
63
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. PALMESANO: SO WHAT DO WE DO, WE DEVELOP
THESE RENEWABLE PROJECTS IN ROCHESTER -- OR WESTCHESTER, EXCUSE ME.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WESTCHESTER, RIGHT.
MR. PALMESANO: WE DEVELOP THESE PROJECTS. SO
WHAT HAPPENS ON THE DAYS WHEN THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE, THE WIND DOESN'T
BLOW, THEN WE DON'T HAVE ENERGY. THEN WHAT DO WE DO? BECAUSE RIGHT
NOW, INTER -- IT'S INTERMITTENT ENERGY. YOU NEED A CONVENTIONAL BACKUP,
AND IF THERE'S NO CONVENTIONAL BACKUP LIKE NATURAL GAS, WHAT ARE YOU
GOING TO DO, BURN OIL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE -- YOU KNOW, CLEARLY, THIS IS
PART OF -- THIS PROGRAM IS TO COME UP WITH SOURCES OF RENEWABLE
ENERGY, RESEARCH ON STORAGE OF -- OF RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR SOME OF
THOSE DAYS THAT YOU -- YOU MENTIONED. AND, HOPEFULLY, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN HERE TO -- WITH -- TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT
AND WILL BE ADOPTED IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AS WELL.
MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIRWOMAN, FOR YOUR TIME.
MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. PALMESANO: JUST TO KIND OF JUST REITERATE THE
-- THE CONVERSATION I WAS TRYING TO GET AT WITH MY COLLEAGUES. THE
REASON THIS PROJECT'S BEING DEVELOPED IS BECAUSE THERE IS A -- THE GAS,
THE NATURAL GAS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THERE IS BECAUSE THIS
ADMINISTRATION, AS HE ALWAYS DOES BECAUSE HE THINKS HE KNOWS BEST,
HAS SINGLE-HANDEDLY BLOCKED THREE INTERSTATE PIPELINE PROJECTS. THERE'S
64
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ALSO -- THERE'S ANOTHER PIPELINE PROJECT THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED AND
PROPOSED COMING FROM THE CITY THAT CAN HAVE AN IMPACT AS WELL THAT
MIGHT AFFECT NATIONAL GRID IN DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. THIS IS
DANGEROUS ECON -- ENERGY POLICY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. WE CAN
DEVELOP ALL THESE WIND PROJECTS AND SOLAR PROJECTS, BUT IF THE WIND
DOESN'T BLOW AND THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE, THEN WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
BECAUSE WIND AND SOLAR IS INTERMITTENT. YOU STILL NEED BACKUP ENERGY.
AND IF YOU CAN'T HAVE NATURAL GAS, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? CONTINUE
TO BURN -- IN THE CITY, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? CONTINUE TO BURN OIL?
I KNOW IN THE CITY THEY'RE TRYING TO CONVERT FROM OIL TO NATURAL GAS, BUT
YOU NEED TO GET THE NATURAL GAS THERE. WHAT THIS IS IS SIMPLE
ECONOMICS. WHEN YOU HAVE AN OVERWHELMING SUPPLY -- A DEMAND FOR
A PRODUCT BUT YOU DON'T GET -- YOU DON'T HAVE THE SUPPLY AND THE SUPPLY
CAN'T GET THERE, THAT'S GOING TO MAKE PRICES RISE FOR EVERYONE. IT'S GOING
TO MAKE PRICES RISE FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS. IT'S GOING TO MAKE
ENERGY PRICES RISE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS, FOR FAMILIES, FOR A HIGH-INTENSIVE
-- HIGH-INTENSIVE ENERGY USERS LIKE OUR MANUFACTURERS, OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES, OUR FARMERS. THIS IS BAD ENERGY POLICY, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN. JUST LIKE YOU WOULD INVEST IN YOUR 401(K). YOU DON'T JUST
PUT IT ALL IN STOCKS AND BONDS AND CASH. YOU DIVERSIFY YOUR PORTFOLIO.
WE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME DIVERSIFICATION WITHIN OUR ENERGY PORTFOLIO.
YES, I SUPPORT WIND AND SOLAR AND HYDRO, BUT I ALSO SUPPORT NATURAL GAS
AND NUCLEAR. WE NEED A BALANCE IN OUR PORTFOLIO. THAT'S WHAT HELPS
STABILIZE THE MARKET, BECAUSE OUR ENERGY POLICY SHOULD BE A
THREE-LEGGED STOOL. IT SHOULDN'T JUST BE CLEAN. IT'S GOT TO BE CLEAN, IT'S
65
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
GOT TO BE AFFORDABLE AND RELIABLE. WIND AND SOLAR ON THEIR OWN ARE NOT
RELIABLE AND AFFORDABLE. WE NEED THAT BALANCE. THAT'S WHY I THINK
POLICIES LIKE THIS -- TALKING ABOUT IT HERE RELATIVE TO THESE SPECIFIC
EXAMPLES IS A PROBLEM. IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD REALLY BE LOOKING AT,
AND I KNOW AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO SOME OF THESE -- OF OUR OTHER CLEAN
ENERGY GOALS, THERE NEEDS TO BE A BALANCE IN THIS MECHANISM BECAUSE
IT'S GOING TO -- OTHERWISE IF WE DON'T, IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MAKE THIS
PUSH TO 100 PERCENT CARBON-FREE BY 2040, THAT IS GOING TO DEVASTATE OUR
ECONOMY HERE IN THIS STATE. I'D LOVE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND DEBATE
AT ANY TIME, AND I'M SURE WE WILL, BUT I'M GLAD IT'S BEING OMITTED FROM
THIS BUDGET. THAT'S A POSITIVE SIGN. I WAS GLAD TO HEAR THAT.
BUT THIS IS DANGEROUS ENERGY POLICY, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, AND THAT'S THE CONCERN I HAVE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, AT THE END
OF THE DAY, THESE HIGHER ENERGY COSTS ARE GOING TO BE PAID BY EVERYONE.
YES. YOUR SENIOR CITIZENS, YOUR FAMILIES, YOUR SMALL BUSINESSES, YOUR
MANUFACTURERS, YOUR FARMERS. AND FOR THAT REASON AND FOR A HOST OF
OTHER REASONS, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. DENDEKKER.
MR. DENDEKKER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. DENDEKKER: SO, SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE TALKED
ABOUT CHARGING A NICKEL FOR A PLASTIC BAG. AND I'M FROM THE -- A RECENT
RETIREE OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION. I BELIEVE IN
66
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RECYCLING WHOLEHEARTEDLY, AND I EXPLAINED I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT WAS A
GOOD IDEA. AND THE REASON WHY I DIDN'T THINK SO IS BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY
GOING TO SOLVE 70 PERCENT OF THE PROBLEM. THIRTY PERCENT OF THE
PROBLEM WAS STILL GOING TO BE AROUND. THOSE PLASTIC BAGS COST
APPROXIMATELY 1,000TH OF A CENT, AND THE STORE WAS GOING TO CHARGE A
NICKEL AND GET TO KEEP THE MONEY, AND I DID NOT THINK IT WAS FAIR THAT
THE STORE SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP A PROFIT ON THIS ENVIRONMENTALLY-
UNFRIENDLY PRODUCT THAT IT WAS GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE SHOPPING
THERE. AND I WAS TOLD THAT WE HAD TO CHANGE PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR AND
THAT'S WHY WE WERE DOING IT. I DECIDED TO PUT MY OWN BILL IN, AND MY
BILL SAID TO BAN THE PLASTIC BAGS. I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CORRECT THING TO
DO, AND I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE STORE SHOULD PROFIT FROM IT. I DIDN'T
THINK PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR. NOW WE
HAVE BEFORE US IN THIS BUDGET BILL A BILL TO BAN PLASTIC BAGS. I'M VERY,
VERY HAPPY ABOUT THAT. WE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND GET THE
ENVIRONMENTALLY-UNFRIENDLY BAGS OUT OF OUR ENVIRONMENT. HOWEVER,
THERE'S ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT'S NOW HERE. WE DIDN'T TAKE A VERY
COMMONSENSE APPROACH. WE NOW DECIDED TO CHARGE FIVE CENTS FOR
PAPER BAGS AS AN OPT-IN. AND THE STORE DOESN'T GET TO KEEP THE MONEY.
NOW, ORIGINALLY I WAS AGAINST THE STORE GETTING TO KEEP THE MONEY
BECAUSE THE BAGS ARE ONLY GOING TO COST A 1,000TH OF A CENT AND THEY
WERE GOING TO MAKE A PROFIT OFF IT. NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE GOING TO
TELL THEM TO GIVE OUT PAPER BAGS AND THEY CAN'T CHARGE FOR IT. THE PAPER
BAGS COST SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TO THE BUSINESS. SO NOW THE BUSINESS IS
GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND MORE MONEY TO BUY PAPER BAGS AND GIVE THEM
67
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AWAY, CHARGE A FEE, AND NOT BE ABLE TO RECOUP ANY OF THAT MONEY. SO
THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE US MORE MONEY FOR THE PRODUCTS IN THEIR STORES
TO RECOUP THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IT'S GOING TO COST THEM TO NOW GIVE
US THE PAPER BAG. SO IN THEORY, THOSE OF YOU WHO NOW BRING YOUR
REUSABLE BAG WILL BE PAYING MORE FOR YOUR GROCERIES FOR THE PAPER BAG.
THAT WASN'T A REALLY BRIGHT IDEA NOW, WAS IT? THE OTHER BRIGHT IDEA THAT
WE DECIDED TO DO WAS MAKE IT AN OPT-IN WHERE THREE CENTS OF IT WILL GO
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND AND TWO CENTS WOULD GO BACK TO THE LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY TO SUPPLY REUSABLE BAGS TO THE PUBLIC. THE PROBLEM ABOUT
THAT IS BEING AN OPT-IN NOW, THINK ABOUT THAT LARGE BUSINESS THAT HAS
MAYBE STORES THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF NEW YORK. NOW IN SOME
COUNTIES THAT OPT IN, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO COLLECT FIVE CENTS. IN OTHER
COUNTIES IT'S NOT GOING TO COLLECT ANYTHING. BUT EITHER WAY, THAT STORE IS
GOING TO HAVE TO PURCHASE ALL THESE PAPER BAGS THAT IT'S GOING TO COST
THEM MORE MONEY AND GIVE AWAY FOR FREE. AGAIN, WE MISSED THE BOAT.
WE SHOULD'VE LEFT IT THE WAY IT WAS IN MY BILL. WE SHOULD'VE CHARGED A
FEE AND LET THE STORE KEEP THE MONEY FOR THE ADDITIONAL MONEY THAT THEY
WERE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND FOR PAPER. AND IT SHOULD'VE BEEN A HIGHER
FEE. MINE WAS TEN CENTS. THE STORE MIGHT'VE MADE MONEY, BUT IT
WOULD'VE ONLY MADE MONEY BECAUSE IT WOULD'VE HAD TO BUY A MORE
EXPENSIVE PRODUCT TO GIVE US THAT WAS BETTER FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT. I
ALSO SAID THAT WE SHOULD MAKE THEM OR ADVISE THEM OR HOPEFULLY GET
THEM TO DECIDE ABOUT 100 PERCENT COMPOSTABLE BAGS MADE FROM
PLANT-BASED MATERIALS, WHICH, BY THE WAY, ONLY COST APPROXIMATELY 11
CENTS EACH. THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ANOTHER OPTION. OR I EVEN LIKE THE
68
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IDEA THAT ONE OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES HAD; A DOLLAR-FOR- DOLLAR TAX CREDIT
FOR PURCHASING A REUSABLE BAG. BUT GOING DOWN THE SLOPE THAT WE WENT
JUST NOW ON CREATING THIS OPT-IN FUND IS GOING TO BE A LAWSUIT BY
BUSINESSES THAT ARE GOING TO SAY, HOW DO I COLLECT A FEE IN ONE COUNTY
AND NOT IN ANOTHER COUNTY? HOW DO I TURN THIS MONEY OVER? IT'S GOING
TO BE A NIGHTMARE TO THOSE STORES. IT'S ALSO GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE THAT
THEY HAVE TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON A PRODUCT AND NOT GET ANYTHING IN
RETURN FOR IT. SO THE WAY THEY'RE GOING TO PASS IT ON IS WE ARE NOW ALL
GOING TO PAY MORE MONEY. THAT WAS THE INGENIOUSNESS OF PUTTING THIS
IN THE BUDGET AS IS. I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE I HATE
ENVIRONMENTALLY-UNFRIENDLY BAGS. EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS TO DO WITH
THIS THING WAS DONE WRONG. IT SHOULD'VE BEEN TAKING YOUR TIME. THIS
COULD'VE BEEN DONE VERY EASILY WITH COMMONSENSE APPROACHES. NEXT
TIME YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT RECYCLING, ASK SOMEONE FROM THE
SANITATION DEPARTMENT. THEY'LL TELL YOU HOW TO DO IT.
WHEN I FIRST CAME HERE, I REMEMBER SAYING TO MYSELF,
MAYBE I'M A LITTLE OUT OF MY LEAGUE. MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE A
PHILOSOPHER OR A LAWYER TO BE IN THIS CHAMBER. AFTER MY FIRST YEAR, I
WENT BACK TO MY LOCAL SANITATION FRIENDS AND TOLD THEM, WE NEED MORE
GARBAGEMEN IN ALBANY. THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND
THIS BILL PROVES IT.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MANKTELOW.
THANK YOU.
MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, SPEAKER. WILL THE
SPONSOR YIELD -- OR WILL THE CHAIRMAN YIELD -- CHAIRWOMAN?
69
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN. JUST
A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. MANKTELOW: -- ON THE MANAGEMENT OF FOOD
WASTE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. MANKTELOW: IN THE BILL ON SECTION 27-2201,
PAGE 42, LINE 5, THEY -- THEY TALK ABOUT FOOD PROCESSING IN THERE, FOOD
PROCESSORS. COULD YOU DEFINE TO ME WHAT FOOD PROCESSORS ARE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'LL TAKE A MINUTE FOR ME TO --
MR. MANKTELOW: SURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- PULL UP THAT.
MR. MANKTELOW: TAKE YOUR TIME.
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, WE DON'T IN THIS LEGISLATION
DEFINE "FOOD PROCESSOR." IT'S A LOCATION THAT CAN HANDLE THE WASTE THAT
CAN COMPOST IT.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO THIS -- THIS FOOD PROCESSING,
THIS ISN'T SOMEBODY THAT ACTUALLY PRODUCES FOOD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. THEY GET THE END -- WELL, THE
IN-BETWEEN END PRODUCT, IF YOU WILL.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. SO, I GUESS ONE OF MY
70
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
QUESTIONS IS THAT UP IN OUR DISTRICT AND THROUGHOUT MANY AREAS OF NEW
YORK STATE, WE HAVE BIG EGG FACILITIES THAT PROCESS MULTIPLE VEGETABLES,
APPLES, MILK, STUFF LIKE THAT. IS THIS GOING TO BE COVERED UNDER THAT,
THEN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: ARE THEY GOING TO BE CLASSIFIED AS
FOOD PROCESSORS, OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO --
MR. MANKTELOW: ARE THEY GOING TO BE REQUIRED
TO GO ALONG WITH THIS BILL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IF THEY HAVE TWO TONS OF -- OF
WASTE. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID APPLE -- YOU SAID APPLES. SO IF THEY
HAVE TWO TONS OF ROTTEN APPLES OR IF THEY MAKE PRODUCTS WITH THOSE
APPLES AND THEY HAVE APPLE CORES AND APPLE SKINS THAT COME OUT TO TWO
-- TWO TONS A WEEK, YES, THEY WOULD BE COVERED.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. OKAY. SO IN OUR
DISTRICT UP -- UP IN WAYNE COUNTY, WE HAVE THE LARGEST APPLE PRODUCE
-- PROCESSING PLANT IN NEW YORK STATE, PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST
ONES IN THE UNITED STATES. TWO TONS WOULD PROBABLY BE A BY-PRODUCT
EVERY -- EVERY HOUR THERE. SO THIS BUSINESS IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO
ALONG AND DO THIS, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: AS -- AS LONG AS THERE'S A FACILITY
WITHIN 25 MILES THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PROCESS THAT FOOD WASTE.
MR. MANKTELOW: OH, OKAY. SO IF THERE'S NOT A
FACILITY WITHIN 25 MILES, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO DO THIS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. ALSO, WE HAVE A LOT OF
71
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SMALLER ONION PACKERS, APPLE PACKERS, POTATO PACKERS IN OUR AREA, IN
OUR RURAL AREAS, AS WELL AS FARM MARKETS, BIGGER FARM MARKETS. AND I
KNOW THERE'S TIMES WHEN THERE'S A LOT OF EXCESS, LIKE, PARTIALLY BAD
APPLES, PARTIALLY BAD ONIONS THAT GOES WITH -- THAT WAS BEING THROWN
OUT. WOULD THEY ALSO HAVE TO ADHERE TO THIS AS WELL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IF THEY -- IF THEY MEET THE TWO-TON
REQUIREMENT, YES. AND A PART OF THIS IS TO ENCOURAGE PRODUCTS -- FOOD
PRODUCTS THAT ARE LEFT OVER, BUT NOT ROTTEN, TO BE ABLE TO BE DONATED,
DISTRIBUTED TO ENCOURAGE -- TO ENCOURAGE THAT REDUCED WASTE.
MR. MANKTELOW: WELL, A LOT -- A LOT OF THESE
SAME FACILITIES, THESE MARKETS AND THESE PACKERS, THEY ALREADY DO THAT
WHEN THERE'S EXCESS (INAUDIBLE) OR MAYBE NOT A GRADE -- GRADE A, BUT
MAYBE A GRADE B. THEY ALREADY DO DONATE TO FOOD PANTRIES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT'S GREAT.
MR. MANKTELOW: THE FOODLINK. SO I GUESS MY
QUESTION IS WHY DO WE REALLY NEED TO LEGISLATE THIS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT HAS TO -- BOTH THE -- I GUESS
THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DONATION FOR THOSE THAT ARE NOT AS -- AS -- DOING
AS GOOD WORK AS SOME OF THE PROGRAMS THAT YOU DISCUSSED, BUT IT'S TO
DEAL WITH THE WASTE TO MAKE SURE THAT FOOD THAT IS USABLE IS DONATED OR
GIFTED AND THAT -- THAT THE WASTE MATERIALS ARE COMPOSTED AND NOT JUST
ENTERING INTO THE GENERAL WASTE STREAM.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO -- SO SOME OF THESE
BY-PRODUCTS FROM THE MANUFACTURING, SAY, APPLE SLICES, SOME OF THOSE
APPLE SLICES, WE TAKE THEM BACK OUT AND SPREAD THEM OVER OUR
72
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AGRICULTURAL FIELDS. THERE'S AN ORGANIC MATTER THERE. ARE WE STILL GOING
TO BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. MANKTELOW: ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO AS LONG AS WE'RE USING IT
FOR A SECONDARY USE, WE'RE OKAY TO DO IT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THANK YOU,
MADAM, FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. MANKTELOW: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. AS -- AS WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT HERE ALREADY TODAY, SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE BRINGING
FORWARD, I JUST REALLY HAVE BIG CONCERNS FOR OUR SMALL BUSINESSES, SOME
OF OUR LOCAL SMALLER BUSINESSES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS.
YOU KNOW, PUTTING IN A REFRIGERATION UNIT TO HOLD THESE UNTIL THEY'RE
TRANSPORTED SOMEPLACE IS REALLY GOING TO HURT OUR SMALL -- OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES AND OUR LOCAL RETAILERS. AND AGAIN, I THINK IN ALL MEANS
EVERYBODY WANTS TO DO THE BEST WITH THEIR FOOD SCRAPS. I KNOW WE DO.
AND I JUST FEEL THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO LEGISLATE THIS. I THINK THIS IS
A PRACTICE THAT'S BEING DONE MORE KNOWN THAN MOST PEOPLE REALLY
KNOW, AT LEAST OUT IN OUR RURAL AREAS FOR SURE.
AND ALSO ON THE BILL, I'D LIKE TO JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT
73
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ABOUT THE -- THE PLASTIC BAG BAN. A FEW DAYS AGO I WAS HERE IN ALBANY,
WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO KILL AND -- PARDON ME, I CAN'T -- I CAN'T...
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY, MR.
MANKTELOW. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SHH.
MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. A
FEW DAYS AGO I WAS SITTING IN A PARKING LOT AT ONE OF THE -- THE LOCAL
SHOPPING MALLS HERE, AND I WATCHED A COUPLE THAT WAS IN A CHEVY
PICKUP ROLL THE WINDOW DOWN AND THEY TOOK THEIR BAG THAT THEIR SUB
CAME IN AND THREW IT OUT THE WINDOW, ROLLED THE WINDOW BACK UP,
SHORTLY AFTER THAT ROLLED THE WINDOW BACK DOWN. HERE CAME THE NEXT
BAG, THE BAG THAT THE FRIES CAME IN. JUST THREW IT ALL IN THE PARKING LOT,
WATCHED IT BLOW ACROSS THE PARKING LOT INTO THE STORM DRAIN. SO -- SO
REALLY THE PLASTIC BAGS, THE ISSUE IS NOT THE PLASTIC BAG. THE ISSUE IS US,
AS A SOCIETY, TAKING CARE OF THOSE PLASTIC BAGS. THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE
THAT REUSE THEM IN A POSITIVE WAY, AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO BAN THEM?
AND ALSO, THERE'S A LADY THAT I'VE GOT TO KNOW HERE IN THE CAPITOL
BUILDING, OUT ON THE CONCOURSE, SHE'S -- I MEET WITH HER EVERY MORNING.
I DO A FEW THINGS FOR HER, AND SHE CARRIES PROBABLY HALF OF HER
BELONGINGS IN PLASTIC BAGS. IF WE GET RID OF THESE PLASTIC BAGS, IS SHE
GOING TO PUT THEM IN A PAPER BAG? IS SHE GOING TO BE ABLE TO TRANSPORT
THEM IN A RAINSTORM? IT'S NOT THE PLASTIC BAG. IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT THROW
THE PLASTIC BAGS OUT THE WINDOW, DOWN THE CREEK, DOWN THE STREAM,
WHATEVER. THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER. AND ALSO, MOST OF OUR LOCAL STORES --
I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, WALMART. IF YOU WALK INTO WALMART YOU CAN
SELF-CHECKOUT, AND IN THAT SELF-CHECKOUT LINE THEY'VE GOT THESE SPINNING
74
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BAGS WHERE YOU PUT YOUR FOOD INTO THE BAGS, DO THE NEXT ONE, THEY'RE
ALREADY ON THE HOOKS. IF WE PASS THIS IN NEW YORK STATE, NOW ALL OF
OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES, A LOT OF THESE WALMARTS, A LOT OF THESE OTHER
BUSINESSES, ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE THAT ALL OVER. AT THE END OF THE
-- AT THE END OF THE CHECKOUT THERE'S THE REVOLVING THING WHERE THE --
YOU PUT YOUR FOOD IN EACH BAG. NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RETROFIT
ALL THAT? THERE'S A HUGE INCREASE OF DOING SOMETHING BECAUSE WE, AS A
SOCIETY, AREN'T WILLING TO TAKE CARE OF THE PLASTIC BAGS, AND REALLY IT'S ON
US. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE GOVERNED BY -- BY GOVERNMENT. SO THERE
ARE GOOD, POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT THESE PLASTIC BAGS. THEY ARE BETTER FOR
OUR ENVIRONMENT AS FAR AS PRODUCING, AND IF WE CAN JUST STOP THROWING
THEM OUTSIDE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING.
I THANK YOU FOR THE TIME, SPEAKER, AND I THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. SCHMITT.
MR. SCHMITT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
THE CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN WILL
YIELD.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, CERTAINLY.
MR. SCHMITT: THANK YOU. SO, I KNOW WE HAVE A
LOT OF ANIMAL LOVERS HERE IN THE CHAMBER, A LOT OF DOG LOVERS. MY --
MY PUPPY QUINCY IS SOMETIMES MORE POPULAR THAN I BACK HOME IN THE
DISTRICT, WHICH IS FINE BY ME. AND I SEE THE PLASTIC BAG BAN, LOOKING AT
75
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE BILL LANGUAGE THERE ARE NUMEROUS DIRECT EXEMPTIONS: FOOD STORAGE
BAGS, GARMENT BAGS, BAGS USED TO CONTAIN NEWSPAPER, BAGS USED TO
CONTAIN DELI MEATS AND CHEESES, BAGS FOR UNCOOKED MEAT, ET CETERA. BUT
THERE'S NO SPECIFIC EXEMPTION FOR PET WASTE BAGS. IS THAT COVERED UNDER
SOME OTHER CATEGORY? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS MAYBE FORGOTTEN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- THERE IS NO -- THERE'S AN
EXEMPTION FOR BAGS THAT ARE PURCHASED AS IN BULK. YOU KNOW, SO TRASH
BAGS ARE COVERED AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE LITTLE BAGS OR -- I DON'T KNOW
HOW BIG YOUR DOG IS, THOSE BAGS ARE COVERED BY THE EXEMPTION.
MR. SCHMITT: OKAY. SO ANY PET WASTE BAG
PRODUCT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PLASTIC, WILL STILL BE ABLE TO --
MS. WEINSTEIN: BAGS THAT ARE SOLD IN MULTIPLE
UNITS ARE EXEMPTED.
MR. SCHMITT: WONDERFUL. THANK YOU FOR
CLARIFYING THAT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. SCHMITT: I KNOW BIPARTISAN CONCERN EXISTED
OUT THERE OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THAT WERE SOMEHOW ERADICATED. SO,
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. FRIEND FOR ROUND TWO.
MR. FRIEND: WOULD THE MADAM CHAIRWOMAN
YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
76
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. FRIEND: THANK YOU. WE'LL START OUT WITH THE
PLASTIC BAN BAG, BIG TOPIC HERE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WOULD YOU -- WOULD YOU LET ME
JUST CLARIFY FOR A MOMENT? I KNOW YOU HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT
THE -- THE --
MR. FRIEND: MWBE? SURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- MWBE. AND, IN FACT, IT IS NOT
ADDRESSED IN THIS BUDGET AT ALL SINCE IT DOESN'T EXPIRE TILL LATER IN THE
YEAR. SO IT WILL BE A TOPIC THAT WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS AT A
DIFFERENT TIME, BUT IT WILL NOT BE APPEARING IN A LATER BILL.
MR. FRIEND: I APPRECIATE THAT. THE SOONER WE DO
IT, THE BETTER. MY DISTRICT IS ALREADY SUFFERING FOR THAT. NOT JUST MY
DISTRICT, BUT THE ENTIRE SOUTHERN TIER IS SUFFERING.
SO ON TO THE PLASTIC BAG BAN. SO I REALIZE THAT IF THE
COUNTIES OPT INTO THIS, IS THERE -- WELL, ACTUALLY, LET'S STEP BACK. IF THE
COUNTIES ALREADY HAVE IT, LIKE SUFFOLK COUNTY WHERE THEY'RE CHARGING
FIVE CENTS, THIS BILL OR THIS LAW BECOMES EFFECT, DO THEY HAVE TO GIVE
THAT FIVE CENTS AND SPLIT IT, OR DO THEY GET TO KEEP THE FIVE CENTS AND
CHARGE ANOTHER FIVE CENTS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE SUFFOLK COUNTY LAW WILL BE
SUPERCEDED BY THIS LAW.
MR. FRIEND: BY THE STATE LAW.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. SO IN THAT CASE THE STATE TAKES
77
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THREE CENTS AND THE COUNTIES TAKE TWO CENTS TO BUY THESE BAGS TO GIVE TO
INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN'T GET THEIR OWN BAGS. IS THAT THE IDEA?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. FRIEND: SO, THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE RECEIVING
THESE BAGS, CAN THEY JUST THROW THOSE BAGS AWAY OR DO THEY HAVE TO
COME BACK WITH THOSE BAGS ANOTHER TIME, OR HOW DOES THAT WORK?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO BE --
THEY'RE GOING TO BE REUSABLE BAGS THAT THEY WILL BE --
MR. FRIEND: I KNOW. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THAT WILL BE SHIPPED TO LOW-
INCOME INDIVIDUALS. AND AS PART OF THAT IT WILL BE A CAMPAIGN,
EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO USE -- TO USE THE REUSABLE BAGS. I DON'T THINK
THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY BAG POLICE GOING AROUND TO SEE HOW MANY TIMES
THEY USE THOSE BAGS.
MR. FRIEND: BUT, I MEAN, THE IDEA IS THAT WE'RE --
NOW WE'RE KIND OF UP-STEPPING FROM A VERY FLIMSY PLASTIC BAG TO A
MUCH MORE DURABLE PLASTIC BAG THAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO BE REUSED. AND
IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO USE THE COUNTIES TO CONTINUALLY FINANCE THESE BAGS
THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONTINUALLY HANDED OUT FOR FREE, WHAT'S THE
INCENTIVE TO BRING THAT BAG BACK? AND AS MY COLLEAGUE POINTED OUT,
ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A DISCLAIMER ON THAT BAG THAT SAYS AFTER YOU USE
THIS BAG MAKE SURE YOU WASH IT WHEN YOU GET HOME, ESPECIALLY IF YOU
HAVE ANY KIND OF MEAT PRODUCTS OR ANY KIND OF FRUITS THAT MAY BE
SLIGHTLY SPOILED. WE DON'T WANT TO SEE A CONTAMINATION EPIDEMIC START
OCCURRING ON OUR LOWER-INCOME FAM -- COMM -- COMMUNITIES.
78
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THERE IS THE ENCOURAGED --
THERE WILL, IN FACT, BE AT SOME POINT A LIMITED AMOUNT OF REUSABLE BAGS,
SO IT IS HOPED THAT PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO REUSE THE BAGS. AND IN THE
INTERIM, I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT ONE OF THE -- SOME OF THE
RESEARCH THAT OUR COLLEAGUE MENTIONED, AND AS YOU SAY, IF YOU -- IF YOU
REUSE -- IF YOU WASH THE -- DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S E. COLI ALL OVER
THE WORLD WE LIVE IN, BUT IF YOU WASH -- WASH THE BAGS, 99.9 PERCENT OF
THE BACTERIA -- ANY BACTERIA THAT'S IN THE BAGS DISAPPEARS.
MR. FRIEND: RIGHT. I MEAN, YOU CAN GO JUST THE
OPPOSITE. YOU CAN BE TOO CLEAN. SO YOU DON'T WANT TO OVERCLEAN
EVERYTHING EITHER, BUT JUST ON THE BAG WE PROBABLY NEED TO HAVE A
DISCLAIMER AT THIS POINT TO REMIND PEOPLE WHEN YOU GET THESE HOME,
MAKE SURE YOU RINSE THEM OUT BECAUSE IT IS REUSABLE AND TO BRING IT
BACK TO THE STORE WHEN YOU'RE GOING OUT.
I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER TOPIC.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. FRIEND: THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FOOD
WASTE. DO WE KNOW HOW MANY FOOD SCRAP GENERATORS THERE ARE IN THE
STATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. WE -- WE DO NOT KNOW.
MR. FRIEND: DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW MUCH
WASTE THEY'RE GOING TO GENERATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: HOW MUCH THE FOOD -- THE
GENERATORS, YOU KNOW, WHERE -- WHERE THE FOOD SCRAPS ARE DEPOSITED?
MR. FRIEND: RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, WE DON'T -- RIGHT
79
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
NOW WE DON'T HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MANY FOOD GENERATORS THERE ARE OR...
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. FRIEND: IS THERE, I MEAN, A PROJECTED AMOUNT
OF FOOD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, IT'S --
MR. FRIEND: I MEAN, YOU PUT A TWO-TON PER YEAR --
MS. WEINSTEIN: TWO TONS PER WEEK, NOT PER YEAR.
MR. FRIEND: PER WEEK, PER WEEK LIMIT ON IT. BUT, I
MEAN, HOW MANY PEOPLE IS THAT GOING TO CATCH? HOW MANY GENERATORS
WILL THAT CATCH AT THIS POINT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT -- WE -- WE DON'T KNOW, BUT
WE KNOW THAT IT WILL EXCLUDE MANY OF THE -- MOST RESTAURANTS THAT WILL
CAPTURE LARGER VENUES. AND AS I SAID, WE EXCLUDE HOSPITALS, NURSING
HOMES, ADULT CARE FACILITIES AND, YOU KNOW, THEN THE OTHER CAVEAT IS
THERE HAS TO BE WITHIN 25 MILES OF YOUR LOCATION A PLACE TO DEPOSIT
THESE.
MR. FRIEND: SO IF THERE ISN'T A PLACE WITHIN 25
MILES THEY'D BE EXEMPT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. WOULD OUR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SCHOOLS BE SUBJECT TO THIS PROVISION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE -- WE EXEMPT SCHOOLS, BUT NOT
-- ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS ARE EXEMPT, NOT COLLEGES,
UNIVERSITIES. THEY WILL PARTICIPATE.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE ORGANIC
80
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RECYCLERS ARE CONCERNED, WHO PERMITS THEM? WOULD THAT BE THE LOCAL
COUNTIES, THE STATE -- A STATE ORGANIZATION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT WOULD BE THE STATE. DEC WILL
-- WILL PERMIT THAT.
MR. FRIEND: DEC WILL PERMIT THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. AND THEN ON TO THE NYPA
CHARGING STATIONS. SO, THE IDEA IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT AND CREATE
OR FINANCE CHARGING STATIONS ACROSS THE STATE AND USE THE NYPA FUNDS
TO DO THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. FRIEND: AND WILL THAT THEN BE FACTORED INTO
THE COST OF THAT ELECTRICITY THAT -- THAT'S BEING USED TO CHARGE THERE?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- SO, IT'S GOING TO BE CHARGING
STATIONS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE WITHIN THE NYPA BUDGET. (INAUDIBLE)
BUDGET AGAIN.
MR. FRIEND: SO BUT THEN NYPA'S GOING TO BE
USING THEIR FUNDS TO BUILD THESE FACILITIES, AND WILL THAT COST TO BUILD
THEM BE RECLAIMED IN THE PRICE OF THAT ELECTRICITY THAT SOMEONE'S GOING
TO PLUG INTO TO CHARGE THEIR VEHICLE? OR WILL WE JUST KIND OF WRITE THAT
OFF?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YEAH. SO WE -- WE DON'T IN THIS
LEGISLATION ADDRESS --
MR. FRIEND: ADDRESS THAT? OKAY.
81
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- WHETHER THEY CHARGE OR DON'T
CHARGE FOR THE USE OF -- OF THESE CHARGING STATIONS. THE PURPOSE IS TO
ENCOURAGE AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS, TO REDUCE CARBON IN THE
AIR AND TO ENCOURAGE THE -- WHILE THERE'S MOVE TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF
ELECTRIC VEHICLES, THEY NEED TO BE -- TO HAVE LOCATIONS WHERE PEOPLE CAN
ACTUALLY CHARGE THE VEHICLES.
MR. FRIEND: RIGHT. AND THAT -- THAT'S THE ONLY WAY
TO ENCOURAGE THAT IS TO HAVE MORE CHARGING STATIONS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE
THEM, THEN IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO USE ELECTRIC VEHICLES. IT'D BE GREAT TO
SEE MORE ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND GREEN VEHICLES WITHIN OUR MORE
DENSELY-POPULATED COMMUNITIES. HOW DOES IT WORK AS FAR AS BRINGING
THE ELECTRICITY TO THOSE STATIONS? IS THAT GOING TO BE ALL WIND, WATER,
SOLAR ENERGY THAT'S GOING TO BE USED TO PROVIDE THERE? IS THERE ANY WAY
TO DETERMINE THAT? WILL IT BE ALL GENERATED HERE IN NEW YORK STATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, WE DON'T ADDRESS HOW
NYPA DECIDES WHERE TO LOCATE THESE CHARGING STATIONS BECAUSE THEY
ARE FOR PUBLIC -- FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT. THEY MAY LOOK FIRST TO WHERE IT IS
THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF PUBLIC BENEFIT, BUT WE DON'T SAY HOW YOU BRING
ELECTRICITY. WE DON'T TELL THEM HOW TO BUILD THESE STATIONS. WE DON'T
THEM WHERE TO -- HOW TO BRING THE LINES THAT'S --
MR. FRIEND: BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO
USING THESE ELECTRIC VEHICLES ARE GOING TO BE UNDER THE BELIEF THAT
THEY'RE GETTING GREEN ENERGY. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE GOING
TO BE PROUD ABOUT IN SUPPORTING. AND IF THEY'RE GOING TO THESE
CHARGING STATIONS AND A LARGE PORTION OF THAT'S COMING FROM COAL,
82
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRETTY UPSET, I WOULD IMAGINE.
BUT WE CAN MOVE ON TO ANOTHER TOPIC.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. FRIEND: ON TO THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT. IS THIS IN RESPONSE TO THE NATURAL GAS
MORATORIUM THAT'S GOING ON IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I -- YES AND NO. I MEAN, IT'S
ALL -- IT REALLY IS A RESPONSE TO THE FAILURE OF THE COUNTY. UP UNTIL NOW
COULD MOVE AWAY FROM THIS FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCE, AND THIS IS A MOVE
TO HELP EXPAND THE USE OF -- ENCOURAGE AND EXPAND THE USE OF
RENEWABLES.
MR. FRIEND: HOW -- HOW QUICKLY COULD WE HAVE
THIS PROJECT IN PLACE AND ACTUALLY HAVE PROGRAMS AND ENERGY IN
WESTCHESTER TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I COULDN'T ANSWER YOU ON THAT,
BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE -- THE DISCRETION TO MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION IS
-- IS GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND NYSERDA. AND SO
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO MOVE AS SWIFTLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT WE CAN'T
GIVE YOU A TIMEFRAME.
MR. FRIEND: SO DO WE THINK WITHIN THE NEXT SIX
MONTHS, NEXT YEAR, TWO YEARS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I -- IT'S WITHIN THEIR -- IT'S
WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF HOW THEY MOVE FORWARD, BUT THE PLAN IS -- I
COULDN'T GIVE YOU A TIMEFRAME.
MR. FRIEND: I MEAN I HAVE A MUCH QUICKER
83
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SOLUTION FOR EVERYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER AND IN THE OTHER CHAMBER. IN
THE 124TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT ALL ACROSS THE SOUTHERN TIER, WE SIT ABOVE
ONE OF THE LARGEST NATURAL DEPOSITS OF NATURAL GAS IN THE COUNTRY AND
EVEN IN THE WORLD. WE DON'T HAVE TO FRACK THAT WITH WATER. WE CAN
FRACK THAT WITH COMPRESSED GAS AND YOU TAKE THE ENTIRE PROBLEM OF
CONTAMINATING WATER OUT OF THE EQUATION. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PERMIT
BEFORE THE DEC THAT IS WAITING TO BE PROCESSED SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY
DO AN EXPLORATORY WELL WITH COMPRESSED GAS. THAT COMPRESSED GAS
COULD THEN BE USED TO POWER WESTCHESTER COUNTY. BUT WE HAVE NOT
BEEN ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. AND THAT WOULD NOT BE
HYDROFRACKING. THAT WOULD BE FRACKING WITH NATURAL GAS WHICH COULD
BE RECLAIMED. YOU DON'T HAVE THE ISSUE WITH THE BRINE, YOU DON'T HAVE
THE ISSUE WITH ADDED CHEMICALS BEING ADDED, DUMPED DOWN THE WELL.
YOU DON'T HAVE THE WATER CONTAMINATION. BUT THE DEC IS NOT WILLING
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT BECAUSE OF PRESSURE FROM THE SECOND FLOOR.
SO THAT WOULD BE A VERY QUICK SOLUTION TO WESTCHESTER'S PROBLEM. AND
AGAIN, YOU'RE USING NATURAL GAS, WHICH HAS A VERY LOW CO2 EMISSION
RATE. IT -- IT'S A WIN-WIN FOR EVERYBODY, ESPECIALLY FOR THE SOUTHERN
TIER WHICH IS LISTED AS ONE OF THE TOP TWO MOST ECONOMICALLY-DEPRESSED
AREAS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. AND JUST LOOKING AT A RECENT REPORT, WE SEE
THAT NEW YORK CITY IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER FOR HAVING A VERY SIMILAR
-- NEW YORK CITY AND LONG ISLAND FOR HAVING A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION
THAT WESTCHESTER COUNTY HAS OF HAVING A MORATORIUM PLACED ON NATURAL
GAS FROM THEIR UTILITY COMPANIES, NOT TO MENTION THE PROBLEMS THAT
WE'RE PUTTING ON -- ON TO NEW ENGLAND AT THIS POINT WITH THE BROWNOUTS
84
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT THEY'RE HAVING.
WE CAN MOVE ON TO ANOTHER SECTION. THE CONSUMER
CHEMICAL AWARENESS ACT THAT WAS INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. NOW, IT'S
UNDER MY --
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT WAS OMITTED AND IT'S NOT
COMING BACK, SO WE CAN MOVE ON.
MR. FRIEND: AND THAT'S NOT -- ARE WE GOING TO -- IS
IT COMING BACK LATER IN SESSION OR SOMETHING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, NO. SO DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER
ONE?
MR. FRIEND: WELL, I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT
ON IT. ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A VERY USEFUL TOOL FOR MOST
OF THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE, NOT ONLY THE COUNTRY. THE NUMBER OF
CHEMICALS THAT PEOPLE HAVE UNDER THEIR KITCHEN SINK IS REALLY
DISGUSTING. AND THE FACT THAT PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHICH KIND OF --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. -- MR. FRIEND, IF
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ASK A QUESTION, YOU CAN ALLOW THE CHAIRWOMAN TO
SIT. SHE DOESN'T NEED TO STAND DURING YOUR DISSERTATION.
MR. FRIEND: I'LL GO ON THE BILL FOR THIS. SO JUST A
BRIEF DISSERTATION. AGAIN, THAT UNFORTUNATELY WAS ONE OF THE PORTIONS
THAT I REALLY THOUGHT WAS A GREAT ADDITION, DEFINITELY WOULD'VE BEEN
GREAT RIGHT HERE IN THE BUDGET CYCLE TO BE ABLE TO PUSH THROUGH. THE
GREATER AMOUNT OF CHEMICALS THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO ACCESS AT THIS
POINT, PUT UNDER THEIR KITCHEN SINK AND HAVE CROSS-CONTAMINATIONS
GOING ON THAT THEY'RE COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF, CAUSING ALL SORTS OF
85
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SICKNESSES WITHIN THEIR HOUSEHOLDS, THIS COULD'VE BEEN A NICE ONE-STOP
SHOP TO SAY PRODUCT X AND PRODUCT Y AND I PUT THEM UNDERNEATH MY
SINK OR IN MY BATHROOM AND AM I OKAY OR NOT. SO MAYBE THAT'LL COME
BACK LATER IN THE SESSION OR AT ANOTHER -- ANOTHER BUDGET CYCLE. I LOOK
FORWARD TO THAT. AND I DO HAVE ONE MORE -- ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN IF SHE WOULD MIND.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE. IF YOU ASK ME QUESTIONS,
YES.
MR. FRIEND: PART II WAS INITIALLY PART OF THE BILL
AND THAT WAS, I BELIEVE, INTENTIONALLY OMITTED; IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. FRIEND: AND WAS THIS -- IT WAS SUPPOSED TO
INCREASE PROTECTION FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKERS, INCLUDE INCREASING
PENALTIES FOR ASSAULTS ON CERTAIN WORKERS, AND CREATING THE CRIME OF
INTRUSION INTO AN ACTIVE WORK ZONE. IS THAT WHAT THAT PIECE WOULD'VE
DONE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. FRIEND: IS THAT COMING UP LATER IN THE BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, IT'S NOT.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. FRIEND: I'D LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD AGAIN.
I HAVE A LETTER FROM THE CSEA, NEW YORK'S LEADING UNION. THIS IS A
LETTER FROM FRANCINE TURNER, AND IT SAYS: DEAR ASSEMBLYMAN FRIEND:
86
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
A RECENT TRAGEDY HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED FOR OUR STATE TO PROVIDE
INCREASED PROTECTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKERS. WORKING ON OR NEAR
TRAVELED ROADS IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENTS FOR CSEA
MEMBERS. JUST THIS WEEK, A CSEA-REPRESENTED DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION WORKER LOST HIS LIFE FROM INJURIES SUSTAINED WHEN A
VEHICLE COLLIDED WITH A DOT TRUCK IN AN ACTIVE WORK ZONE. EVERY DAY,
WORKERS ACROSS THE STATE DEAL WITH HEAVY EQUIPMENT, THE ELEMENTS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TO KEEP OUR STATE ROADWAYS CLEAN AND SAFE. IN
ADDITION TO THE NUMBER OF HAZARDS OF THE WORK ITSELF, ROAD WORKERS ARE
FORCED TO DODGE DISTRACTED AND IMPAIRED DRIVERS. SOMETHING THAT MUST
BE DONE TO PROTECT THE DEDICATED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO MAKE OUR ROADS
AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. FRIEND, YOU CAN
SUBMIT THAT TESTIMONY AND YOUR TIME IS UP FOR YOUR SECOND. YOU CAN
SUBMIT THAT TO -- TO THE DESK. THANK YOU.
MR. FRIEND: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. SALKA.
MR. SALKA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD THE
SPONSOR YIELD FOR JUST A QUESTION OR TWO?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. SALKA: SEEING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOOD, I
THINK THIS BILL IS A LEMON, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MAKE LEMONADE OUT
OF IT.
87
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE SOME FOOD
IN THE LOUNGE FOR MEMBERS THAT MIGHT BE HUNGRY.
MR. SALKA: OKAY. GREAT. I'LL HELP MYSELF.
I CAN SEE THIS IS ACTUALLY WORKING OUT TO THE ADVANTAGE
OF SOME OF MY RURAL COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SUFFERING FROM FOOD DESERTS
RIGHT NOW AND HOW WE CAN DEVELOP A DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO GET THESE
FOODS TO SOME OF OUR SENIOR CITIZENS THAT HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING TO
THE SUPERMARKETS IN THE MORE POPULATED AREAS. BUT LIKE ANY OTHER BILL,
THE DEVIL'S -- THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS. IN REGARDS TO THE DEC
ENFORCEMENT, HAS ANYONE REACHED OUT TO THE DEC ON HOW WE'RE GOING
TO GO ABOUT -- HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OPINION FROM THE DEC ON HOW
WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE THIS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I MEAN, THEY WOULD -- DEC WILL
BE DEVELOPING REGS AFTER THIS IS ENACTED, AND THEY'LL, DEPENDING ON THE
CONTENTS OF THOSE REGS, THAT'LL GIVE SOME GUIDANCE, OBVIOUSLY. BUT THEY
WILL ENFORCE THE SAME WAY THEY ENFORCE OTHER REGULATIONS.
MR. SALKA: SO THEY HAVE MADE THAT STATEMENT,
THEY HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO FOR THIS PARTICULAR BILL AND WE'VE GOTTEN THEIR
INPUT FROM THEM ON HOW THEY WOULD HAVE A PLAN ON HOW TO --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. SALKA: OKAY. GOOD, GOOD. A COUPLE THINGS
HERE. ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE -- FOR -- FOR A PETITION FOR A WAIVER, IT
SAYS THE ORGANICS RECYCLER DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY. IN WHAT
RESPECT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WITH SUFFICIENT CAPACITY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'M SORRY. SO, YOU CAN -- IF YOU
88
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DON'T HAVE THE STORAGE CAPACITY, YOU CAN BE EXEMPTED.
MR. SALKA: SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE STORAGE
CAPACITY FOR THE TWO TONS PER WEEK ON THE AVERAGE DAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE WITHIN THE
25 MILE LOCATION OF A -- OF A CENTER.
MR. SALKA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND ALSO, THE UNIQUE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GENERATOR. WHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THOSE
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S REALLY
JUST -- UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, SOMEWHAT
RELATED TO CAPACITY. BUT IF YOU HAVE -- IF YOU JUST LIKE SOME WEEKS
YOU'RE OVER THAT AMOUNT, JUST OVER THE AMOUNT, SOME WEEKS YOU'RE
UNDER, TO NOT HAVE TO HAVE -- YOU CAN BE EXEMPT FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS.
MR. SALKA: OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE
QUESTIONS I HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: THANK YOU.
ON THE BILL, PLEASE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MS.
MALLIOTAKIS.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I
WANTED TO JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS PLASTIC BAG BAN AS WELL AS THE
89
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FEE ON THE PAPER BAGS. YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS PROPOSAL FIRST CAME
FORWARD BY MAYOR DE BLASIO, YOU KNOW, THE PLAN WAS TO CHARGE A FIVE-
CENT TAX ON PLASTIC BAGS. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF OPPOSITION FROM OUR
CONSTITUENTS, FROM LEGISLATORS FROM BOTH HOUSES OF BOTH PARTIES TO SUCH
A FEE. YOU KNOW, I, FOR ONE, AM A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. I DON'T LITTER. I
CLEAN UP AFTER MY DOG. AND YES, I DO SO WITH PLASTIC BAGS. I ALSO REUSE
THOSE BAGS FOR GARBAGE BAGS, AS DO, I ASSUME, MANY NEW YORKERS. THE
-- THE MAYOR THEN -- WE ASKED THE MAYOR TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING
BOARD, AND IN COMES THE GOVERNOR WHO, OF COURSE, NOT TO BE OUTDONE
BY THE MAYOR, SAYS NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN OUTRIGHT BAN ON THE
PLASTIC BAGS. BUT -- AND I COULD PERHAPS ACCEPT THAT, BUT MY ISSUE NOW
IS THERE'S GOING TO BE A BAN ON THE PLASTIC BAGS, AND THEN ON TOP OF IT
CHARGE A FIVE-CENT TAX ON ALL PAPER BAGS. NOW THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS
JUST A CASH GRAB. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT JUST DOING WHAT THE MAYOR WANTED
ORIGINALLY, WHICH WAS THE FIVE-CENT FEE ON THE PLASTIC BAG. NOW WE'RE
BANNING THE BAGS. WE'RE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL FEE, MAKING IT MORE
DIFFICULT FOR OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR SENIOR CITIZENS, OUR FAMILIES WHO
HAVE TO GO TO THE STORE, HAVE TO BUY GROCERIES FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND, OF
COURSE, REUSE THOSE BAGS, AS I SAID, FOR GARBAGE, FOR PICKING AFTER THE
DOG AND FOR OTHER THINGS. NOW, WHAT MAKES IT EVEN MORE INTERESTING IS
THIS CASH GRAB IS GOING TO BE GOING TO A FUND IN WHICH 40 PERCENT OF
THAT MONEY WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOCALITY. THE FUNDS ARE ALSO GOING
TO BE USED TO DISTRIBUTE REUSABLE BAGS TO LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES.
YET, WE'RE EXEMPTING RECIPIENTS OF SNAP ASSISTANCE FROM THE FEE, THE
FIVE-CENT FEE. SO FOR PROVIDING THE REUSABLE BAGS, THIS IS TRULY ABOUT
90
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE ENVIRONMENT. WE WANT EVERYONE TO RECYCLE. WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE
TO BE USING PLASTIC OR PAPER BAGS NOW. WHY WOULD BE EXEMPTING A
PORTION OF THE POPULATION, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
DOING A CONCERTED EFFORT TO DISTRIBUTE REUSABLE BAGS FROM THIS FIVE-CENT
FEE THAT WE ARE COLLECTING? BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, THE REAL
ISSUE HERE ARE THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT LITTER. AND IN NEW YORK CITY IN
2016, THEY DECIDED THEY WERE GOING TO DECRIMINALIZE LITTERING. AND SO,
YES, WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN LITTERING IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND THAT
IS PROBLEMATIC. BUT WE SHOULD BE ENFORCING OUR LITTERING LAWS. WE
SHOULD BE ENSURING OR MAKING INDIVIDUALS WHO DO LITTER BE PART OF THE
SOLUTION, REQUIRE COMMUNITY SERVICE. I THINK THAT'S A BIG PORTION OF
THIS. BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT THE PLASTIC BAGS THAT'S BEING LITTERED, IT'S GOING
TO BE GLASS BOTTLES, IT'S GOING TO BE CANDY WRAPPERS, IT'S GOING TO BE
SOMETHING ELSE. AND SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND REALLY
LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LITTERING. LET'S CRACK DOWN ON THE
COMMUNITY. I HOST SO MANY COMMUNITY CLEANUPS IN MY DISTRICT. WE
CLEAN UP WOODED AREAS, THE BEACH. YOU KNOW, WE COULD USE
VOLUNTEERS FOR THIS. AND IF WE ENFORCE COMMUNITY SERVICE AS PART OF A
PENALTY FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LITTERING IN OUR COMMUNITIES, I
THINK THAT WOULD GO A LONG STEP IN CLEANING UP OUR ENVIRONMENT,
CLEANING UP OUR PARKS AND OUR BEACHES.
AND SO, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING AGAINST THIS BECAUSE,
AGAIN, IT'S JUST A CASH GRAB AND I DON'T SUPPORT IT. I THINK IT'S WRONG. IT'S
THE WRONG WAY TO GO ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD
INSTEAD LOOK AT ENFORCING LITTERING AND PUNISHING THOSE WHO ARE
91
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTUALLY THE PROBLEM.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I THINK
I'M THE WRAP-UP QUESTIONER -- I HOPE SO -- ON THIS BILL. WOULD THE
SPONSOR YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MS.
WEINSTEIN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, BE HAPPY TO.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MR. GOODELL: WE'VE OBVIOUSLY HAD A LOT OF
DISCUSSION ON PLASTIC BAGS. HOW MUCH REVENUE IS ANTICIPATED FROM THIS
TAX?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE -- WE REALLY DON'T HAVE AN
IDEA BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHO -- WHAT LOCALITIES ARE GOING TO OPT IN
TO CHARGE THE -- THE NICKEL ON THE -- ON THE BAGS. SO UNTIL WE START TO
SEE THAT, WE -- WE CAN'T REALLY ESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF THE DOLLARS.
MR. GOODELL: SO IS IT ACCURATE THAT THERE'S NO
APPROPRIATION INCLUDED IN THIS BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. RIGHT.
MR. GOODELL: I WAS LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF
"PLASTIC BAG." IT'S ON PAGE 8 OF THE BILL ON LINE 42. IT SAYS ANY PLASTIC
BAG OTHER THAN EXEMPT BAG. DOES THAT MEAN, THEN, THAT A HEAVY-DUTY
REUSABLE PLASTIC BAG, THE KIND THAT MY WIFE WAS ABLE TO GET AT THE
GROCERY STORE, IS NOW BANNED?
92
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: THEY -- THEY CAN'T BE -- THEY CAN'T
BE GIVEN OUT.
MR. GOODELL: IT SAYS NO PERSON -- NO PERSON --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. GOODELL: -- SHALL DISTRIBUTE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. GOODELL: -- ANY PLASTIC CARRY BAGS TO ITS
CUSTOMERS. SO --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. BUT PEOPLE CAN PURCHASE
THEM.
MR. GOODELL: OH, SO MY LOCAL GROCERY STORE
CANNOT GIVE HEAVY-DUTY REUSABLE PLASTIC BAGS TO ENCOURAGE CUSTOMERS
TO COME BACK? THEY CAN ONLY SELL THEM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT. THEY CANNOT.
MR. GOODELL: NOW, A NUMBER OF COUNTIES HAVE
GONE TOWARD BANNING PLASTIC BAGS, IS THAT CORRECT, ALREADY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GOODELL: AND SO COUNTIES HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TO DO THIS ON THEIR OWN IF THEY SO DESIRE, WITHOUT THIS LEGISLATION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YES, THEY HAVE HAD THE
ABILITY.
MR. GOODELL: SWITCHING OVER TO FOOD RECYCLING,
IF I MAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. GOODELL: IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATION IN THIS
93
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YEAR'S BUDGET TO IMPLEMENT THE FOOD RECYCLING PROGRAM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, IF THERE'S NO APPROPRIATION IN
THE BUDGET FOR EITHER THE FOOD RECYCLING PROGRAM OR THE PLASTIC BAG
PROGRAM, WHY IS THIS LANGUAGE IN THE BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE PLASTIC BAG LANGUAGE -- THE
PLASTIC BAG WILL BE FOR COUNTIES -- LOCALITIES THAT OPT IN WILL BE HAVING
FUNDS GO TO THE EPF. AND IN TERMS OF THE FOOD WASTE, WE'RE GIVING --
THERE ARE GRANTS THAT -- THAT GO THAT ARE DISTRIBUTED, BUT THERE ARE NOT
ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT ARE INCLUDED HERE.
MR. GOODELL: SO THERE IS AN APPROPRIATION RELATED
TO THE FOOD SCRAP RECYCLING PROGRAM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE ARE -- THERE ARE GRANTS IN
EPF THAT EXIST TODAY FOR THOSE PURPOSES, THOUGH IT'S NOT -- THAT ALREADY
EXIST RELATING TO FOOD WASTE.
MR. GOODELL: IS THERE AN APPROPRIATION TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES -- OR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND IN
THIS BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, EPF IS -- EPF IS IN THE
CAPITAL BUDGET, BUT IT'S NOT DIRECTED -- DIRECTLY TIED TO -- TO THIS
PROGRAM.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, SINCE IT'S NOT TIED TO THIS
PROGRAM, THEN MY CONCERN IS UNDER ARTICLE VII, SECTION 6 OF THE
CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS, "NO PROVISION SHALL BE EMBRACED IN AN
APPROPRIATION BILL SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNOR OR IN A SUPPLEMENTAL
94
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
APPROPRIATION BILL UNLESS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO SOME PARTICULAR
APPROPRIATION IN THE BILL, AND ANY SUCH PROVISION SHALL BE LIMITED IN ITS
OPERATION TO SUCH APPROPRIATION." SO IF THERE'S NO DESIGNATION, DOESN'T
THAT CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE SAY THAT THIS PROVISION IS INEFFECTIVE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. WELL, YOU KNOW, ONCE
ENACTED INTO LAW, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE -- THIS PROGRAM,
PARTICULARLY, AND ALSO THE PLASTIC BAG BAN WILL BE A -- A STATE
REQUIREMENT AND WILL RESULT IN SOME STATE CHARGES TO -- AND RELATES TO
THE ENFORCEMENT.
MR. GOODELL: THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FOOD
GENERATOR TO TRANSPORT FOOD SCRAPS TO AN ORGANIC RECYCLER APPLIES IF THE
RECYCLER'S WITHIN 25 MILES, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GOODELL: NOW THAT WE'RE IMPOSING UNDER
THIS BILL A MANDATE THAT THEY TAKE THEIR FOOD SCRAPS TO A RECYCLER, IS
THERE A CORRESPONDING REGULATION GOVERNING HOW MUCH THAT FOOD SCRAP
PROCESSOR CAN CHARGE, OR ARE WE CREATING A STATUTORY MONOPOLY
ALLOWING A FOOD SCRAP RECYCLER TO CHARGE ANYTHING THEY WANT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT SHOULD BE COMPARABLE TO WASTE
DISPOSAL IN GENERAL. AND THEY CAN APPLY FOR -- IF THE EXCESS -- FOR A
WAIVER IF THERE'S AN EXCESS FEE. IF IT -- IF IT COSTS TOO MUCH -- I'M SORRY,
IF IT COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO -- THEY CAN GET A
WAIVER TO EXEMPT THEM IF THEY CANNOT -- IF IT'S MUCH COSTLIER THAN THEIR
-- THEIR NORMAL DISPOSAL.
MR. GOODELL: THIS BILL TALKS ABOUT REQUIRING FOOD
95
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PROCESSORS AND OTHERS TO SEPARATE FROM THEIR EXCESS -- THEY'RE REQUIRED
THEN TO TAKE ALL DESIGNATED FOOD SCRAPS AND SEPARATE THAT FROM EDIBLE
FOOD FOR DONATION, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT IN THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE THAT THE EDIBLE FOOD ACTUALLY BE DONATED, CORRECT?
ALL IT REQUIRES IS THE SEPARATION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S -- THERE'S ENCOURAGEMENT THAT
IT BE DONATED, BUT WE DON'T ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE THAT IT BE DONATED.
MR. GOODELL: AND SINCE WE DON'T REQUIRE THEM TO
DONATE IT, WE DON'T DEAL WITH ISSUES LIKE WHO PAYS TRANSPORTATION OR
LIABILITY ISSUES IF THERE'S A PROBLEM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. I -- I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE
ALREADY ADDRESSED THE LIABILITY ISSUES IN PRIOR LAW, EXISTING LAW.
MR. GOODELL: NOW, THE -- THE TRIGGER ON WHETHER
YOU HAVE TO COMPLY IS WHETHER YOU PRODUCE MORE THAN TWO TONS OF
FOOD SCRAP WASTE PER WEEK.
MS. WEINSTEIN: PER WEEK, YES.
MR. GOODELL: THERE'S AN ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED.
IS THAT ANNUAL REPORT -- REPORT TO BE DONE BY LOCATION, OR CAN IT BE DONE
ON A COMPANY-WIDE BASIS? IN OTHER WORDS, IF A SUPERMARKET CHAIN HAS
100 SUPERMARKETS, DO THEY HAVE TO TURN IN 100 ANNUAL REPORTS OR JUST
ONE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE CHAIN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DEC WILL
DECIDE. WE DON'T PRESCRIBE THAT HERE.
96
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. GOODELL: WELL, THIS IS A STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT FOR AN ANNUAL REPORT. AND MY QUESTION IS HOW -- WHAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE SPECIFIED IN
THIS LAW?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I THINK SOME OF THAT
WILL BE DETERMINED WHEN WE -- WHEN WE SEE HOW MUCH FOOD WASTE
THERE ACTUALLY IS.
MR. GOODELL: MY WIFE IS VERY CONSCIENTIOUS,
THANKFULLY, ON PLASTIC BAGS - GOING BACK THERE JUST FOR A MOMENT - AND
WE ACTUALLY RECYCLE ALMOST ALL THE PLASTIC BAGS ACCEPT FOR THE ONES THAT
WE REUSE INTERNALLY. IS THERE ANY -- ANY BREAK ON THOSE PLASTIC BAGS?
YOU CAN CLEARLY REUSE THEM AS OFTEN AS YOU WANT, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU CAN, BUT THEY WON'T BE
GETTING NEW ONES TO REPLACE THE ONES THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE.
MR. GOODELL: AND WHEN YOU REFERENCE THE WORD
"DISTRIBUTED," WHEN YOU SAID NO ONE CAN DISTRIBUTE A PLASTIC BAG IF THEY
ALSO COLLECT THE TAX. WHEN YOU MEANT "DISTRIBUTED" YOU MEANT
DISTRIBUTED FOR FREE? I MEAN, THE LANGUAGE JUST SAYS "DISTRIBUTED."
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. YOU -- YOU CAN'T HAVE --
YOU CAN'T HAVE PLASTIC BAGS WHETHER YOU'RE CHARGING FOR THEM OR
DISTRIBUTING THEM, GIVING THEM AWAY FOR FREE.
MR. GOODELL: BUT I THOUGHT YOU TOLD ME A MINUTE
AGO THAT IF THEY CHARGE FOR A PLASTIC BAG THAT WAS OKAY. BUT IF THEY
DON'T CHARGE, THEN IT'S BANNED?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. I GUESS I WAS TALKING ABOUT
97
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SORT OF THE HEAVY-DUTY BAGS. THEY CAN CHARGE FOR REUSABLE BAGS, BUT
NOT PLASTIC BAGS.
MR. GOODELL: SO THEY CAN CHARGE FOR A
HEAVY-DUTY REUSABLE PLASTIC BAG --
MS. WEINSTEIN: NOT -- NOT IF IT'S SOLELY MADE OUT
OF PLASTIC.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, AS YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE
MULTI-USE BAGS ARE MADE OUT OF HEAVY-DUTY PLASTIC.
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO PLASTIC CAN BE DISTRIBUTED.
MR. GOODELL: NOT EVEN THE HEAVY-DUTY MULTIPLE
-- MULTI-USE BAGS THEN, HUH?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. GOODELL: I SEE. BUT YOU CAN BUY BAGS MADE
OUT OF OTHER SYNTHETIC MATERIALS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GOODELL: GOTCHA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
ONE MINUTE.
ON A MOTION BY MS. WEINSTEIN, THE SENATE BILL IS
BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS ADVANCED.
98
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MR. MCDONALD TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. MCDONALD: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AND I
JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS REGARDING THE PLASTIC BAG BAN.
AND AS MANY HAVE SPOKEN, I AM ABSOLUTELY FINE WITH BANNING PLASTIC
BAGS. LONG OVERDUE. SOMETHING MY CONSTITUENTS HAVE SUPPORTED FOR A
LONG PERIOD OF TIME. HOWEVER, MY CONCERN STILL LIES WITH THE PROPOSED
FEE REGARDING PAPER BAGS AND HOW THAT FEE IS SPLIT. FIRST OF ALL, THE
COUNTY-BY-COUNTY APPROACH, IN MY OPINION, IS PROBLEMATIC. OUR
ULTIMATE GOAL SHOULD BE TO ENCOURAGE THE SHOPPING PUBLIC TO TRANSITION
TO REUSABLE BAGS, WHICH WILL LEAD TO A BETTER ENVIRONMENT. THIS
APPROACH IS UNCOORDINATED AT BEST. IT PRESENTS A MIXED MESSAGE TO THE
CONSUMER AND A MAJOR HEADACHE FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE ACROSS
MULTIPLE COUNTY LINES. SECONDLY, THE FEE GOING BACK 60 PERCENT TO THE
STATE, 40 PERCENT TO THE COUNTIES FOR A COMMUNITY REUSABLE BAG
PROGRAM, ALTHOUGH THAT'S ADMIRABLE IN MANY ASPECTS, IT COMES AT A COST
TO THE RETAILER WHO WILL ONLY PASS ON THAT COST TO THE CONSUMER, THE
PEOPLE WE REPRESENT. BUT THE GOOD NEWS TODAY IS THAT THIS ACTION DOES
NOT START UNTIL MARCH OF NEXT YEAR. IT GIVES US PLENTY OF TIME TO GO
BACK, TAKE A LOOK AT THE FEE PROPOSAL TO ENHANCE IT WHERE WE PUT FORTH A
CONSUMER, BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY PROGRAM THAT
99
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ENCOURAGES REUSABLE BAGS.
THANK YOU, AND I SUPPORT THIS INITIATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MCDONALD IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. GLICK.
MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR ALLOWING
ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I THINK THAT WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL TO DO IN OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. THE PLASTIC BAG BAN IS LONG OVERDUE. I AM
OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHEN WE DID NOT HAVE THEM AND PEOPLE
MANAGED TO BRING STRING BAGS OR OTHER BAGS WITH THEM. VERY POPULAR
THROUGHOUT EUROPE IF ANYBODY HAS TRAVELED. THE -- IN ADDITION, WE
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PLASTIC WASTE EVERYWHERE. LANDFILLS ARE FILLED
WITH THEM, AND THE LOCAL ECONOMY IS STRANGLING IN TRYING TO DEAL WITH
THIS WASTE. IN ADDITION, EVEN IF WE DO NOT -- ARE NOT THE MAJORITY OF THE
WORLDWIDE PROBLEM WITH PLASTIC AND PLASTIC BAGS, THERE IS A PROBLEM.
WHEN A WHALE CAN BE EXAMINED AND HAVE 80 POUNDS OF PLASTIC IN ITS
STOMACH WHEN IT HAS DIED, THAT'S A PROBLEM. AND WE HAVE TO START
ELIMINATING PLASTIC IN EVERY PLACE WE CAN. AND I DON'T THINK THAT PAPER
BAGS ARE THE WHOLE SOLUTION, BUT THEY ARE MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY-SOUND.
PEOPLE JUST HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR, AND YOU START BY TELLING
THEM THEY CAN'T DO THIS ANYMORE. AND THEN MAYBE THEY GET USED TO
CARRYING A REUSABLE BAG AND THEN THEY DON'T EVEN NEED A PAPER BAG. SO
THIS IS ABOUT CHANGING PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR. IT'LL TAKE TOO LONG, IN MY
OPINION, BUT I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND FOOD
WASTE AS IT HAPPENS, TURNS OUT TO BE THE NUMBER ONE ENVIRONMENTAL
100
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PROBLEM. SO WE HAVE TO START TO ADDRESS THAT.
AND I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. BUTTENSCHON.
MS. BUTTENSCHON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I
-- I, TOO, WANT TO COMMEND THE WORK THAT WAS DONE ON THIS BILL AND JUST
TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE FOOD SCRAPPING IN REGARDS TO MY FORMER ROLE AS A
BOARD MEMBER WITH THE FOOD PANTRIES IN UTICA AND THROUGHOUT THE AREA.
WE HAVE FOUND THAT PARTNERSHIPS HAVE BEEN CREATED THROUGH OUR
COMMUNITY COLLEGE, OUR SCHOOLS, ENSURING THAT THERE IS FOOD REUSE AS
WELL AS THE IMPORTANCE OF TAKING A LOOK AT THIS FOOD THAT IS GOING TO BE
BROUGHT TO DIFFERENT FACILITIES AND -- AND THROUGH THE COMPOST PROCESS,
WORKING WITH EVERYONE.
SO, AGAIN, THANK YOU, AND I WILL BE VOTING IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. BUTTENSCHON IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. FAHY.
MS. FAHY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I, TOO, RISE TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. AND WHILE THERE'S MUCH IN THIS BILL TO BE DISCUSSED, I,
TOO, WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT -- IT'S SO SIGNIFICANT HERE FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT, AND THAT IS THIS PLASTIC BAG BAN THAT IS TRULY IMPORTANT AND
WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECES OF POLICY CHANGES WE MAKE
101
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HERE TODAY. WHILE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, WE CANNOT
DENY THE STATISTIC THAT THERE ARE 23 BILLION SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS USED
EACH YEAR IN JUST NEW YORK ALONE. AND THE STUDIES ARE SHOWING THAT
BY 2050 IF WE DON'T CHANGE OUR BEHAVIORS, THERE'LL BE MORE PLASTIC BY
WEIGHT THAN FISH IN OUR OCEANS. AND THAT'S A PRETTY SCARY STATISTIC, MORE
PLASTIC THAN FISH IN OUR OCEANS IF WE DON'T CHANGE OUR BEHAVIORS BY
2050.
THIS BILL IS FAR FROM PERFECT. THE BAN IS BY FAR THE
MOST IMPORTANT. WE ENDED UP WITH A, IN MY VIEW, A LITTLE BIT OF A
CONVOLUTED PIECE WITH REGARD TO A FEE ON PAPER, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS
IT'S A MASSIVE STEP FORWARD. I HOPE WE'LL BE BACK AT SOME OF THESE
CHANGES. AND THE GOOD NEWS IS AT LEAST SOME OF THIS FIVE-CENT FEE THAT
IS AN OPT-IN FOR COUNTIES - I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED A STATEWIDE POLICY -
BUT AT LEAST INITIALLY, THIS TWO-CENT FEE WILL BE USED TO HELP DISTRIBUTE
REUSABLE BAGS. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO GO. NOT WITH PLASTIC,
NOT WITH PAPER BAGS, BUT WITH REUSABLE BAGS. SO, IT'S -- WHILE I, AGAIN,
WOULD'VE LIKED SOME OF THIS GOING BACK TO THE STORES, BECAUSE EVERY
SINGLE PAPER BAG COSTS FIVE CENTS FOR EACH STORE, AND I THINK WE NEED TO
BE A LITTLE MORE BUSINESS-FRIENDLY, GIVEN THAT GROCERS WORK VERY MUCH
AT THE MARGINS. AT LEAST INITIALLY THIS WILL BE ABOUT PROMOTING REUSABLE
BAGS BECAUSE PLASTIC BAGS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE TALK ABOUT REUSING
THEM, WHETHER IT'S FOR DOG WASTE OR -- OR IN OUR GARBAGE CANS, THEY ARE
NOT DEGRADABLE. AT LEAST, STUDIES SHOW FIVE --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. FAHY, HOW DO
YOU VOTE, PLEASE?
102
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. FAHY: AND WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I RISE IN
SUPPORT -- IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. FAHY IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. ROMEO.
MS. ROMEO: THANK YOU, MR. --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MEMBERS ARE
REMINDED, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO EXPLAIN THE VOTE.
MS. ROMEO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AND I RISE
TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE, AND I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS LEGISLATION
TODAY. I THINK THAT WE ARE TAKING A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT STEPS TOWARDS
GREATER ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, AND I WANT TO APPLAUD A NUMBER OF
MY COLLEAGUES HERE WHO HAVE SPENT A LOT OF YEARS ADVOCATING FOR THIS.
IN MY PART OF UPSTATE NEW YORK, IN ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, WE HAVE A
NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS WHO HAVE BEEN DOING FOOD WASTE DIVERSION AND
PREVENTION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. ROCHESTER REGIONAL HEALTH, WHICH
IS A HOSPITAL WHICH WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CURRENT PROPOSAL,
CURRENTLY HAS A PROGRAM THAT DIVERTS A NUMBER OF WASTE. SIMILARLY, SO
DOES WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR LARGEST EMPLOYERS
IN THE REGION. THIS PROGRAM NOT ONLY HELPED REDUCE CARBON FOOTPRINTS
AND DIVERTS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ORGANIC WASTE OUT OF OUR MUNICIPAL
WASTE STREAMS, BUT IT ALSO IS AN EMERGING INDUSTRY, AND THAT MEANS LOCAL
JOBS. AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A REAL POTENTIAL THAT WITH FURTHER
INCENTIVE AND FURTHER ENCOURAGEMENT, EMPOWERMENT, THAT THIS CAN BE A
NEW EMERGING INDUSTRY, WHERE NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE A POSITIVE WE ARE
103
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CREATING ON OUR ENVIRONMENT, BUT WE'RE ALSO CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
EMPLOYMENT, ENTREPRENEURSHIP, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS.
I'M PROUD TO CAST MY VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL. AND I
REALLY ENCOURAGE ALL OF MY CRITICS -- OR "THE" CRITICS OF THIS POLICY, THAT I
THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE NEED TO BE BRAVE ENOUGH TO SEE THE OPPORTUNITIES
OF OUR CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT JUST THE CHALLENGES. AND WITH THAT, I VOTE FOR
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. RAIA -- ROMEO
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. RA TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. IT WAS MENTIONED
EARLIER IN THE DEBATE THAT WE'RE ADOPTING THIS WITHOUT THE PROCUREMENT
REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT A LOT OVER THE LAST YEAR. AND THE
FACT THAT WE'RE DOING THAT, GIVEN ALL OF THE SCANDAL-RIDDEN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, IS -- IS, FRANKLY, JUST ABSURD. THESE BILLS, AS WE
KNOW, WERE PASSED IN THE SENATE LAST YEAR, DIDN'T COME FOR A VOTE HERE.
THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF TALK OF KIND OF A COMPROMISE. BUT I THINK
GIVEN THE SCANDALS WE HAVE SEEN, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THIS
ISSUE AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE RESTORE THE AUTHORITY FOR THE
COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE TO -- TO -- TO AUDIT THESE CONTRACTS, THAT WE HAVE
THE DATABASE OF DEALS SO WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY IN THE PUBLIC SO THAT THE
NONSENSE AND THE CORRUPTION THAT HAS GONE ON IS NOT BEING ALLOWED TO
CONTINUE. EACH DAY THAT GOES BY THAT WE DON'T MAKE THOSE CHANGES,
WE'RE ENABLING THAT TO CONTINUE WHEN WE ADOPT A BUDGET THAT CONTINUES
MANY OF THESE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, BUT DOES NOT RESTORE
104
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THOSE -- THOSE AUTHORITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE DEALS ARE AS
TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE AND -- AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT INSIDER
DEALING GOING ON, AND TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHO'S GETTING
THESE CONTRACTS AND ARE ABLE TO QUESTION WHY MAYBE CERTAIN ENTITIES ARE
GETTING THESE CONTRACTS.
SO, FOR THIS AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER REASONS, I'M
CASTING MY VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RA IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MS. GRIFFIN.
MS. GRIFFIN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I JUST
WANTED TO -- I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE ON THIS SERIES OF BILLS. I
VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE BECAUSE THE -- FOR THE PLASTIC BAN. IT IS EVER SO
IMPORTANT. IT IS THE LEAST THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY DO TO STOP THE POLLUTION
OF PLASTIC BAGS. BAGS HAVE BEEN SHIPPED TO CHINA -- OUR BAGS HAVE
BEEN SHIPPED TO CHINA, JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH
THEM. AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS STUDIES -- ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DEBATE
IT, THERE ARE SO MANY STUDIES THAT I CAN SEND YOU. THERE IS ALSO A FILM
I'D RECOMMEND, IT'S CALLED BAG IT. AND IF YOU SEE BAG IT ONE TIME, IT
WILL TELL YOU AND SHOW YOU WHY YOU WANT TO STOP POLLUTING EVERYWHERE
WITH BAGS. AND EVEN THOUGH YOU MIGHT USE YOUR BAGS, A LOT OF GROCERY
STORES RECYCLE THE BAGS, THEY SAY, AND THEY HAVE A BIG BOX, AND THERE'LL
BE LIKE A THOUSAND BAGS IN THEM. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DO? THEY
END UP JUST THROWING THEM AWAY. SOMETIMES, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU
LIVE, THEY MIGHT GET RECYCLED, THEY MIGHT GET BURNED OR THEY MIGHT GET
105
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SHIPPED TO CHINA. AND IF YOU LIVE ON THE SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND
LIKE I DO AND GO TO THE BEACH, YOU CAN WALK ON THE BEACH ANY DAY, AND
BAGS ARE EVERYWHERE. BECAUSE THEY BLOW -- IT'S NOT JUST PEOPLE
LITTERING, THEY JUST BLOW -- THEY FALL INTO THE OCEAN. MY SON SURFS EVERY
DAY. THE BAGS GET SHREDDED INTO LITTLE TINY PIECES. AND THEN WHEN YOU
GO SWIMMING OR WHEN THERE'S FISH OR WILD -- YOU KNOW, ANYONE IN THE
WATER, PEOPLE OR FISH, THEY CAN SWALLOW PLASTICS. SO, IT'S A SMALL THING
THAT WE CAN DO, TO JUST GO WITH THE BAN. I WOULD PREFER THAT PAPER BAGS
BE BANNED, TOO. I THINK AN ALL-OUT BAN IS TERRIFIC. IRELAND IS A GREAT
EXAMPLE. IN SIX WEEKS THEY BANNED ALL BAGS, SIX WEEKS, THEY HAD 90
PERCENT DROP IN USAGE. AND WHAT WE CAN DO IS, THE WHOLE IDEA IS BRING
YOUR OWN BAG. THERE'S A GROUP ON LONG ISLAND, ALL OUR ENERGY,
THEY'RE IN THE CITY TOO, AND THEY GO AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THEY
ADVOCATE FOR WHY WE NEED TO BRING OUR OWN BAG, NOT USE PLASTIC, NOT
USE PAPER. AND ONCE WE DO THAT, WE'LL DO -- WE'LL DO ONE SMALL THING
FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MS. GRIFFIN, HOW
DO YOU VOTE?
MS. GRIFFIN: I'M VOTING AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MS. GRIFFIN IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. ENGLEBRIGHT TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
THIS IS AN HISTORIC MOMENT. IN THE LAST 40 YEARS WE'VE ONLY TAKEN TWO
STEPS IN A JOURNEY TO REDUCE THE VOLUME OF OUR WASTE AND TO CLEAN UP
106
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE ENVIRONMENT. THOSE TWO STEPS, OF COURSE, ARE THE BOTTLE BILL AND --
THE ORIGINAL BOTTLE BILL AND THE REVISED BOTTLE BILL, WHICH WAS TEN YEARS
AGO. TODAY IN THIS BILL, WE TAKE TWO MORE STEPS IN ONE MOMENT. THIS
IS HISTORIC. CLEANING UP THE ENVIRONMENT WITH THE PLASTIC BAGS THAT ARE
EVERYWHERE WILL HELP OUR STORM DRAINS TO FUNCTION PROPERLY, REMOVE
PLASTIC FROM OUR WASTE IN THE SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIES AND WASTEWATER,
TAKE THE BAGS OUT OF THE TREES, PREVENT WILDLIFE DEATH, AND CLEAN UP THE
GENERAL FEELING OF PLACE THAT IS OUR HOMES. SIMILARLY, FOOD WASTE, IT'S
26 PERCENT BY ITSELF. THAT CATEGORY IS 26. ALMOST A QUARTER OF ALL OF
THE WASTE THAT WE PRODUCE. A LOT OF IT IS JUST USABLE AGAIN, BUT
THROWING AWAY -- THIS IS A STEP TO TRY TO REUSE STILL VIABLE FOOD AND ALSO
TO COMPOST INSTEAD OF FILLING UP OUR LANDFILLS AT THE COST OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS TO OUR TAXPAYERS. THIS GREAT STEP WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE
WITHOUT TEAMWORK AND COOPERATION AT ALL LEVELS. I WANT TO THANK,
ESPECIALLY, SPEAKER CARL HEASTIE, BUT ALSO MY COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE,
ESPECIALLY SENATOR TODD KAMINSKY, AND OF COURSE, GOVERNOR CUOMO,
WHO HELPED WORK THROUGH THESE PROBLEMS WITH ALL OF US.
THIS IS A GREAT DAY FOR NEW YORK, A GREAT DAY FOR THE
THE ENVIRONMENT. I PROUDLY VOTE YES.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. ENGLEBRIGHT
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. LENTOL TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. LENTOL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I GREW UP
AT A TIME WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE PLASTIC BAGS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I CAN'T
EVEN REMEMBER WHEN THEY CAME INTO BEING. I DO REMEMBER WATCHING
107
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE GRADUATE AND HIS BEING TOLD THAT HE SHOULD INVEST IN PLASTICS. BUT
IT WASN'T 1968, I'M SURE IT WAS PRIOR TO 1968 THAT PLASTIC BAGS CAME INTO
BEING.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: SHH. GENTLEMEN
IN THE BACK, PLEASE. MEMBERS ARE EXPLAINING THEIR VOTE. THANK YOU.
MR. LENTOL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. SO, I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT CHANGE DOES COME HARD, AND I DIDN'T KNOW HOW I WAS
GOING TO VOTE ON THIS BILL BECAUSE I FEEL VERY SAD FOR THE SENIORS WHO
WILL HAVE IT VERY DIFFICULT WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CARRY PLASTIC BAGS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE E. COLI PROBLEM THAT WAS EXPLAINED. BUT I
BELIEVE THAT THAT CAN BE SOLVED WITH A LITTLE PLASTIC COATING IN A BAG THAT
YOU CAN CARRY AND MAY BE ABLE TO RINSE IT OUT. I'M SURE THERE ARE GOING
TO BE MORE INVENTIONS THAT COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF THIS BAN. BUT
MOST IMPORTANTLY, MR. SPEAKER, I ALMOST CRY EVERY TIME I WATCH 60
MINUTES AND I SEE A BIRD LYING ON THE GROUND WITH CHOCOLATE OR --
PLASTIC BAGS AND CHOCOLATE MIXED WITH ALL KINDS OF FOOD IN ITS STOMACH,
LYING THERE DEAD. OR A WHALE STRANGLED IN THE WATER, LYING ON THE
BEACH. AND FOR THAT REASON ALONE, I WOULD VOTE FOR THIS BILL. BUT WE
KNOW WHAT IT DOES TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND THE BLIGHT THAT ALL OF THIS
PLASTIC CAUSES AROUND OUR COMMUNITIES.
SO, IT IS WITH GREAT RESPECT FOR THE CREATORS OF THIS BILL
-- I KNOW IT'S NOT A PERFECT BILL AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REPLACING IT WITH
PAPER BAGS, BUT WE'RE GIVING THEM AN INCENTIVE BY PUTTING A NICKLE
DEPOSIT ON IT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE PAPER ANYMORE --
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. LENTOL, HOW
108
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DO YOU VOTE, SIR?
MR. LENTOL: AND WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE, WE
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BRING THEIR OWN BAGS.
SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER. I VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. LENTOL IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. CARROLL TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. CARROLL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE
TODAY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE, BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THIS ASSEMBLY
OVER TWO YEARS AGO, ONE OF THE FIRST VOTES THAT I TOOK WAS TO VOTE NO IN
OVERTURNING THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL'S PLASTIC BAN, A PLASTIC BAG
BILL. WE FOOLISHLY DID THAT THEN. TODAY WE CORRECT THAT WRONG. SO I
AM PROUD TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO BAN PLASTIC BAGS AND TO ALLOW
COUNTIES TO PUT A FEE ON PAPER.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. CARROLL IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. COLTON TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. COLTON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE BECAUSE I THINK WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE IS REALLY
SOMETHING HISTORIC IN TERMS OF NEW YORK STATE AND IN TERMS OF REALLY
THE WHOLE COUNTRY. THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE THAT PLASTIC HAS DONE TO OUR
ENVIRONMENT IS JUST ABSOLUTELY UNFATHOMABLE. WE HAVE CHOSEN AN
APPROACH THAT I BELIEVE IS THE BEST APPROACH TO TAKE IN TERMS OF DEALING
109
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WITH THIS PROBLEM, IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF BILLIONS OF BAGS OF PLASTIC
WHICH ARE BASICALLY A PETROLEUM-BASED PRODUCT. THAT IN ITSELF RAISES
SERIOUS QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF THE DAMAGE THAT IT DOES. THE FACT THAT IT
WILL REMAIN IN OUR ENVIRONMENT ONCE IT IS DISCARDED FOR A CENTURY, IT
JUST DOESN'T DISAPPEAR. THE FACT THAT IT KILLS SO MANY ANIMALS. THE FACT
THAT IT PRESENTS SO MANY PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS; BEING TWISTED IN DRAINS AND IN WIRES. WE
NEEDED TO DEAL WITH IT. AND I THINK BY BANNING IT WE DID IT IN A WAY
THAT WE PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES SO THAT IT DOES NOT HURT PEOPLE. WE'RE NOT
CHARGING THEM A FEE WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE BASICALLY FINANCIALLY
AFFECTED. WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT PLASTIC BAGS SHOULD NOT BE USED.
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS ARE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, BAD FOR THE
ECONOMY, BAD FOR ALL OF US. INSTEAD, WHAT WE ARE DOING IS, WE ARE
PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE, PAPER BAGS, AND IF PEOPLE CHOOSE TO USE A
PAPER BAG, THE COUNTIES AND THE CITIES MAY OPT IN AND CHARGE A FEE OF
FIVE CENTS. AND THE MONEY FROM THAT FEE GOES BACK INTO THE
ENVIRONMENT. IT GOES INTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND, PART OF
IT, AND THE REST OF IT GOES INTO BUYING REUSABLE BAGS THAT CAN BE SUPPLIED
FREE TO THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE AN ECONOMIC PROBLEM --
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. COLTON, HOW
DO YOU VOTE?
MR. COLTON: -- TO PAY FOR PAPER BAGS. SO, THAT'S
WHY I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND I BELIEVE THIS IS A HISTORICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURE THAT HAS BEEN PASSED BY NEW YORK AND WILL DO
WELL FOR MANY DECADES TO COME IN TERMS OF OUR ENVIRONMENT, IN TERMS
110
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OF OUR TREATMENT OF THE ECONOMY, NOT WASTING IT ON PETROLEUM-BASED
MATERIALS. AND I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. COLTON IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. SIMON TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. SIMON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. IN 1967
DUSTIN HOFFMAN WAS TOLD WITH NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, BENJAMIN, THE
FUTURE IS PLASTICS. AND WE NOW HAVE A FUTURE THAT IS OVERWHELMED WITH
PLASTIC. I, TOO, AM VERY PROUD OF VOTING AGAINST THE -- THE OVERRULING OF
THE CITY'S PLASTIC BAG FEE TWO YEARS AGO. BECAUSE THAT WAS THE RIGHT
VOTE TO DO -- TO MAKE AT THAT TIME BECAUSE WE REALLY NEED TO REDUCE
PLASTICS IN OUR ENVIRONMENT. AND SO I AM VERY, VERY HAPPY TO BE ABLE
TO VOTE FOR THIS THIS YEAR, AND THAT WE WILL REALLY MAKE A HUGE
DIFFERENCE IN THE REDUCTION OF PLASTICS. AND I ALSO WANT TO JUST SUGGEST
TO EVERYBODY A GREAT THING TO DO TO GIVE OUT TO -- TO FOLKS IS A TOTE BAG.
AND I DON'T KNOW ANY SENIOR WITHOUT A TOTE BAG AND I'M SURE WE'RE
GOING TO SEE MANY, MANY MORE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE FIGHTING
FOR, IS TOTE BAGS FOR EVERY SENIOR.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MS. SIMON IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. NIOU TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. NIOU: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR ALLOWING
ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK OUR WAYS AND MEANS
CHAIR FOR HER STEADFAST WORK. I WANT TO BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT TWO PARTS OF
111
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THIS BILL. THIS BILL HAS A SECTION ON STUDENT LOAN SERVICING LICENSURE AND
REGULATION. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORK THIS
MEASURE IS DOING IN REGULATING AND ELIMINATING FRAUDULENT, DECEPTIVE,
MISLEADING AND PREDATORY PRACTICES. STUDENT DEBT LOAN -- STUDENT LOAN
DEBT REMAINS A TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC BURDEN ON OUR ECONOMY,
ESPECIALLY FOR OUR YOUNGER GENERATION. I WANT TO THANK ESPECIALLY OUR
BANKS CHAIR ON HIS LEADERSHIP TO REGULATE THIS INDUSTRY, AND TO LOOK FOR
-- AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH HIM TO PROVIDE FURTHER
PROTECTIONS FOR OUR CONSUMERS.
THE SECOND PART OF THE BILL I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS
REGARDING THE BANNING OF PLASTIC BAGS. BY PASSING THE PLASTIC BAN --
BAG BAN, NEW YORK WILL BE ONE OF TWO STATES WHO PROGRESSED TOWARDS
REAL CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE WE CAN AND MUST
GO FURTHER TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND ENCOURAGE THE BAN OF ALL
SINGLE-USE PLASTICS ALTOGETHER. THIS IS A TREMENDOUS STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION, BUT WE MUST TAKE EVERY MEASURE TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE.
OUR FUTURE AND THE FUTURE OF THE GENERATIONS TO COME DEPEND ON THE
ACTIONS THAT WE TAKE TODAY. THANK YOU TO OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION CHAIR FOR HIS STEADFAST GUIDANCE ON PROTECTING OUR
ENVIRONMENT.
I KNOW THESE TWO PARTS OF THE BILL WILL HAVE A LOT OF
POSITIVE EFFECTS ON ALL NEW YORKERS, AND FOR THIS REASON I VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MS. NIOU IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
112
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. THIELE TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. THIELE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO EXPLAIN
MY VOTE. ON THIS BUDGET BILL, SPECIFICALLY ON THE PLASTIC BAG BAN, FIRST
OF ALL, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT, IT'S SELF-EVIDENT, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS, THE QUALITY OF LIFE BENEFITS THAT COME FROM THIS PARTICULAR
PIECE OF LEGISLATION, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT. IN MY DISTRICT I HAVE MORE COASTLINE THAN ANY OTHER
DISTRICT, MORE OF THAT MARINE ENVIRONMENT. AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF
THE REASONS THAT TOWNS AND VILLAGES IN MY DISTRICT LONG BEFORE THIS
LEGISLATION, BY LOCAL LAW HAD ALREADY VOTED AND ALREADY HAD INSTITUTED
BANS ON PLASTIC BAGS. AND THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, MY COUNTY, ALSO
FOLLOWED SUIT WITH A FEE ON PLASTIC BAGS AND ON PAPER BAGS. AND THE
REASON WHY MY TOWNS, MY VILLAGES, MY COUNTIES DID THIS, IS THAT THEY
HOPED THAT ONE DAY IT WOULD SPUR THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO TAKE THE --
THE ACTION THAT IT'S TAKING TODAY. I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT SUFFOLK COUNTY
MANY YEARS AGO WAS THE FIRST COUNTY ALSO TO INSTITUTE A BOTTLE BILL,
HOPING THAT THE STATE WOULD -- WOULD TAKE ACTION, AND THEY DID.
AS FAR AS PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR AND THE ADJUSTMENT TO THIS
-- FOR THIS LEGISLATION, IN MY DISTRICT WHERE THERE ARE -- HAVE BEEN BANS
IN PLACE, IT WAS A VERY, VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE PEOPLE
CHANGED THEIR BEHAVIOR. I GO TO THE GROCERY STORE A COUPLE OF TIMES A
WEEK, I'VE GOT MY RENEW -- MY REUSABLE BAGS, AND PEOPLE QUICKLY
ADJUSTED TO THAT. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO, AND IT WAS -- THERE WAS NO GREAT
UPHEAVAL WITH REGARD TO THAT KIND OF CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR.
SO, I LOOK FORWARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS
113
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LEGISLATION, AND I THINK WE WILL REAP THE BENEFITS FOR DECADES TO COME.
I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. THIELE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. KIM TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. KIM: YES, MR. SPEAKER. EVERY YEAR WE SPEND
BETWEEN $8- TO $10 BILLION IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO CORPORATE
INCENTIVES AND CORPORATE WELFARE WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY
OR TRANSPARENCY. THE LAST TWO YEARS WE TRIED IN A ONE-HOUSE BILL TO PUT
IN SOME DATABASE LANGUAGE, AS WELL AS SOME TRANSPARENCY FOR REGIONAL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS, BUT WE DID NOT GET THERE AGAIN THIS
YEAR. IN PLACES LIKE SOLARCITY IN BUFFALO WE -- WE ALLOCATED $750
MILLION THAT YIELDED 600 JOBS. THAT'S $1.25 MILLION PER JOB. WE SHOULD
NOT BE SPENDING $1.25 MILLION PER JOB OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY. MOVING
FORWARD, I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPETITE IN THIS HOUSE AND IN THE SENATE
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE MORE ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND SOME
STRONG CALLBACK LANGUAGES AND SAY, IF YOU'RE NOT PERFORMING, WE SHOULD
GET THAT MONEY BACK TO THE STATE.
SECONDLY, WE HAVE A STUDENT DEBT CRISES. IN TEN YEARS
WE DOUBLED IN STUDENT DEBT IN THE -- IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, FROM
$40 BILLION TO CLOSE TO $85 BILLION. IT IS A FULL-BLOWN CRISIS. I'M -- I AM
VERY GLAD THAT WE TOOK THE MEASURE UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF OUR CHAIR,
KEN ZEBROWSKI, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CRACK DOWN PROPRIETARY SERVERS.
BUT WE CAN -- WE CAN GO FURTHER. WE CAN ACTUALLY BUY, WRITE DOWN,
AND EVEN CANCEL SOME OF THE STUDENT DEBTS. THAT ACTUALLY HAS PROVEN
114
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BY A NUMBER OF ECONOMISTS TO HAVE TREMENDOUS RETURN ON LOCAL
ECONOMIES. THAT ACTUALLY LEADS TO MORE JOB GROWTH. SO, YOU KNOW,
THIS IS A GOOD START, BUT I THINK WE CAN GET -- WE CAN GO FURTHER, MAKE
SURE THAT WE CAN -- WE CAN FOCUS ON PRODUCING REAL JOBS FOR THE STATE OF
NEW YORK.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. KIM IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. BUCHWALD TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. BUCHWALD: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL AND I WANT TO JUST
COMMENT AND JUST NOTE THE WORDS OF MY COLLEAGUES ON ONE PORTION OF
THE BILL THAT HAS NOT BEEN PARTICULARLY COMMENTED ON SO FAR. THE LAST
PART OF THE BILL, PART UU, IS -- IS A PART TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SERVICE
LAW IN RELATION TO A WESTCHESTER COUNTY RENEWABLE ENERGY AND
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESOURCES PROGRAM. I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES
FOR HAVING SUPPORTED THE MANY PEOPLE IN WESTCHESTER WHO ARE NOW
FACING A NATURAL GAS MORATORIUM ANNOUNCED JUST TWO MONTHS BEFORE IT
WENT INTO EFFECT. AND IT WAS CRUCIAL THAT WE DEMONSTRATE TO THE
BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS OF WESTCHESTER THAT WE, AS A STATE, STAND WITH
THEM AND TO PROVIDE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE RENEWABLE RESOURCES
OF ENERGY SO THAT WE CAN MOVE WESTCHESTER COUNTY AHEAD AND MAKE
SURE THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF OUR COUNTY CAN MOVE FORWARD IS ESSENTIAL.
I WANT TO THANK THE GREAT MANY COLLEAGUES, NOT JUST FROM THE
WESTCHESTER DELEGATION, BUT AROUND THE STATE WHO HAVE BEEN
115
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SUPPORTIVE, MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE HELPING LEAD THE WAY. I THINK IT
WAS THE ASSEMBLY PROPOSING THIS INITIATIVE THAT HELPED CREATE A
PROGRAM THAT'S ALREADY STARTING TO GET IMPLEMENTED, BUT THIS LEGISLATION
TODAY WILL HELP MAKE SURE THAT'S THE CASE ALL THE MORE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER. I VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. BUCHWALD IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. EPSTEIN TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. EPSTEIN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. FIRST, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE STUDENT LOAN DEBT ISSUE.
IT'S -- WE ARE LIVING IN A CRISIS MOMENT WITH STUDENT LOANS IN NEW YORK
STATE, AND I'M GLAD WE'RE TAKING A SMALL STEP TO TRY TO RESOLVE IT. BUT
WE HAVE A HUGE CRISIS FOR STUDENTS WHO ARE BEING BURDENED BY DEBT,
BEING ABUSED BY THE SYSTEM AND BEING ABUSED BY THESE AGENCIES WHO
SAY THEY'RE GOING TO CONSOLIDATE AND HELP THEM. I'M GLAD WE'RE TAKING
THE FIRST STEP, BUT WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.
SECOND, ON THE PLASTIC BAG BAN, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
LEADERSHIP OF THE ASSEMBLY TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS PLASTIC BAG BAN.
BUT AGAIN, THERE'S SO MUCH MORE WE NEED TO DO. WE'RE BASICALLY
PENALIZING PEOPLE WHO GO SHOPPING WHO NEED A BAG, VERSUS PEOPLE
WHO GO TO RESTAURANTS AND CAN AFFORD TO EAT OUT EVERY DAY, THEY CAN GET
A PLASTIC BAG EVERY TIME YOU GET FOOD DELIVERED TO THEIR HOME, EVERY
TIME THEY GO TO A RESTAURANT TO PICK IT UP. IT IS A SYSTEM THAT PRIVILEGES
PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY PRIVILEGED. SO, MY HOPE IS THAT WE TAKE THIS
116
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FIRST STEP TODAY, BUT WE THINK ABOUT OTHER NEW YORKERS AND THINK ABOUT
THE ISSUE OF PLASTIC BAGS AND TAKE THIS FURTHER.
FINALLY, ON -- ON FOOD SCRAPS AND NEW YORK IS NOT AN
ENVIRONMENTAL LEADER YET. MY GOAL IS FOR US TO BECOME ONE, BY
THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE DO AROUND THE STATE AROUND COMPOSTING FOOD
SCRAPS. THIS IS A CLEAR IMPORTANT FIRST STEP. BUT TO CATCH UP TO STATES
LIKE CALIFORNIA, WHO KNOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT WE HAVE,
KNOW HOW IMPORTANT RECYCLING, COMPOSTING, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, SOLAR,
WIND, POWER. NEW YORK NEEDS BE A LEADER AGAIN AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
OUR BODY DOING THAT. I WILL VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. EPSTEIN IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. RAIA TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. RAIA TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APOLOGIZE.
MR. SPEAKER, I RISE TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. WHILE THE
GOALS -- MANY OF THE GOALS IN HERE ARE NOBLE ONES, I DO HAVE SOME
CONCERNS WITH THE PLASTIC BAG BAN. WHILE IT ACTUALLY -- I'LL BE THE FIRST
TO ADMIT, I HATED SUFFOLK COUNTY'S PLASTIC BAG BAN, BUT IT ACTUALLY
WORKS. IT FORCED ME TO CHANGE MY HABITS, IT FORCED A LOT OF PEOPLE. I
AM CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE EARLIER,
THAT COSTS ARE GOING TO BE PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER. I AM CONCERNED
THAT THERE IS A CARVEOUT FOR INDIVIDUALS. EVERYBODY NEEDS TO HAVE
BUY-IN ON -- IN THIS. AND IF IT MEANS GETTING THEM REUSABLE BAGS
QUICKER THAN OTHER PEOPLE, THEN LET -- LET THAT HAPPEN. I'M ALSO
117
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CONCERNED ABOUT THE... THE FOOD WASTE PART. I'VE BEEN CONTACTED BY
MANY HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES, AND THEY FEEL THAT THIS IS GOING TO
INCREASE COSTS OF HEALTH CARE.
BUT MY BIGGEST CONCERN ARE THESE PESKY WORDS THAT
SAY "INTENTIONALLY OMITTED." IT'S IN HERE PROBABLY AROUND 10, 12 TIMES.
THINGS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN THIS PART OF THE BUDGET THAT ARE NOT.
THINGS LIKE DIRECTING THE MTA TO REFORM ITS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.
INCREASING TRANSPORTATION WORKER ASSAULT PROTECTIONS. INCREASING TOLL
PROTECTIONS. AUTHORIZING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ALLOW CERTAIN MOTORIZED
SCOOTERS. INCREASING OVERSIGHT OF LIMOUSINE, BUSES AND LIVERY. THINGS
LIKE OFFSHORE DRILLING PROHIBITION, WHICH I -- I CERTAINLY SUPPORT, BUT IT'S
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED HERE. WETLAND MAPPINGS, INTENTIONALLY OMITTED.
HOW CAN WE VOTE ON A BUDGET THAT HAS SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED? WHY? BECAUSE IT MAY OR MAY NOT SHOW UP IN A
BIG UGLY OR A REVENUE BILL THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN YET.
SO, FOR THIS AND MANY OTHER REASONS, I WILL BE CASTING
MY -- MY VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. RAIA IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MR. BURKE TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. BURKE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE AND RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS HISTORIC MOMENT
FOR OUR STATE AND OUR ENVIRONMENT. AND I DO SO IN UNDERSTANDING THE --
THE HISTORIC IMPORTANCE OF THESE CHAMBERS, AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE WORKED HERE. THEODORE ROOSEVELT, A REPUBLICAN, AN
118
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ASSEMBLYMAN, HAD THIS TO SAY: IT IS ALSO VANDALISM WANTONLY TO
DESTROY OR TO PERMIT THE DESTRUCTION OF WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IN NATURE,
WHETHER IT BE A CLIFF, A FOREST OR A SPECIES OF MAMMAL OR BIRD.
HERE IN THE UNITED STATES WE TURN OUR RIVERS AND
STREAMS INTO SEWERS AND DUMPING GROUNDS. WE POLLUTE THE AIR. WE
DESTROY FORESTS AND EXTERMINATE FISHES, BIRDS AND MAMMALS. NOT TO
SPEAK OF VULGARIZING CHARMING LANDSCAPES WITH HIDEOUS
ADVERTISEMENTS. BUT AT LAST, IT LOOKS AS IF OUR PEOPLE ARE AWAKENING.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. BURKE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. BICHOTTE TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. BICHOTTE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE AS IT
PERTAINS TO THE BANNING OF PLASTIC BAGS. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT TWO
YEARS AGO, I WAS NOT IN FAVOR IN -- IN THE SUPPORT OF TAXING OUR RESIDENTS
ON -- A FEE FOR THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE FUNDS
WEREN'T GOING TO ANYTHING REGARDING IMPROVING OUR ENVIRONMENT. I
DID, HOWEVER, SAY THAT I WOULD SUPPORT A BAN ON PLASTIC BAGS
ALTOGETHER, WHICH I THINK IS THE REAL WAY TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR AND
PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT. I'M HAPPY THAT THE OPT-IN TAX FEE ON
BROWN PAPER BAGS WILL BE GOING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND.
THIS IS A HISTORIC AND PROGRESSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVE FOR NEW YORK
STATE.
SO, I VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BUDGET, AND I'LL BE VOTING IN
119
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MS. BICHOTTE IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. STERN TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. STERN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. BEFORE
COMING HERE TO THE STATE ASSEMBLY, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING AS A
MEMBER OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE. AND SO, A FEW YEARS AGO I
WAS THERE TO PLAY A ROLE IN THE DEBATE IN PASSING OF OUR PLASTIC BAG BILL.
AT THAT TIME, WE MADE THE DECISION AS A BODY ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS TO
IMPLEMENT A FIVE-CENT FEE ON THE PAPER AND THE PLASTIC. AND MANY OF
OUR COLLEAGUES ASKED THESE VERY SAME QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED
HERE TODAY. AND A COUPLE OF THE COMMENTS I REMEMBER VERY WELL.
ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS, WELL, IF WE ARE TRULY SERIOUS ABOUT
PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT, WHY ARE WE CHARGING ONLY FIVE CENTS FOR
PAPER OR PLASTIC? WHY NOT JUST A BAN ON THE PLASTIC? WELL, TODAY, WE
TAKE THAT VERY NEXT STEP, ONE THAT HAD BEEN CONTEMPLATED IN SUFFOLK AT
THE TIME. OTHERS WOULD SAY, WELL, IF YOU'RE SERIOUS ABOUT PROTECTING
OUR ENVIRONMENT, WHY IS THE FIVE CENTS GOING TO THE GROCER INSTEAD OF
BEING ALLOCATED TOWARDS -- TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
INITIATIVES? AND WE SAID THAT WHILE THAT WOULD BE THE PREFERRED WAY TO
GO, WE HAD TO PUT INTO OUR BILL A REVERSE PREEMPTION CLAUSE BECAUSE AT
THE LOWER LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT WE DID NOT HAVE THE LEGAL ABILITY TO
DIRECT THAT FEE TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES THE WAY THIS DOES
TODAY. AND SO, AT THE TIME THE LAW THAT WE HAD PASSED, WHICH HAS BEEN
A TREMENDOUS SUCCESS LOCALLY, WAS WITH THE IDEA THAT THIS DAY WOULD
120
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
COME; THAT THIS DAY WOULD COME TO TAKE THE VERY NEXT STEP NECESSARY IN
PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT.
SO, MR. SPEAKER, I WILL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT TAKING THE NEXT STEP TO PROTECT
OUR ENVIRONMENT FOR NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. CRESPO.
MR. CRESPO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. TO EXPLAIN
MY VOTE. LISTENING TO SO MANY OF THE COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE
IMPACT OF THE PART OF THIS BUDGET BILL THAT BANS THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS,
AS YOU CAN SEE, I HAVE MY TWO LITTLE ONES WITH ME THIS AFTERNOON, AND
I'M THINKING ABOUT THEIR -- THE IMPACT TO THEIR FUTURE AND OTHER CHILDREN
IN MY COMMUNITY. I REMEMBER MY PREDECESSOR, NOW THE BRONX
BOROUGH PRESIDENT, RUBEN DIAZ, JR., WORKING WITH THEN-GOVERNOR
PATAKI TO CLEAN UP VEHICLES THAT HAD BEEN DUMPED IN THE BRONX RIVER,
AND WORKING WITH LOCAL COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS TO CLEAN UP THE
WATERWAYS AROUND SOUNDVIEW AND HUNTS POINT. AND TODAY, THIS TAKES
A -- A GREAT STEP FORWARD IN -- IN IMPROVING OUR ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE ROCKING THE BOAT, THE BRONX RIVER ALLIANCE, THE
POINT AND OTHERS CONTINUE TO EDUCATE KIDS AROUND -- IN MY
COMMUNITY AROUND THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT,
PROTECTING MARINE LIFE AND -- AND OUR OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND
QUALITY OF LIFE AND HEALTH NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITIES. AND THE FACT IS
THAT THESE PLASTIC BAGS ARE NOW THE BIGGEST CULPRIT OF THAT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO, BANNING THEM IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I
BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSAL WE SAW A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WAS NOT THE
121
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RIGHT ONE, NOT THE RIGHT APPROACH. THIS IS MUCH BETTER; WHILE NOT
PERFECT, MUCH BETTER. AND FOR THOSE THAT WOULD OPT IN ON THE FEES, SO
LONG AS THAT MONEY IS BEING REINVESTED INTO OUR ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS
AND TO PROVIDE AND -- AND PROMOTE THE USE OF THE -- OF THE REUSABLE
BAGS, THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GO. THE PEOPLE OF THE BRONX WILL ADJUST TO
THIS. THE PEOPLE OF THE BRONX WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS. AND THE PEOPLE
IN MY COMMUNITY KNOW THAT THIS IS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE FUTURE
FOR OUR CHILDREN IS BRIGHTER AND HEALTHIER. THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. IT IS A GREAT DAY FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND I'LL PROUDLY
VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. CRESPO IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. SAYEGH.
MR. SAYEGH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE DISPLAY OF NEW YORK STATE TAKING THE LEAD ON
ISSUES FROM ECOLOGY, TO THE ENVIRONMENT, TO MANY ISSUES THAT IMPACT
OUR LIVES. AND SOMETIMES WE MAY SAY, WELL, WHAT -- WHAT DOES THAT
DO? THAT REALLY SETS THE STAGE FOR THE REST OF THE NATION. AND I THINK
WHEN OUR NATION GOES A CERTAIN WAY, IT SETS THE STAGE INTERNATIONALLY.
AND I THINK THE ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT ARE CRUCIAL ISSUES, AND
THE BAN ON PLASTIC, ALONG WITH OUR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE MORE RENEWABLE
ENERGY, IS REALLY AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT HISTORICALLY WE MAY LOOK AT
THE PAST AND SAY, PLASTIC WAS THE FUTURE AND GASOLINE AND FUEL AND
FOSSIL OIL WAS THE FUTURE, AND THEN WE REALIZE -- AND -- AND THE BOLD
MOVES IS A REALIZATION AT SOME POINT THAT MAYBE THAT PROGRESS OR THAT
122
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INITIATIVE MAYBE DOESN'T WORK AS WELL AS IT WAS INTENDED 40 AND 50 AND
100 YEARS AGO. SO, I SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL AND LEGISLATION. AND I FEEL
THAT ALTHOUGH FOR MANY OF US THERE'S PARTS OF THIS LEGISLATION THAT MAY
NOT BE PERFECT, BUT I THINK THIS SETS A POLICY IN MOTION AND ALLOWS US,
MOVING FORWARD, TO BEGIN TO LOOK AT FINE-TUNING THIS PROPOSAL SO IT
BECOMES BETTER. AND AS A QUICK EXAMPLE, A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WHEN
I FIRST WENT SHOPPING AT COSTCO, AND I REALIZED WITH ALL THE GROCERY WE
PURCHASED, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WAS NO BAGS TO PUT THIS GROCERY IN,
AND WE HAD TO UTILIZE BOXES. I LOOKED AT IT AS BEING UNUSUAL, HOW CAN
THIS HAPPEN? AND AS TIME WENT ON, WE GOT USED TO IT. IT'S CONDITIONING
THAT I THINK WE WOULD ADDRESS AND DEAL WITH AND MOVE ON.
SO, FOR THAT REASON, MR. SPEAKER, I VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. SAYEGH IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. ZEBROWSKI.
MR. ZEBROWSKI: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I ALSO
JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS AND
REGULATIONS REGARDING STUDENT LOANS SERVICERS. MY COLLEAGUES IN THE
ASSEMBLY SHOULD BE PROUD. WE HAVE BEEN AT THIS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS
NOW AND REALLY SET THE STAGE IN DEALING WITH THE PROTECTIONS NECESSARY
FOR BORROWERS ACROSS THE STATE. PARTICULARLY MY COLLEAGUES WHO SPOKE
EARLIER AND THE MEMBERS OF THE BANKS COMMITTEE, WHO HAVE SHOWN
LEADERSHIP ON THIS, CERTAINLY, THE SPEAKER. AND I REALLY WANT TO THANK
THE STAFF WHO HAVE DEALT WITH A CHANGING FEDERAL REGULATORY STRUCTURE
123
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TO COME UP WITH A PROCESS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS. AND I'LL BE THE FIRST
ONE TO SAY THAT THIS DOES NOT END THE STUDENT DEBT PROBLEM, THIS DOES
NOT END THE STUDENT LOAN PROBLEM. HOWEVER, IT DOES, FOR THE FIRST TIME,
GIVE OUR CONSTITUENTS AN ABILITY TO APPEAL TO STATE GOVERNMENT SO THAT
THEY ARE NOT TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, SO THAT THEY ARE NOT DEALT WITH IN
FRAUDULENT WAYS. BECAUSE AT LEAST PART OF THE PROBLEM IS WHEN STUDENTS
ARE HAVING ISSUES WITH REPAYING LOANS, THAT THEY'RE SOMETIMES STEERED
IN A WAY THAT ACTUALLY MAKES THE PROBLEM WORSE. SO, FOR ALL THOSE
BORROWERS THAT WE HAVE ACROSS THE STATE THAT ARE DEALING WITH THIS
CRUSHING BURDEN, WE NEED TO DO MORE; HOWEVER, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN
REALLY COMING UP WITH A REGULATORY STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE SOME
PROTECTIONS. I WANT TO THANK ALL MY COLLEAGUES FOR JOINING WITH ME IN
THAT COLLABORATIVE PROCESS.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALKER.
MS. WALKER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WANTED TO JUST MENTION A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE PLASTIC BAG BAN. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS -- THERE ARE TONS
OF PLASTIC BAGS THAT WIND UP IN OUR OCEAN AND HARMING ALL OF THE
WILDLIFE THAT LIVES THEREIN. PLASTIC IS NOT BIODEGRADABLE, IT'S
PHOTODEGRADABLE AND IT TAKES ABOUT 400 TO 1,000 YEARS TO BREAK DOWN
INTO TOXINS. THESE TOXINS GET INTO THE FISH THAT MANY OF US WIND UP
EATING, AND IT SORT OF, YOU KNOW, WINDS UP INTO OUR OWN BODIES. AND
WE KNOW THAT IT'S HARMFUL NOT JUST TO THE WILDLIFE, NOT JUST TO OUR
ENVIRONMENT, BUT ALSO TO OURSELVES. WHILE WE ARE DOING THIS, IT ALSO
124
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HAS A MAJOR IMPACT ON -- SPEAKING IN ONE VOICE AS IT RELATES TO NATURAL
GAS AND CRUDE OIL, WHICH ARE TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS THAT PRODUCES
PLASTIC. SO, I'M GLAD THAT WE ARE SPEAKING IN ONE VOICE; HOWEVER, WE
HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGN AND -- AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF
OTHER CAMPAIGNS THAT ARE GOING ON HERE, BUT THE POOR PEOPLE'S
CAMPAIGN IS NOT NECESSARILY BEING HEARD. SO, WHILE WE LOOK AT HOW
THIS ATTACK CAN BE SITUATED ON OUR SENIORS AND MANY VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES SUCH AS THE COMMUNITY THAT I REPRESENT, WHO ARE CALLING
OUT TO ME FOR A LOT OF SUPPORT AND LOT OF HELP WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTUAL
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION. SO, WE'LL HAVE TO
FIGURE OUT HOW WE GET THE BAGS INTO COMMUNITIES THAT WILL NEED THEM
THE MOST. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US COMING UP
WITH AN IDEA AND A PLAN AND AN INITIATIVE THAT MAKES THE ENVIRONMENT
FOR ALL ACCESSIBLE TO ALL, AND SO THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY A PUNISHMENT
ON MANY DISADVANTAGED -- ECONOMICALLY-DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
I ALSO WANT TO COMMEND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY
OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE IN THIS BUDGET. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOLARIZED
BROWNSVILLE AND WE -- WE PUT 100 -- OVER 225 SOLAR PANELS ON MANY
HOMES WITHIN BROWNSVILLE COMMUNITY. IT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL, AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU ON THIS.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALKER IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
125
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. WE ARE NOW GOING TO STAY ON -- GOING TO PAGE 8, RULES
REPORT NO. 44. AGAIN, ON DEBATE, MS. WEINSTEIN.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02006-C, RULES
REPORT NO. 44, BUDGET BILL. AN ACT INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART A);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART B); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART C); TO AMEND
THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF QUALIFYING FOR CERTAIN SCHOLARSHIPS AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE EDUCATION
LAW RELATING THERETO (PART D); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART E); TO AMEND
THE STATE FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO THE ARTS CAPITAL GRANTS FUND
(PART F); TO UTILIZE RESERVES IN THE MORTGAGE INSURANCE FUND FOR VARIOUS
HOUSING PURPOSES AND FOR MUNICIPAL RELIEF TO THE CITY OF ALBANY (PART
G); TO AMEND THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, IN RELATION TO THE INITIAL PERIOD
OF LICENSURE OR REGISTRATION AND REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, BACKGROUND
CLEARANCES AND TRAINING FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF SUCH LAW RELATING THERETO (PART H); TO AMEND THE SOCIAL
SERVICES LAW, IN RELATION TO FEDERALLY-REQUIRED BACKGROUND CLEARANCES
FOR PERSONS WORKING IN RESIDENTIAL FOSTER CARE PROGRAMS (PART I); TO
AMEND THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, IN RELATION TO RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS; AND REPEALING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SUCH
LAW RELATING THERETO (PART J); TO AMEND THE FAMILY COURT ACT, THE SOCIAL
126
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SERVICES LAW AND THE EXECUTIVE LAW, IN RELATION TO PERSONS IN NEED OF
SUPERVISION; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT.
RELATING THERETO (PART K); TO AMEND THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, IN RELATION
TO INCREASING THE STANDARDS OF MONTHLY NEED FOR AGED, BLIND AND
DISABLED PERSONS LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY (PART L); TO AMEND PART W OF
CHAPTER 54 OF THE LAWS OF 2016, AMENDING THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW
RELATING TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SERVICES RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A TEMPORARY OPERATOR, IN
RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF (PART M); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
(PART N); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART O); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART P);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART Q); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART R);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART S); TO AMEND THE EXECUTIVE LAW, IN RELATION
TO PREVENTING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME IN
HOUSING (PART T); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART U); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
(PART V); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART W); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART
X); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART Y); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART Z); TO
AMEND THE ELECTION LAW, THE EXECUTIVE LAW, THE STATE FINANCE LAW,
THE LABOR LAW, THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION LAW, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
LAW, THE MILITARY LAW, THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW, THE EDUCATION
LAW, THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, THE ELDER LAW, THE SOCIAL SERVICES
LAW, THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW, THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW,
THE NEW YORK STATE DEFENSE EMERGENCY ACT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER, IN RELATION
TO CHANGING THE NAME OF THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF VETERANS'
127
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AFFAIRS TO THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF VETERANS' SERVICES; AND TO
AMEND THE EXECUTIVE LAW, IN RELATION TO CHANGING THE NAME OF THE
VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMISSION TO THE VETERANS' SERVICES COMMISSION
(PART AA); TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO THE FOSTER
YOUTH COLLEGE SUCCESS INITIATIVE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS (PART BB); TO
AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO AUTHORIZING THE SETTING OF A
REDUCED RATE OF TUITION AT THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, THE CITY
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOR CERTAIN STUDENTS
PARTICIPATING IN DUAL OR CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT PROGRAMS (PART CC); TO
AMEND THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, IN RELATION TO PROVIDING THAT PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS, EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS, THE STATE COMPTROLLER AND THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR AND SHALL
HAVE A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO CERTAIN CLAIMS RELATING TO AGENCY SHOP FEE
DEDUCTIONS (PART DD); AND AUTHORIZING THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
YORK AT ALBANY TO LEASE OR CONTRACT WITH CERTAIN TENANTS FOR THE USE OF
SPACE IN THE EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP COMPLEX
(PART EE)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AN EXPLANATION IS
REQUESTED, MS. WEINSTEIN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, MR. SPEAKER. THIS BILL
WOULD ENACT INTO LAW MAJOR COMPONENTS OF LEGISLATION THAT ARE
NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE FISCAL YEAR 2019-'20 BUDGET AS IT
PERTAINS TO EDUCATION, LABOR AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE BUDGET, OFTEN
REFERRED TO AS ELFA. AMONGST ITS PROVISIONS ARE THE -- I JUST WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THE PROVISIONS WITHIN THIS BILL. WE MAKE
128
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AMENDMENTS TO THE JOSEPH [SIC] R. PERALTA NEW YORK STATE DREAM
ACT. WE REAUTHORIZE THE -- WE -- THE CHILDCARE -- WE MADE CHANGES TO
THE CHILDCARE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT REAUTHORIZATION OF 2014. WE
ADDRESS ISSUES RELATING TO PERSONS IN NEED OF SUPERVISION - COMMONLY
REFERRED TO AS PINS - AND WE MAKE SOME CHANGES AS RELATES TO THE
JANUS ACT -- JANUS SUPREME COURT CASE ARE ENACTED WITHIN THIS BUDGET.
AND THEN I'D BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC
POINTS THAT WE ADDRESS IN THE BUDGET.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BARCLAY.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
THE CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. BARCLAY: YOU'LL BE HAPPY TO HEAR,
CHAIRWOMAN, THAT I ONLY HAVE TWO QUESTIONS --
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
MR. BARCLAY: -- SO, BOTH VERY BRIEF. SCHOOL BUS
CAMERAS. WE PASSED LEGISLATION, I THINK IT WAS JUST LAST WEEK ON THAT. I
NOTICE THAT IT HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY OMITTED --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. BARCLAY: -- IS THAT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: AND --
MR. BARCLAY: WHY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, BECAUSE WE PASSED THE
129
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LEGISLATION.
MR. BARCLAY: BUT IS -- HAS IT PASSED THE SENATE
AND THE GOVERNOR HASN'T SIGNED IT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNOR ON SCHOOL BUS CAMERAS.
MR. BARCLAY: HAS THE SENATE PASSED IT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I --
MR. BARCLAY: YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT SO MUCH --
MS. WEINSTEIN: I REALLY -- WE -- WE REALLY DON'T...
KNOW THE ANSWER. WE DON'T THINK SO --
MR. BARCLAY: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE'VE BEEN A LITTLE BUSY.
MR. BARCLAY: UNDERSTOOD. THERE'S A TRANSFER OUT
OF THE MORTGAGE INSURANCE FUND, AND IT -- IT'S IN THE AMOUNT OF $5
MILLION FOR THE CITY OF ALBANY. AND I SEEM TO RECALL --
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. BARCLAY: AND WE'VE DONE ANOTHER YEAR'S --
WHY ALBANY VERSUS ANY OTHER UPSTATE CITY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, THEY HAVE A SHORTFALL. WE
HAVE ALL OF -- WE HAVE ALL OF THE STATE-OWNED LANDS HERE THAT THEY DO
NOT RECEIVE PROPERTY TAXES ON.
MR. BARCLAY: OKAY. ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE STATE
GOVERNMENT HERE AND THEY RECEIVE A LOT OF BENEFITS FOR STATE
GOVERNMENT BEING HERE. THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER NOT-FOR-PROFITS IN OTHER
130
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
UPSTATE CITIES THAT SUFFER SIMILAR CHALLENGES. BUT, I'LL ACCEPT THAT AS AN
EXPLANATION. THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, MR.
BARCLAY.
MR. RA.
MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE CHAIR
YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. SURE.
MR. RA: THANK YOU. JUST REALLY ONE MAIN QUESTION.
SINCE THIS IS THE ELFA BILL, WHERE'S THE EDUCATION? THERE SEEMS TO BE
A LOT OF STUFF OMITTED, OR WHERE ARE WE GOING TO SEE SOME OF THOSE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE WILL SEE MUCH OF -- MUCH OF
THAT, WHICH TOOK A LOT OF TIME TO FINALLY COME TO AGREEMENT, IN OUR
REVENUE BILL LATER TODAY, THIS EVENING.
MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. RA: QUICKLY, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR
THIS POINT, BUT WE HAVE -- THIS HAS BECOME COMMONPLACE THE LAST FEW
YEARS THAT WE DO ELFA WITHOUT THE EDUCATION IN IT. AND IT -- LIKE
POINTS THAT WERE RAISED ON THE PREVIOUS BILL, WE CONTINUE TO SIT HERE AND
DEBATE AND HAVE TO VOTE ON BILLS WITHOUT A COMPLETE PICTURE OF WHAT
OUR ENTIRE BUDGET IS AND -- AND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH IT. SO, JUST
BECAUSE IT'S BECOME SOMETHING WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, JUST BECAUSE IT'S
131
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
-- IT'S SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE EASIER, REALLY ISN'T A REASON TO
CONTINUE TO DO THINGS IN -- IN THIS MANNER. SO, MAYBE WE SHOULD, YOU
KNOW, WHEN TALKING ABOUT THIS PROCESS, YOU KNOW, IT'S GREAT THAT THE
LAST BILL AND THIS BILL AND THE NEXT BILL WERE -- WERE IN BY THURSDAY
EVENING AND HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO AGE, EVERY SINGLE BILL OF A
$170-PLUS BILLION BUDGET SHOULD SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY. THE PUBLIC
SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THEM. YOU KNOW, WE JUST HAD A --
THE REVENUE BILL JUST CAME OUT ON -- ON A SUNDAY AFTERNOON. IT -- IT
REALLY IS -- IT'S NOT AN EXCUSE TO -- TO DO GOVERNMENT THIS WAY. IT'S -- IT'S
JUST NOT RIGHT FOR -- FOR ANY OF OUR CONSTITUENTS. AND I REALLY DON'T HAVE
MUCH MORE TO SAY THAN THAT.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MS. WALSH.
MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
SPONSOR YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MS. WALSH: GOOD -- GOOD AFTERNOON, MS.
WEINSTEIN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MS. WALSH: I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PINS
PROVISIONS, THE REFORM -- PERSONS IN NEED OF SUPERVISION PROVISIONS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MS. WALSH: OKAY. WHICH IS TITLE XII. SO, THIS --
132
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THIS SECTION TALKS ABOUT TO THE EXTENT THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE, FUNDING
FOR THIS PROGRAM WILL BE GIVEN TO THE HIGHEST-NEED MUNICIPALITY, WHICH
SHALL MEAN A COUNTY OR A CITY WITH A POPULATION OF ONE MILLION OR MORE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, THIS IS -- I THINK YOU'RE
REFERRING TO FAMILY SUPPORT --
MS. WALSH: YES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- SYSTEMS. SO, THIS WOULD BE IN
ADDITION TO -- PRE -- PRE-DETENTION AND POST -- OH, IN -- I'M SORRY, IN
ADDITION TO OTHER DIVERSION SERVICES THAT MAY ALREADY EXIST.
MS. WALSH: RIGHT. AND I'M REALLY FAMILIAR FROM
WORKING AT FAMILY COURT ABOUT THE PINS PROCESS AND THE -- AND THE
SYSTEM. THE -- THE PROGRAM THAT THIS BILL ENCOMPASSES WOULD PROVIDE
RAPID FAMILY ASSESSMENTS AND SCREENINGS, CRISIS INTERVENTION, FAMILY
MEDIATION AND SKILLS BUILDING, MENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES,
INCLUDING COGNITIVE INTERVENTIONS, CASE MANAGEMENT, RESPITE SERVICES,
EDUCATION ADVOCACY AND OTHER FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES. AND I THINK ALL
OF THOSE SOUND GREAT. AND MY QUESTION IS, WHY ARE WE LIMITING THOSE
WONDERFUL SERVICES TO ONLY AREAS WITH ONE MILLION OR MORE IN
POPULATION? WHICH WOULD OMIT MANY DIFFERENT AREAS OF OUR STATE THAT
WOULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM THESE SERVICES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: ANY COUNTY OR LOCALITY CAN -- CAN
OPT INTO IT. IT'S NOT LIMITED JUST TO THE OVER A MILLION.
MS. WALSH: OH, OKAY. I WAS LOOKING AT SECTION
458-N THAT SEEMED TO -- SEEMED TO LIMIT IT TO A POPULATION OF ONE
MILLION OR MORE. SO, COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY? THERE IS AN OPT-IN?
133
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YOU KNOW -- SO, LET ME JUST
AMPLIFY WHAT I'M SAYING, IS THAT MULTIPLE COUNTIES CAN JOIN TOGETHER TO
-- TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES AND THEN HAVE ONE SITE JUST SO THAT IT DOESN'T
BECOME BURDENSOME ON ANY INDIVIDUAL SMALLER COUNTY.
MS. WALSH: SO, IN OTHER WORDS, MULTIPLE
COMMUNITIES COULD AGGREGATE THEIR POPULATION --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MS. WALSH: -- AND THEN PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES ON
A SHARED BASIS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MS. WALSH: GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MS. WALSH: -- FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. SMITH.
MR. SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. SMITH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN 2019 IT WAS
ESTIMATED THAT NEW YORK IS HOME TO 2.2 MILLION STUDENT LOAN
BORROWERS. THESE BORROWERS HOLD A CUMULATIVE STUDENT LOAN DEBT OF
$73-AND-A-HALF BILLION, THE THIRD HIGHEST IN ANY STATE IN THE NATION. HAS
ANYTHING BEEN DONE IN THE BUDGET PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE GROWING
STUDENT DEBT CRISIS?
134
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. WELL, NOT --WELL, FIRST OF
ALL, JUST -- AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF PROGRAMS IN OUR STATE TO ASSIST
STUDENTS, SO -- FINANCIALLY SO THAT THEY'RE NOT PUT IN THE POSITION OF
HAVING TO HAVE STUDENT LOANS. BUT WE DO HAVE BASICALLY A COUNSELING
PROGRAM THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR STUDENTS THAT WE JUST ADDED -- THAT WAS
RECENTLY ADDED TO THE -- THE BUDGET TO ASSIST STUDENTS IN JUST MAKING
THOSE DECISIONS.
MR. SMITH: OKAY. AND DOES THE BILL DO ANYTHING
WITH THE MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM AWARDS UNDER THE TAP PROGRAM? OR
DO WE ANTICIPATE ANY INCREASE IN THE TAP AWARDS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, WE DO NOT.
MR. SMITH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
MY LAST QUESTION: HAS THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE
ORIGINAL DREAM ACT BILL THAT WE DEBATED INTO LAW YET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. SMITH: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE ANTICIPATE THAT BILL WILL -- WILL
BE REPLACED BY WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
MR. SMITH: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH.
ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. SMITH: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO, I FIND IT
VERY INTERESTING IN THIS DEBATE, UNDER THIS BILL WE'RE REPEALING AND
135
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REPLACING THE DREAM ACT THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW. SO, I
FIND IT INTERESTING, ONLY -- ONLY IN ALBANY CAN WE REPEAL PROSPECTIVELY
SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY IS NOT THE LAW. AND UNDER THIS -- UNDER THIS
PROVISION, I'M VERY HAPPY TO SEE -- DURING OUR PREVIOUS DEBATE IN
JANUARY, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I RAISED WAS THAT STUDENTS ON VISAS,
FOREIGN STUDENTS ON VISAS STUDYING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK COULD
POTENTIALLY BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE TAP AWARDS AND TUITION ASSISTANCE. I'M
HAPPY TO SEE THAT THIS VERSION DOES AMEND THAT AND CHANGE THAT AND
REMOVE THAT BECAUSE THAT DIDN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. BUT I'M NOT REALLY
THRILLED, AND THE PEOPLE I REPRESENT ARE NOT HAPPY THAT THERE'S STILL NO
ADDITIONAL TIME THAT SOMEONE MUST RESIDE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN
ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE. SO, UNDER -- UNDER THE CURRENT WAY THAT THE
DREAM ACT IS -- IS SET UP, SOMEONE COULD LIVE IN THE STATE FOR AS FEW
AS 30 DAYS, AND IF THEY CAN PASS THE GED EXAM, THEY COULD BE ELIGIBLE
FOR STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. ALSO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE DREAMERS, THERE'S STILL NOTHING IN THE NEW REVISED VERSION OF
THE DREAM ACT THAT WOULD SET AN AGE CAP AT 21 OR ANYTHING, OR ANY
REQUIREMENT THAT SOMEONE LIVE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR, SAY, 15
YEARS OR TEN YEARS OR FIVE YEARS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE TRULY THE
PEOPLE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HELP. UNDER THIS BILL, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD
HAVE A 45-YEAR-OLD MAN WHO COMES TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ENTERS
THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY, AND IF THEY COULD PASS THE GED EXAM AFTER 30
DAYS, THEY COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PAID FOR BY NEW
YORK STATE TAXPAYERS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S STILL, I THINK, A
CONCERN ON THIS BILL. AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IT REPEALS AND
136
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REPLACES PARTS OF THE DREAM ACT, I WISH THIS COULD BE SENT BACK TO
THE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE AND GONE BACK TO THE PROCESS,
BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T -- THAT BILL HAS NOT BEEN ENACTED INTO LAW. SO, TO
REPEAL AND REPLACE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THE LAW DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE
LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. WALCZYK.
MR. WALCZYK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. IF THE
SPONSOR WOULD YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. WALCZYK: TO -- TO SORT OF PIGGYBACK ON A
COUPLE OF MS. WALSH'S QUESTIONS ABOUT PINS, I WAS WONDERING IF YOU
-- WHEN -- WHEN THAT PIECE OF THIS BILL WAS WRITTEN, DID YOU HAVE A
CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN MIND IN NEW YORK STATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT CAN BE DONE ACROSS THE
STATE, AS -- AS I MENTIONED TO ASSEMBLYWOMAN WALSH.
MR. WALCZYK: YEAH, THANK YOU, AS -- AS -- I
APPRECIATE THAT. AND AS I READ IT, IT'S TWO OR MORE ELIGIBLE
MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN A CLOSE GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER. I -- I
WAS WONDERING, THE TWO COUNTIES THAT I REPRESENT, ST. LAWRENCE AND
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WHICH ARE -- ARE PRETTY LARGE, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF
THE POPULATION OF EITHER ONE OF THOSE COUNTIES?
137
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. SO, WITHOUT KNOWING THE
POPULATION, MAYBE JUST TO CLARIFY. THE COUNTIES CAN COMBINE -- IF THEY
DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE ALLOWED TO COMBINE TO
DEVELOP THE PROGRAM. BUT EACH COUNTY CAN DEVELOP THE PROGRAM
INDEPENDENTLY IF THEY WISH TO.
MR. WALCZYK: I -- I APPRECIATE THAT, MADAM
CHAIRWOMAN, AND -- AND THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. TO -- 114,000 IN
JEFFERSON COUNTY AND 112,000 IN ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY. AND -- AND IF
YOU'RE AT ONE END OF ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY AND THE OTHER END OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, THESE ARE TWO COUNTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT, YOU
WOULDN'T CONSIDER YOURSELVES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. BUT I THINK YOU
WOULD FIND THAT NORTH OF THE THRUWAY, YOU'D PROBABLY HAVE TO COMBINE
TEN COUNTIES IN ORDER TO REACH THE POPULATION REQUIREMENTS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, SO, THEY -- THEY CAN
EACH HAVE THEIR -- YOU KNOW, THEY -- THEY CAN DEVELOP THEIR -- THEIR OWN
PROGRAM. I THINK THE CONFUSION RELATES TO THAT NEW YORK CITY ISN'T
DESIGNATED AS NEW YORK CITY, IT'S JUST ON THE -- WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A
CITY OF A POPULATION OF ONE MILLION OR MORE, WE'RE REALLY JUST TALKING
ABOUT NEW YORK CITY.
MR. WALCZYK: OKAY --
MS. WEINSTEIN: PERHAPS THAT'S SOME OF THE
CONFUSION.
MR. WALCZYK: WELL, I -- I APPRECIATE THAT AND I'LL
-- I'LL MOVE ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION, IF YOU'LL CONTINUE TO YIELD.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
138
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. WALCZYK: SO, IF -- IF COUNTIES DON'T OPT IN OR
THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO CREATE THEIR OWN PROGRAM, WILL THIS TAKE A -- TAKE A
TOOL AWAY FROM THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES WHO MAY HAVE USED DETENTION
IN THE PAST AS AN OPTION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT WON'T TAKE SOMETHING AWAY
BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT EXISTS TODAY. IT'S AN ADDITIONAL TOOL FOR
THE FAMILY COURT TO HAVE.
MR. WALCZYK: SO, EXACTLY WHAT -- WHAT ARE THE --
WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR, LET'S SAY, A STUDENT IN A HIGH SCHOOL THAT'S
REFERRED TO THE -- TO THE SYSTEM? OR, YOU KNOW, A CHILD OF -- OF A SINGLE
PARENT WHO IS UNRULY AND IS -- IS IN THAT AREA WHERE THEY'RE IN NEED -- IN
NEED OF PINS. WILL THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFER TO DETENTION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT -- RIGHT NOW THERE ARE A
HOST OF -- OF DIVERSION SERVICES THAT CAN BE PRE-PETITIONED,
POST-PETITIONED THAT EXIST THROUGHOUT OUR STATE.
MR. WALCZYK: BUT DETENTION IS NOT ONE OF THOSE
OPTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: ONCE A PETITION IS FILED, THEY CAN
BE -- THEY CAN, IN FACT, BE DETAINED. YES.
MR. WALCZYK: OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE
THAT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. WALCZYK: AND IF YOU'D CONTINUE TO YIELD, I
ALSO HAVE A -- A QUESTION ABOUT THE -- HOW -- HOW MUCH MONEY IS GOING
TO BE NECESSARY TO BRING NEW YORK STATE INTO FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE
139
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CHILDCARE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT MOVING FORWARD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. SO, WE PROVIDE $80- --
$80 MILLION HERE. BUT FULL COMPLIANCE WE BELIEVE WOULD BE CLOSE TO
$500 MILLION.
MR. WALCZYK: OKAY. I'M -- I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T -- I
DIDN'T HEAR THAT. COULD YOU SAY THAT FIGURE AGAIN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE PROVIDE EIGHT -- WE PROVIDE
$80 MILLION TO MEET THE FEDERALLY-REQUIRED HEALTH AND SAFETY MANDATES.
AND I CAN GO THROUGH THE LIST OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, BACKGROUND CHECKS
BEING THE --THE MAIN ONE. BUT WE ESTIMATE THAT IT -- IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT
$500 MILLION TO FULLY -- TO HAVE -- TO FULLY COMPLY THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
MR. WALCZYK: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY --
ANY INFORMATION FROM OCFS HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL STAFF THAT WOULD --
THEY WOULD REQUIRE, AND IS THERE AN APPROPRIATION THAT WOULD MATCH
THAT REQUIREMENT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WHICH -- FOR WHICH PORTION --
MR. WALCZYK: IN ORDER TO DO THE ACTUAL
INSPECTIONS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: FOR ALL OF THE -- JUST FOR THE -- FOR
THE INSPECTIONS PIECE? BECAUSE MOST OF THE... WELL, I MEAN, WE HAVE
$31 MILLION THAT WE HAVE FOR INSPECTIONS. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT --
WHAT PORTION OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF STAFFING.
MR. WALCZYK: OKAY. I -- I SEE THERE'S ALSO A -- A
REQUIREMENT AND THIS IS TO COME INTO -- TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL
REGULATIONS THAT HEALTH CARE -- OR THAT CHILD CARE PROVIDERS WILL NOW BE
140
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LICENSING EVERY TWO YEARS, WHERE THEY WERE LICENSING EVERY FOUR. MY
QUESTION IS ABOUT THE CORRESPONDING FEE FOR THAT LICENSE, BECAUSE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT, NO --
MR. WALCZYK: -- BECAUSE WE'RE NOW --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- I THINK IT -- IT MAY BE THE
OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IT'S TWO NOW, IT'S GOING TO GO TO FOUR.
SO IT'S GOING TO BE EXPANDED. THE -- THE TIMEFRAME IS GOING TO BE
EXPANDED FOR THE --
MR. WALCZYK: THAT'S -- THAT'S NOT MY -- MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT -- IT'S CURRENTLY AT EVERY FOUR YEARS AND IT WILL
BE REDUCED TO TWO.
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. WALCZYK: OKAY. I APPRECIATE THE
CLARIFICATION THERE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S GOING -- IT'S GOING TO FOUR
YEARS.
MR. WALCZYK: SO, WILL THE -- WILL THE LICENSE FEE
FOR OUR CHILDCARE PROVIDERS BE DOUBLING, OR WILL IT -- WILL IT MAINTAIN --
DO WE...
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE -- WE DON'T -- WE DON'T
CHANGE THE LICENSE FEE.
MR. WALCZYK: AND A -- A FINAL QUESTION. WHAT --
WHAT ARE WE DOING TO HELP WITH THE COSTS OF THOSE CHILDCARE PROVIDERS?
IN MY DISTRICT, THIS HAS COME UP TIME AND TIME AGAIN. I VIEW IT AS ONE
OF THOSE BRIDGES OUT OF POVERTY FOR A LOT OF FAMILIES IN THE NORTH
141
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
COUNTRY AND ACROSS THE STATE. WHAT ARE WE DOING IN THIS -- IN THIS
BUDGET TO ASSIST CHILDCARE PROVIDERS AND BRING THAT COST DOWN FOR
FAMILIES IN NEW YORK?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, WE DO -- WE -- WE DO HAVE
$10 MILLION FOR ADDITIONAL CHILDCARE SLOTS. YOU KNOW, THE $80 MILLION
THAT I MENTIONED IS FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR INFANT CARE QUALITY
EFFORTS, INSPECTION, TRAINING PROGRAMS, STAFFING SYSTEM CHANGES. WE DO
HAVE $8.7 MILLION FOR CHILDCARE SUBSIDIES FOR PEOPLE AT THE 69TH
PERCENTILE.
MR. WALCZYK: I'M SORRY, MADAM CHAIR, DID YOU
SAY $8.7 MILLION FOR CHILDCARE SUBSIDIES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: EIGHT -- $8.7 MILLION FOR
CHILDCARE SUBSIDIES FOR THE FAMILIES. YOU KNOW, TO DEAL WITH FAMILIES
WHO ARE CARED FOR WHO ARE AT THE 69TH PERCENTILE OF POVERTY.
MR. WALCZYK: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I APPRECIATE IT.
MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. WALCZYK: SO, IN -- IN POOR AND RURAL UPSTATE
AREAS, I -- I VIEW CHILDCARE AS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IS A BRIDGE OUT OF
POVERTY. IT IS LITERALLY ONE OF THOSE CHANCES THAT CONSTITUENTS HAVE, THAT
SMALL FAMILIES HAVE TO -- TO GET THEMSELVES OUT OF POVERTY. BY
SUPPORTING THIS, WE CAN HELP GET THEM THERE. BUT THIS BUDGET DOES NOT
GO FAR ENOUGH. WHEN WE HAVE A $15 MINIMUM WAGE THAT'S PRESSURING
DOWN ON THEM, ADDITIONAL STAFF TRAINING TIME THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO -- HAVE
TO GET IN LINE WITH. ONLY AN $8.7 MILLION RESTORATION IN CHILDCARE
142
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SUBSIDY, WHICH ISN'T BACK TO THE 2016 LEVEL. A REQUEST FOR $2 MILLION
FOR INFANT AND TODDLER CARE THAT'S -- LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE FUNDED AT
A LESSER LEVEL THAN THAT. THE AVERAGE FAMILY IN NEW YORK STATE RIGHT
NOW SPENDS $16,000 A YEAR ON CHILDCARE, AND WE DEFINITELY NEED TO DO
MORE. THIS BILL -- THIS BUDGET DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH. AND I THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. MONTESANO.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL
THE CHAIRWOMAN YIELD, PLEASE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, BE HAPPY TO.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU. MS. WEINSTEIN,
JUST IN TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES I WANTED TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT.
THERE'S A PROVISION IN THIS BILL WHICH AUTHORIZES THE HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS TO SET REDUCED TUITION AND FEES FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
TAKING COLLEGE CREDITS. COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME A LITTLE BIT,
PLEASE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
CURRENTLY -- CURRENTLY EXISTS, PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE CUNY -- THE
CUNY SYSTEM, WHERE STUDENTS IN HIGH SCHOOL CAN GET CREDIT.
CURRENTLY, CUNY DOESN'T CHARGE TUITION. THERE WAS SOME QUESTION
WHETHER THEY HAD THE -- WHETHER THERE'S THE AUTHORITY FOR CUNY AND
SUNY TO DO THIS, SO WE'RE JUST EXPRESSLY GIVING THEM THE AUTHORITY TO
143
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DO THIS WITHOUT CHARGING TUITION.
MR. MONTESANO: BUT I KNOW NOW IN -- IN THE
HIGH SCHOOLS THEY HAVE THE ADVANCED PLACEMENT PROGRAM AND COURSES,
AND WHEN THE STUDENTS TAKE THESE COURSES AND THEY PASS THEM THEY CAN
GET COLLEGE CREDIT FOR THAT COURSE, BUT THAT'S TAKEN WITHIN THEIR OWN
SCHOOLS --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. MONTESANO: -- AND IT'S PROVIDED BY THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT. SO, HOW DOES -- HOW IS THAT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT -- THAT'S WHAT THIS IS
INTENDED TO COVER.
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY. SO, YOU -- SO, RIGHT NOW
-- WHO'S PAYING THAT EXPENSE NOW WHEN THEY'RE TAKING IT IN THEIR OWN
HOME SCHOOL DISTRICT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, IT'S EITHER THE STUDENT
THEMSELVES, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR THE COLLEGE MAY BE PROVIDING --
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- SCHOLARSHIPS.
MR. MONTESANO: AND WHERE IS THE FUNDING
GOING TO COME FROM TO ABSORB THIS COST?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS -- IT -- IT
ALLOWS THE ABILITY TO CHARGE REDUCED -- REDUCED TUITION OR TO WAIVE
TUITION, SO IT'S AN OPTIONAL PROGRAM. IT JUST, IN REALITY, GIVES THE ABILITY
OF SOME OF THAT PROGRAM THAT EXISTS TODAY TO CONTINUE.
MR. MONTESANO: BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON WHY I
144
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ASK, I THINK IT'S -- IT'S GREAT THAT THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ARE ABLE TO TAKE
THESE COURSES AND GET A LEG UP -- HAVE SOME COLLEGE CREDITS BEFORE THEY
GO TO COLLEGE. BUT THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO, RIGHT NOW I
KNOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS INCORPORATE THAT IN PART OF THEIR BUDGET. YOU
KNOW, SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOW THESE COURSES TO BE GIVEN AND
NOBODY'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE FOR IT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS STAFF THAT
TEACHES THE COURSES, THERE'S MATERIALS THAT HAVE TO BE PROVIDED. WHO'S
GOING TO ABSORB THE COST?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. THIS DOESN'T SAY THAT YOU
HAVE TO --
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- WAIVE THE TUITION OR REDUCE THE
TUITION. IT JUST GIVES THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT. IF THEY CAN DO IT WITHIN THEIR
--- THE VARIOUS BUDGETS, THEN THEY -- THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, IN FACT,
DO THAT.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU. THE NEXT AREA I
WANT TO JUST MOVE ON TO IS HOUSING. THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE BILL THAT
REMOVES CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS SEEKING
SHELTER IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER. AND IT SAYS THAT IF THEY ENTER THE
SHELTER, IT -- IT CHANGES -- IT REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT THAT IF THEY ENTER A
SHELTER THAT THEY MUST APPLY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, AND ALSO SOMETHING
ABOUT ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF SERVICE PROVIDERS TO CHARGE A FEE -- A
FEE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED. COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT,
PLEASE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE. I MEAN, YOU'RE -- YOU'RE
145
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CORRECT IN WHAT THE -- OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE CORRECT, MIKE, IN WHAT THE BILL
DOES. WE WERE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW REGARDING DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE VICTIMS WHERE WE HAD THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAD TO -- WE
REQUIRED THEM TO APPLY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. SO, WE REMOVED THAT
REQUIREMENT. IT'S STILL HOPED THAT SINCE THERE ARE MANY OTHER SERVICES
THAT YOU CAN GET IF YOU ARE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BEYOND JUST THE SHELTER,
WE WOULD HOPE THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS WOULD, IN FACT -- GIVEN
THE INFORMATION WOULD, IN FACT, APPLY, AND CERTAINLY WE WANT THEM TO
APPLY AND BE ABLE TO GET ADDITIONAL SERVICES THAT THEY MIGHT QUALIFY.
BUT WE REMOVED THE REQUIREMENT BOTH FOR THE FEES AND FOR THE --
HAVING TO -- HAVING TO APPLY BECAUSE THE -- AS I SAID, TO AVOID THE -- TO
COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW AND TO --
MR. MONTESANO: SO, RIGHT NOW --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- PREVENT ANY PENALTY FROM BEING
IMPOSED, FINANCIAL PENALTY IMPOSED UPON THE STATE.
MR. MONTESANO: SO, RIGHT NOW, IF SOMEONE
WHO'S A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SEEKS SHELTER, YOU KNOW,
EMERGENCY SHELTER ESPECIALLY, THE SHELTER PROVIDER CANNOT CHARGE THEM
FOR THEIR STAY THERE AND THEY DON'T -- AND THEY CAN'T REQUIRE -- I MEAN,
UNDER THIS BILL, I SHOULD SAY, I SHOULDN'T SAY, "CURRENTLY," -- UNDER THIS
BILL, THERE'S NO COST TO THE VICTIM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. SO -- CORRECT.
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THEY CAN'T -- THEY CAN'T CHARGE --
YOU KNOW, I WAS GETTING CAUGHT UP ON THE -- THE DATE --
146
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. MONTESANO: RIGHT, THAT'S OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- BECAUSE IT'S NOT -- THE MANDATE
DISAPPEARS WHEN WE PASS --
MR. MONTESANO: RIGHT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THIS LEGISLATION. BUT THERE WAS
AN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMO THAT WENT OUT --
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THAT HAS THE SHELTERS CURRENTLY
FOLLOWING THE -- WHAT, HOPEFULLY, WE'LL BE PASSING VERY SHORTLY.
MR. MONTESANO: VERY WELL. THANK YOU,
CHAIRWOMAN.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. LALOR.
MR. LALOR: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
SPONSOR YIELD FOR JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE. BE HAPPY TO.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. LALOR: THE LAST SECTION OF THIS BILL, PART DD, I
HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. IS THIS -- IS THIS PROVISION INCLUDED IN
REACTION TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE JANUS CASE FROM LAST
YEAR?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. LALOR: AND THE JANUS DECISION SAID BASICALLY,
147
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IF SOMEONE WHO'S NOT A MEMBER OF A UNION IS FORCED TO PAY DUES TO THAT
UNION, HER FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED IF THE
UNION USES THAT MONEY FOR POLITICAL SPEECH? IS THAT A -- IS THAT A FAIR
READING OF THE JANUS DECISION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. LALOR: AND DO YOU AGREE THAT WHETHER WE
LIKE A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, OR ANY COURT, BUT ESPECIALLY THE
SUPREME COURT, WE'RE BOUND BY IT, IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND?
MS. WEINSTEIN: UH... YES.
MR. LALOR: SO, THIS BILL SAYS, BASICALLY, BECAUSE
THE POWERS THAT BE IN NEW YORK STATE DON'T LIKE THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION, A NONUNION EMPLOYEE SEEKING TO VINDICATE HER FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY BRINGING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE OR THE
MUNICIPALITY THAT SHE WORKS FOR FOR TAKING DUES THAT THE SUPREME COURT
SAID VIOLATED HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, WE'RE SAYING SHE DOESN'T
HAVE STANDING. IN OTHER WORDS, SHE CAN'T BRING THAT SUIT IN A COURT IN
NEW YORK STATE. IS THAT A CORRECT READING OF THIS PROVISION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. YOU KNOW, SO -- I MEAN,
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT OVERRULING THE SUPREME COURT RULING DECISION IN
JANUS, WE'RE JUST PROVIDING SOME RIGHTS TO EMPLOYERS -- EMPLOYEES IN
NEW YORK STATE.
MR. LALOR: HOW ARE WE PROVIDING RIGHTS TO EITHER
EMPLOYERS OR EMPLOYEES WITH THIS PROVISION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I MEAN, WHAT WE -- WHAT WE'RE
DOING IS, WE'RE MERELY ALLOWING THESE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS TO RETAIN
148
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE FEES THAT WERE COLLECTED IN THE PAST, WHICH THEY HAD ANTICIPATED
BEING COLLECTED. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE -- IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE FEES TO BE
PAID IN THE FUTURE. IT JUST REQUIRE -- IT ALLOWS THEM TO MAINTAIN THE
CURRENT FEES THAT WERE COLLECTED AT THE TIME -- WITHIN -- WITHIN THE LAW
OF OUR LAND.
MR. LALOR: I AGREE THAT WE ARE ALLOWING THE
UNIONS TO KEEP THOSE DUES THAT -- THAT CAME IN PRIOR TO THE DATE OUTLINED
IN THE BILL. BUT AREN'T WE DOING ONE OTHER THING? AREN'T WE DENYING
STANDING -- DENYING THE EMPLOYEE THE RIGHT TO HIS OR HER DAY IN COURT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I DON'T -- I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
AT THE TIME THEY PAID THE DUES, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY -- THERE WASN'T AN
EXPECTATION THEY'D BE ABLE TO BRING AN ACTION TO RECOVER PAST DUES.
MR. LALOR: BUT ISN'T THAT FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE IF
-- IF -- IF A PETITIONER HAS STANDING?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: YEAH, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT
THERE WERE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS FROM THESE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT THESE WERE THE AMOUNT OF DUES THAT THEY HAD. THEY
ALLOCATED RESOURCES, BUDGETED BASED ON THAT, AND WE'RE JUST PRESERVING
THAT RIGHT.
MR. LALOR: I THINK THAT'S A VERY REASONABLE
ARGUMENT. BUT WHY DENY THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE EMPLOYEE TO BRING THE
UNION TO COURT AND HAVE THEM MAKE THAT VERY VALID ARGUMENT? WHY
ARE WE DOING THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I -- I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'RE
149
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PRECLUDING -- PRECLUDING SOMEONE FROM BRINGING AN ACTION --
MR. LALOR: WELL, BY DEFINITION WE ARE. IF YOU
TAKE AWAY STANDING TO BRING A SUIT IN -- IN COURT, YOU'RE DENYING THAT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE CHANGING
ANYTHING IN STANDING. I -- I THINK I HAVE A DIFFERENT READING THAN YOU
DO.
MR. LALOR: YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT READING? AND
CURRENT OR FORMER PUBLIC EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT HAVE STANDING TO PURSUE
THESE CLAIMS OR ACTIONS. WHAT -- WHAT IS YOUR READING OF THAT?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. IT -- IT'S JUST FOR THE DUES
COLLECTED PRIOR TO THE COURT CASE. SO, THEY CAN'T GO BACKWARDS. BUT
GOING FORWARD, WE -- FROM --
MR. LALOR: IS THAT FOR US TO DECIDE, OR IS THAT FOR A
COURT TO DECIDE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG HERE. THAT'S FOR
COURTS TO DECIDE, HOW TO INTERPRET THAT, HOW TO INTERPRET THE SUPREME
COURT DECISION.
IS THIS WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON? WE DON'T LIKE THE
JANUS DECISION AND WE'RE DENYING THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT SEEK
TO VINDICATE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THAT DECISION? IS THAT
REALLY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? AND THERE'S NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS,
ESPECIALLY IN A BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE THINK THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH
THE JANUS CASE.
MR. LALOR: ALL RIGHT.
150
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. LALOR: YOU KNOW, WE CAN SET ASIDE WHETHER
WE LIKE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION OR ANY SUPREME COURT DECISION.
BUT, THIS BUDGET BILL, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IS DENYING THE DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS OF... WE DON'T HOW MANY NEW YORKERS. WE MIGHT NEVER KNOW
HOW MANY NEW YORKERS BECAUSE THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO HAVE THEIR DAY
IN COURT. THIS BUDGET BILL THAT SAYS EVEN THOUGH THE HIGHEST COURT IN
OUR LAND SAID, YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. YOU
CAN'T GO TO COURT TO VINDICATE THOSE RIGHTS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU
SET FOOT IN THE COURTROOM. WE ARE, WITH THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION,
BLOCKING THE COURTHOUSE DOOR TO NEW YORKERS, TO HARDWORKING PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES. THIS IS UN-AMERICAN. IF NEW YORK CAN PREVENT THIS
PETITIONER FROM HAVING HER DAY IN COURT, WHAT OTHER PETITIONERS WILL BE
DENIED ACCESS TO OUR COURTS BECAUSE THEIR POSITION MIGHT BE POLITICALLY
UNPOPULAR BECAUSE ONE SIDE OF A DEBATE MIGHT BE A HUMONGOUS DONOR
TO -- TO POLITICIANS IN THIS STATE AND AROUND THE COUNTRY? IT'S A VERY
SLIPPERY SLOPE. IT'S A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. RAIA.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
CHAIRWOMAN YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, CERTAINLY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
151
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YIELDS.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU. AND YOU'RE HOLDING UP JUST
MARVELOUS, ALTHOUGH WE'VE GOT A LOT LONGER TO GO, I PRESUME.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE HAVE A LOT -- WE HAVE A LOT TO
DO.
MR. RAIA: EXACTLY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WILL CONTAIN
THEMSELVES A LITTLE.
(LAUGHTER)
MR. RAIA: I'M TRYING TO KEEP IT SHORT, TRYING TO KEEP
IT SHORT. BUT I -- I DO HAVE A CONCERN. THIS IS THE EDUCATION ARTICLE
VII BILL, AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE'S THOSE PESKY WORDS AGAIN
"INTENTIONALLY OMITTED." AND WHEN YOU INTENTIONALLY OMIT EDUCATION
FUNDING, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO VOTE ON A BILL WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN
KNOW WHAT THE END PRODUCT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. BUT I DO HAVE ONE
CONCERN, AND MAYBE YOU CAN SHED SOME LIGHT ON IT.
IN BOTH THE SENATE ONE-HOUSE AND THE ASSEMBLY
ONE-HOUSE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A PROVISION OR A TWEAK TO THE FORMULA
THAT WOULD ALLOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS FACING PENDING TAX CERTIORARI LAWSUITS
THAT COULD KIND OF TAP INTO BUILDING AID TO HELP OFFSET THE BLOW. THAT
WOULD'VE BEEN IN HERE, BUT SINCE EVERYTHING'S INTENTIONALLY OMITTED, CAN
YOU TELL ME IF THAT MADE IT INTO THE FINAL BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: UNFORTUNATELY, IT DID NOT.
MR. RAIA: IT DID NOT. THIS IS NOT JUST AN ISSUE THAT
AFFECTS MY DISTRICT. A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES FROM ALL OVER THE STATE
152
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED WITH THIS. WHY WAS IT TAKEN OUT OF -- OF THE FINAL
VERSION OF THE BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE COULDN'T GET -- COME TO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE EXECUTIVE.
MR. RAIA: I HAVE NO PROBLEM BLAMING THE
GOVERNOR. HE SEEMS TO BE THE REASON WHY WE'RE IN THIS PLACE IN THE
FIRST -- FIRST REASON. WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SCHOOL BUS SAFETY CAMERAS
THAT PASSED THIS HOUSE 146 TO 0?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE WERE NOT
ABLE AS PART OF THIS -- AS PART OF THE BUDGET TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT -- TO
GET A THREE-WAY AGREEMENT, SO IT'LL BE AN ISSUE WE'LL BE PURSUING OUTSIDE
OF THE BUDGET.
MR. RAIA: WAS THAT THE GOVERNOR PUSHING BACK
AGAIN? OR WAS IT THE SENATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT IS A
COMPLICATED ISSUE. WE ALL -- AS YOU SAID, WE ALL DID SUPPORT IT HERE, BUT
THERE ARE NUANCES THAT WE STILL HAVE TO RESOLVE TO GET A THREE-WAY
AGREEMENT ON IT.
MR. RAIA: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN AGAIN THERE'S THOSE
PESKY WORDS AGAIN, "INTENTIONALLY OMITTED." INCREASING PROTECTIONS
AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE. WHY WAS THAT
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL
BE -- POST-BUDGET, BE LOOKING AT TRYING TO GET AGREEMENT IN THAT ISSUE.
MR. RAIA: I -- I ACTUALLY AGREE. MOST OF THIS STUFF
153
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SHOULD BE POST-BUDGET AND NOT INCLUDED AND WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING
IT.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE WHICH CERTAINLY IS ALWAYS A BIG
ISSUE, ENACTING PROVISIONS RELATED TO RENT REGULATIONS. WHAT'S GOING ON
WITH THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT -- WELL, THERE WAS NO
PARTICULAR PROPOSAL IN THE BUDGET THAT THE GOVERNOR PRESENTED, AND THAT
IS AN ISSUE -- THEY DON'T EXPIRE UNTIL JUNE, AND WE'LL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO
-- AGAIN, A COMPLICATED ISSUE WE'LL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE,
NEGOTIATE AND WORK ON AN EXTENSION OF THAT BEFORE SESSION ENDS.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. RAIA: MR. SPEAKER, I -- MY SCHOOL DISTRICT
NORTHPORT, EAST NORTHPORT, SCHOOL DISTRICTS UPSTATE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN
NASSAU COUNTY, SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN PORT JEFF STAND ON THE VERGE OF
BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE OF A COMMITMENT THAT LIPA MADE TO THESE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS YEARS AGO WHEN WE DISSOLVED THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING
COMPANY. THESE TOWNS THAT HOST POWER PLANTS, SOME OF WHICH, LIKE
THE NORTHPORT POWER PLANT, IS 50 YEARS OLD IN ITS DESIGN AND ONE OF THE
MOST POLLUTING POWER PLANTS IN THE COUNTRY. RESIDENTS HAVE TO BEAR
THAT BURDEN. I REMEMBER WAKING UP EVERY MORNING AND WIPING THE
SOOT OFF OF MY CAR. JUST IMAGINE WHAT YOU'RE BREATHING 30, 40 YEARS
LATER FROM A PLANT THAT SHOULD BE EXTINCT OR AT LEAST REPOWERED. BUT
THESE COMMUNITIES HAVE SHOULDERED THAT BURDEN FOR MANY, MANY YEARS,
154
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BEING TOLD REPEATEDLY THAT, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T UNFAIRLY RAISE THE
ASSESSMENT ON THOSE POWER PLANTS, WE WILL NOT SUE YOU TO TRY AND LOWER
OUR TAX BILL. WELL, LIPA, THE LIPA BOARD WHICH IS PRIMARILY
CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNOR, HAS DECIDED TO GO BACK ON THEIR WORD,
LEAVING ONE OF MY SCHOOL DISTRICTS POTENTIALLY $56 MILLION IN THE RED.
THERE IS NO WAY THESE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THESE COMMUNITIES WILL
SURVIVE UNLESS WE TAKE POSITIVE ACTION NOW. THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY
WERE TOLD TO DO, AND NOW LIPA COMES IN AND SAYS, TOO BAD. WELL,
YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T WANT TO SEE SIGNS HANGING ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS
THAT SAY "CLOSED FOR BUSINESS" OR DEPRIVING MY STUDENTS OF PROGRAMS
THAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BECAUSE THEY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO DO THEM.
THE TIME IS NOW. THESE -- THESE DISTRICTS AND -- AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ARE IN COURT RIGHT NOW WITH LITERALLY A GUN POINTED AT THEIR HEAD. AND
WE STAND HERE AND WE RECOGNIZED THAT WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT
IT, BOTH THE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY, AND WE CAVED BECAUSE OF THE
GOVERNOR. WELL, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEALING WITH POLICY ISSUES AFTER
THE BUDGET, I CERTAINLY HOPE THIS IS ONE OF THEM.
I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY IS
NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR, AND THANK YOU TO
MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AND TO THE CHAIR FOR
HER ANSWERS. WOULD THE CHAIR YIELD FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
155
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MS. WEINSTEIN.
TOUCHING BASE ON THE FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM, YOU'VE
ANSWERED SOME QUESTIONS. CLEARLY, OUR COUNTIES CAN RUN THIS PROGRAM.
THEY CAN JOIN TOGETHER IN AGREEMENTS AND RUN IT COOPERATIVELY. I WANT
TO JUST BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 32, LINE 49 THAT DEALS WITH THE
FUNDING. AND AS I READ IT IT SAYS, TO THE EXTENT THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE
FOR SUCH PURPOSES AND SPECIFICALLY APPROPRIATE, THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES SERVICES SHALL DISTRIBUTE FUNDING, QUOTE, "TO THE HIGHEST
NEED MUNICIPALITY, WHICH SHALL MEAN A COUNTY OR A CITY WITH A
POPULATION OVER ONE MILLION." SO IS IT THE MEANING, THEN, OF THIS
LANGUAGE THAT THE FUNDING -- WHILE THE PROGRAM CAN BE RUN BY ANYBODY,
THE FUNDING IS ALLOCATED ONLY TO THOSE HIGH-NEED COUNTIES THAT ARE
DEFINED AS COUNTIES WITH A POPULATION OF OVER A MILLION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. SO WE DON'T -- I'M SORRY.
WE DON'T PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS, BUT THEY CAN USE EXISTING
PREVENTIVE SERVICES DOLLARS IF THEY HAVE FOR THIS PROGRAM.
MR. GOODELL: SO FOR ALL THE RURAL COUNTIES,
UPSTATE COUNTIES, ROCHESTER, BUFFALO, SYRACUSE, THEY CAN USE WHATEVER
FUNDS THEY HAVE EXISTING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SAME WITH THE -- SAME WITH THE
CITY OF NEW YORK.
MR. GOODELL: BUT THIS ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS ONLY
156
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AVAILABLE FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK OR OTHER COUNTIES WITH OVER A
MILLION IN POPULATION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO THE -- THE LANGUAGE IS -- IS
HERE. I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY IN ANTICIPATION THAT THE OTHER HOUSE WAS
GOING TO ADD SOME FUNDS THAT WOULD BE DIRECTED -- AS DIRECTED IN THIS
BUDGET. ULTIMATELY, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN SO THE LANGUAGE REMAINS HERE.
IN THE FUTURE IF THERE ARE APPROPRIATIONS, THAT IS HOW THEY WOULD BE
SPENT.
MR. GOODELL: IS THERE ANY REASON WHY ALL THE REST
OF THE STATE WAS EXCLUDED IN THE EVENT THERE'S ADDITIONAL
APPROPRIATIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THEY'RE NOT EXCLUDED. THERE
WAS, I GUESS -- YOU KNOW, THERE HAD BEEN AN INTENTION TO FUND A
PROGRAM IN NEW YORK CITY WITH SUPPLEMENTAL DOLLARS. THAT DIDN'T
HAPPEN, SO THE LANGUAGE REMAINS FOR THIS -- THESE EXTRA FAMILY
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.
MR. GOODELL: JUST A FRIENDLY SUGGESTION THAT TO
THE EXTENT WE DO APPROPRIATE SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE SUPPLEMENTAL
DOLLARS, IT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT PROGRAM THAT WOULD BENEFIT NOT JUST THOSE
LARGE MUNICIPALITIES, BUT ALL MUNICIPALITIES. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THE
LANGUAGE MIGHT BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ALL THE STATE OR SIMPLY TAKE THE
LANGUAGE OUT. JUST A SUGGESTION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THANK YOU.
MR. GOODELL: CAN I -- I'D LIKE TO TURN TO THE
LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME NONDISCRIMINATION ACT. THAT'S ON PAGE 41.
157
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GOODELL: NOW AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE
PURPOSE OF THIS BILL -- OR THIS SECTION OF THE BILL, IS TO SAY A BUILDING
OWNER CANNOT DISCRIMINATE IN ANY WAY AGAINST A POTENTIAL TENANT BASED
ON THE SOURCE OF THEIR INCOME AS LONG AS THE INCOME IS LAWFUL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: BUT THIS SPECIFICALLY STATES
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SECTION 8 VOUCHERS, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GOODELL: BUT YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A SECTION 8
VOUCHER IF THE BUILDING OWNER HAS A CONTRACT WITH HUD, A SECTION 8
CONTRACT, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I BELIEVE SO. THE -- THE SECTION 8
VOUCHER IS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, AND THEY CAN -- I -- I DON'T BELIEVE YOU
HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATE -- THAT THE HOUSING UNIT HAS TO HAVE A SEPARATE
AGREEMENT WITH -- WITH HUD. THEY HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS IN
THEIR APARTMENT, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE -- THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A
SEPARATE AGREEMENT.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, I ACTUALLY WAS INVOLVED IN
THIS PROGRAM. I HAVE ONE SINGLE APARTMENT, AND I RENTED IT TO AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO ASKED IF I WOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE SECTION 8 PROGRAM.
I SAID YES. I THEN WAS PRESENTED WITH A MULTI-PAGE SMALL-PRINT CONTRACT
THAT I HAD TO SIGN IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A SECTION 8
VOUCHER. HAS THE PROGRAM CHANGED SINCE THEN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SEE, MY FAMILIARITY IS -- IS
158
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DIFFERENT. THAT PEOPLE HAVE -- ACTUALLY HAVE THE SECTION 8 VOUCHER,
THEY'RE APPROVED AND THEN THEY SEEK AN APARTMENT IN WHICH TO LIVE.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, WAS IT THE
INTENT OF THIS LANGUAGE TO REQUIRE A BUILDING OWNER TO SIGN SUCH A
CONTRACT IF SUCH A CONTRACT WERE REQUIRED?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. NO, IT IS NOT.
MR. GOODELL: OKAY. AND DOES THIS REQUIRE THEN
A BUILDING OWNER TO SUBJECT THE BUILDING TO A HUD SECTION 8
INSPECTION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE IS A REQUIREMENT. THERE
ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR LIVING STANDARDS AND MAINTENANCE
STANDARDS IF IT IS -- FOR SOMEONE WHO IS A SECTION 8 TENANT LIVING IN AN
-- IN AN APARTMENT.
MR. GOODELL: AND SO THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES,
THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBJECT THEIR APARTMENT TO A HUD INSPECTION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'M -- I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY
WOULD DO THAT, BUT YES, THEY HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS IN THAT
APARTMENT.
MR. GOODELL: AND WOULD THIS THEN REQUIRE THE
BUILDING OWNER TO MAKE WHATEVER UPGRADES OR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
HUD IN ORDER FOR THE TENANT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SECTION 8 FUNDING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I MEAN,
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 8 ARE BASICALLY A HABITABILITY -- A HABITABLE
APARTMENT. SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE EXTRA REQUIREMENTS THAT A LANDLORD
WOULD HAVE TO -- WOULD HAVE TO UNDERGO, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE THE
159
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
POTENTIAL OF INSPECTIONS. THAT -- THAT PART OF IT IS CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: LOOKING AT PAGE 42, LINE 9. I
UNDERSTAND THIS BILL WOULD NOW MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO MAKE ANY WRITTEN OR
ORAL INQUIRY OR RECORD CONCERNING THE LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME. IS THAT
CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, IT WOULD SAY THAT YOU CAN'T
DISCRIMINATE BASED ON THE SOURCE OF INCOME.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, IT SAYS YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY
MAKE ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL INQUIRY OR RECORD REGARDING IT EITHER, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT'S -- THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: NOW AS YOU KNOW, MANY BUILDING
OWNERS ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO WHAT THEIR TENANTS MIGHT BE DOING THAT
MIGHT IMPACT OTHER TENANTS. IN PARTICULAR, A BUILDING OWNER, FOR
EXAMPLE, MIGHT BE HESITANT TO RENT TO A TENANT THAT'S ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL
DRUG SALES OUT OF THEIR APARTMENT OR PROSTITUTION OR GAMBLING OR OTHER
ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES THAT MIGHT IMPACT NEGATIVELY NOT ONLY THE BUILDING, BUT
THE REPUTATION OF THE BUILDING AND THE LAND -- AND THE BUILDING OWNER,
BUT ALSO THE TENANTS. IF YOU CANNOT INQUIRE AS TO THE SOURCE OF INCOME,
HOW IS A BUILDING OWNER TO DETERMINE OR EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THE
TENANT HAS LAWFUL INCOME OR UNLAWFUL INCOME THAT'S BEING USED TO PAY
THE RENT?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, THIS DOES NOT PREVENT
-- I BELIEVE THIS DOES NOT PREVENT THE LANDLORD FROM -- IF THEY --
CURRENTLY YOU DO A CREDIT CHECK ON A TENANT BEFORE THEY HAVE THEM SIGN
160
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
A -- AGREE TO SIGN A LEASE. THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THAT. IT JUST SAYS YOU
CAN'T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON THAT INFORMATION. SO, BASED ON THE FACT THAT
THERE'S A SECTION 8 VOUCHER THAT'S GOING TO PAY A PORTION OF -- OF THEIR
RENT.
MR. GOODELL: YOU MENTIONED A BUILDING OWNER
DOING A CREDIT REPORT STILL ALLOWABLE UNDER THIS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GOODELL: AND CAN, THEN, THE BUILDING OWNER,
BASED ON THAT CREDIT REPORT, REQUIRE A HIGHER SECURITY DEPOSIT IF THE
TENANT'S CREDIT SCORE IS LOWER? I MEAN, AFTER ALL, IF THEIR CREDIT SCORE'S
LOWER THE LIKELIHOOD THEY'LL DEFAULT ON THEIR RENT IS HIGHER.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IF -- IF THEY COULD -- REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER IT WAS -- THE SOURCE OF INCOME WAS SECTION 8, THAT THAT'S THEIR
NORMAL PRACTICE, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE -- THIS WOULD PROHIBIT THAT.
MR. GOODELL: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR YOUR -- FOR YOUR RESPONSES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MS. DE LA ROSA TO EXPLAIN TO HER VOTE.
MS. DE LA ROSA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I WANT
161
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TO THANK SPEAKER HEASTIE, HIGHER ED CHAIR DEBORAH GLICK AND MY
COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR STEADFAST SUPPORT OF IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES IN
NEW YORK STATE. IMMIGRANTS, DOCUMENTED OR NOT, ARE NEW YORKERS,
AND TODAY WE WILL FINALLY SEE THE DREAM ACT BECOME REALITY IN OUR
STATE. THIS BUDGET INCLUDES $27 MILLION TO ENSURE THAT IMMIGRANT NEW
YORKERS HAVE ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION. THE DREAM ACT IS AN
EDUCATION EQUITY BILL. IT'S ABOUT LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR MILLIONS
OF FAMILIES IN NEW YORK STATE. WHEN WE OPEN THE DOOR TO EDUCATION
FOR ONE STUDENT, WE'RE OPENING THE DOOR OF OPPORTUNITY FOR MILLIONS OF
FAMILIES IN OUR STATE. I WANT TO THANK THE NEW YORK STATE DREAMERS
AND ADVOCATES FOR FOLLOWING US -- FOR ALLOWING US TO DRAW INSPIRATION
AND MOTIVATION FROM THEIR PERSONAL STRUGGLES. THERE HAVE BEEN
DECADES OF WORK -- OF DREAMERS COMING UP TO ALBANY EVERY SINGLE
SESSION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD CELEBRATE THIS MOMENT. AND
HONESTLY, THIS MOMENT IS LONG PAST DUE. WE HAVE A LOT MORE WORK TO
DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT IMMIGRANTS IN THIS STATE. LET ME BE
CLEAR. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT PROTECTION. IT'S ABOUT RESPECT. RESPECTING
THOSE WHO HAVE BUILT OUR COMMUNITIES, WHO HAVE WORKED, WHO HAVE
BUILT THIS ECONOMY. WHO HAVE BEEN BRAVE ENOUGH TO SPEAK UP AND
LOUDLY IN THE EFFORTS TO REDEEM FAIRNESS IN OUR STATE.
THANK YOU FOR PLACING YOUR TRUST IN ME TO BRING THIS
HOME FOR OUR CONFERENCE, AND I PROUDLY CAST MY VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. DE LA CRUZ [SIC]
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
162
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. PICHARDO.
MR. PICHARDO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO ABSTAIN TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK
ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THIS HOUSE, PARTICULARLY MEMBERS OF THE TASK
FORCE AS WELL AS MY COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE, FOR MAKING SURE -- AS
WELL AS, OBVIOUSLY, THE SPEAKER AND THE LEADERSHIP IN THIS HOUSE -- JUST
TO MAKE SURE THAT IMMIGRANTS IN THIS STATE HAVE A BETTER CHANCE AND A
BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FUTURE. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS
STATED FOR THE RECORD. THAT IT WAS THIS HOUSE THAT CARRIED THE WATER AND
MADE SURE THAT THE DREAM ACT STAYED ALIVE IN THE STATE. IT WAS THIS
HOUSE THAT MADE SURE THAT THAT FIGHT CONTINUED ON REGARDLESS OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE FOUND OURSELVES IN. IT WAS THIS HOUSE TO MAKE
SURE THAT FIGHTING FOR IMMIGRANTS WERE A PRIORITY NOT ONLY FOR OUR
COMMUNITIES AND FOR OUR DISTRICTS, BUT FOR THE STATE AND THIS NATION.
AND I HAVE BEEN IN THIS FIGHT MYSELF FOR PROBABLY THE BETTER PART OF A
DECADE, FIRST OF ALL IN THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND NOW TO THE STATE LEVEL AND
WE WERE ABLE TO PASS THIS AND GET THIS OVER THE FINISH LINE. BUT I
REMIND EVERYBODY THAT IT WAS THIS HOUSE, THAT WE MADE SURE TO PUSH
THAT THE DREAM ACT STAYED ALIVE, AND I ASK THAT MY FEDERAL
COLLEAGUES TAKE HEED IN THE WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE TODAY. IN THE -- IN
THE AGE OF DIVISIVENESS AND THE RHETORIC OF HATE, ESPECIALLY GEARED
TOWARDS IMMIGRANTS, I HOPE THAT THIS WILL SHOW A NEW DAY. THAT WE
CAN WORK TOGETHER AND MAKE SURE THAT IMMIGRANTS, LIKE ANY OTHER NEW
YORKER OR ANY OTHER AMERICAN, ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED
AND BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO BE A PART OF THIS GREAT AMERICAN EXPERIMENT.
163
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AND WITH THAT, I WILL PROUDLY CAST MY VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PICHARDO IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. CRUZ.
MS. CRUZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO THANK
MY COLLEAGUES. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, I GREW UP AS AN UNDOCUMENTED
NEW YORKER, AND I WASN'T LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE AROUND WHEN THE
DREAM ACT IS NOW BECOMING LAW. I HAD TO WORK TWO, THREE JOBS.
MY MOTHER HAD TO WORK TWO, THREE JOBS SO THAT I COULD BE HERE ONE DAY
AS YOUR COLLEAGUE. AND NOW THE DREAMERS DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH
THAT ANYMORE. SO I WANT TO THANK CARMEN. I WANT TO THANK SENATOR
SEPULVEDA, AND WHEREVER HE IS UP IN HEAVEN, SENATOR PERALTA BECAUSE
TODAY WE TELL DREAMERS, WE SEE YOU, WE LOVE YOU AND WE WILL FIGHT
FOR YOU. AND NOW WE MOVE ON TO FIGHT FOR THEIR PARENTS AND DRIVER'S
LICENSES FOR ALL, BECAUSE IMMIGRANTS HAVE MADE NEW YORK WHAT IT IS
TODAY. AND TODAY WE GET TO FIGHT AND GIVE BACK TO THEM.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. CRUZ IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. REILLY.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. AS I SPOKE WHEN WE DEBATED THE DREAM ACT
BEFORE THE LANGUAGE CHANGED THAT THE GOVERNOR HAD TO MAKE AND WE
HAD TO MAKE IN THIS BUDGET BILL, I SAID THAT WE WERE OPENING UP THE
164
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FLOOD GATES AND WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO COME HERE AS A
BEACON, WHICH WE ALWAYS ARE, RIGHT? WE WANT TO INVITE LEGAL
IMMIGRANTS. UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN THEY'RE ILLEGAL AND WE ASSIGN
FUNDING TO THAT, IT'S NOT ABOUT HATE. THIS IS ABOUT TAKING CARE OF OUR
OWN CITIZENS OF NEW YORK STATE THAT WE CAN'T -- WE HAVE TROUBLE
SENDING OUR OWN STUDENTS TO SCHOOL. WE DIDN'T FULLY FUND THE TAP
PROGRAM FOR OUR CURRENT LEGAL TAXPAYING STUDENTS, AND NOW WE'RE
OPENING IT UP WHERE YOU CAN HAVE SOMEONE COME HERE AND GET A GED
AFTER BEING HERE 30 DAYS AND THEN GET FREE TUITION. THIS IS THE REASON
WHY I HAVE TO VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE. AND IT'S -- IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BECAUSE
I THINK THIS IS JUST GOING TO -- IT'S GOING TO BE AN UNFUNDED MANDATE.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. WEPRIN.
MR. WEPRIN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I, TOO,
WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE DREAMERS. MY ASSEMBLY DISTRICT IS
ALMOST 60 PERCENT FIRST-GENERATION IMMIGRANTS. MANY OF THEM ARE
DOCUMENTED, SOME OF THEM ARE NOT DOCUMENTED. AND WE'VE BEEN
FIGHTING THIS CAUSE SINCE I'VE BEEN IN -- IN THIS HOUSE IN 2010 AND MANY
PEOPLE BEFORE THAT. SO I'M VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THIS
BUDGET FOR THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY AND FOR THE DREAMERS.
I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND PROUDLY VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. WEPRIN IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. SCHMITT.
165
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. SCHMITT: MR. SPEAKER, I RISE TO EXPLAIN MY
VOTE. I'LL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. DURING THE DEBATE I WAS VERY
DISAPPOINTED TO LEARN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICTS LIKE THOSE THAT I REPRESENT,
THE NORTH ROCKLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT DEALING WITH A SIGNIFICANT TAX
CERTIORARI DEBT WILL NOT RECEIVE THE RELIEF THAT THEY NEED AND DESERVE.
ORIGINALLY, $224 MILLION IN DEBT THROUGH A TAX CERTIORARI DEBT WAS
PLACED ON THE BACKS OF TAXPAYERS IN THE NORTH ROCKLAND SCHOOL
DISTRICT EQUALS OUT TO OVER $11 MILLION A YEAR. A PAYMENT OVER 30
YEARS WILL BE $365 MILLION WILL BE SPENT BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO
RELIEVE THIS DEBT. THERE SEEMED TO BE BIPARTISAN COOPERATION BETWEEN
BOTH CHAMBERS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IT FELL OUT OF THIS FINAL DOCUMENT. IT
IS UNACCEPTABLE. WE HAVE FAILED THE STUDENTS OF NORTH ROCKLAND, OF
LONG ISLAND AND OTHER DISTRICTS WHO ARE FACING THIS BURDEN, AND WE'VE
FAILED THE TAXPAYERS WHO ARE FACING THIS BURDEN AS WELL.
I WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE AND, AGAIN, STRESS HOW
DISAPPOINTED BIPARTISAN EFFORT HERE HAS FALLEN OUT. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. DENDEKKER.
MR. DENDEKKER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I -- I'M SO HAPPY THAT WE ARE FINALLY HERE TO SEE THIS
DREAM ACT PASS. I REMEMBER A LOT OF OUR COLLEAGUES THAT AREN'T HERE
ANYMORE -- SENATOR JOSE PERALTA WHO WAS AN ASSEMBLYMEMBER;
GUILLERMO LINARES, WHO WAS ALSO AN ASSEMBLYMEMBER; FRANCISCO
MOYA; AND, OF COURSE, OUR DEAR FRIEND MARCOS CRESPO ALL WORKED ON
THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION. AND WE SAW IT GO FROM A DREAM
166
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FUND TO A DREAM ACT, AND IT'S JUST SO, SO GREAT TO FINALLY SEE THIS PIECE
OF LEGISLATION NOT JUST MAKE IT TO ONE HOUSE, BUT TO MAKE IT INTO THE
BUDGET, TO PASS BY BOTH HOUSES AND NOW TO SEE IT REACH ITS FRUITION. I
THINK IT'S A -- A VERY SMART INVESTMENT ON THE PART OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK. WE-- WE EDUCATE CHILDREN UP UNTIL A CERTAIN AGE. AND THEN
WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR THEM TO MOVE ON TO GET A HIGHER EDUCATION, WE
WERE TELLING UNDOCUMENTED RESIDENTS OF -- OF NEW YORK, CITIZENS --
WELL, RESIDENTS THAT LIVE HERE, OUR NEIGHBORS, WE WERE TELLING THEM THEY
DON'T DESERVE A HIGHER EDUCATION. AND -- AND I'M JUST -- I'M SO PLEASED
TO BE ABLE TO STAND HERE TODAY. AND TO THE FAMILY OF JOSE PERALTA, I
HOPE YOU'RE WATCHING, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE SERVICE OF YOUR
-- YOUR DAD AND YOUR SPOUSE AND YOUR BROTHER FOR -- FOR DOING THE WORK
THAT HE DID FOR JACKSON HEIGHTS AND EAST ELMHURST.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. DENDEKKER IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. CRESPO.
MR. CRESPO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO EXPLAIN
MY VOTE. I AM EXTREMELY PROUD OF THE FACT THAT TODAY WE MAKE A DREAM
COME TRUE. (SPEAKING SPANISH) IF YOU'RE BILINGUALLY-CHALLENGED AND
DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I JUST SAID, I WILL ENCOURAGE YOU TO HELP ME
GET MORE BILINGUAL EDUCATION FUNDS IN OUR FOUNDATION AID. BUT THE
REALITY IS THIS: FOR THOSE THAT CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY THE
DREAM ACT AS SOMETHING THAT TAKES AWAY FROM SOMEONE ELSE, I SPEAK
TO NEW YORKERS ACROSS THE STATE TO UNDERSTAND THAT TAP IS AN
167
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. IF YOU QUALIFY, YOU WILL GET IT. THE FACT THAT WE
HAVE NOW SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO CREATE AN EXCELSIOR PROGRAM THAT
WASN'T MEANT FOR STRUGGLING PART-TIME STUDENTS IN MY COMMUNITY OR
PARENTS WHO ARE FORCED TO GO PART-TIME TO SCHOOL, IT WAS MEANT TO
SUPPORT MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES. AND THEY DESERVE IT, TOO. TO EXPAND
THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE IN SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES, NOT NECESSARILY IN
THE BRONX OR MY DISTRICT. IT'S NOT CUNY STUDENTS GETTING EXCELSIORS.
AND I'M PROUD TO SUPPORT THAT PROGRAM, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T MEANT
FOR MY KIDS. BUT TODAY WE DO SOMETHING FOR DREAMERS ACROSS THE
STATE. THEY DESERVE SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING
GREATER. THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THE GROWTH OF THIS STATE. THEY CONTRIBUTE
TO THE ECONOMIES OF RURAL PARTS OF THIS STATE, AND THEY ARE ALSO PAYING
TAXES AND CONTRIBUTING ECONOMICALLY. SO MAKING AN INVESTMENT IN
THEM, CONTINUING THE INVESTMENT THAT WE ALREADY MAKE K THROUGH 12,
TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET A COLLEGE EDUCATION IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO
FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK. AND TODAY, IN THE MEMORY OF JOSE PERALTA
AND ALL THOSE COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE SERVED IN THIS CHAMBER AND IN THE
GREAT LEADERSHIP OF MY COLLEAGUE CARMEN DE LA ROSA, I THANK THE
SPEAKER. I THANK OUR HIGHER EDUCATION CHAIR DEBORAH GLICK AND
HELENE WEINSTEIN, OUR WAYS AND MEANS CHAIR, BECAUSE TODAY WE
MAKE A DREAM COME TRUE. (SPEAKING SPANISH)
I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ARE THERE ANY OTHER
VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
168
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. WE CAN GO TO RESOLUTIONS ON PAGE 3, ASSEMBLY NO. 240 BY
MR. MAGNARELLI.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. 240, MAGNARELLI.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OPPOSING THE
ENACTMENT OF THE STATE LAW -- OF A STATE LAW, PURSUANT TO A FEDERAL
MANDATE, TO REQUIRE THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF THE DRIVER'S LICENSE
OF ANY INDIVIDUAL CONVICTED OF ANY VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES ACT OR ANOTHER DRUG LAW, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE OFFENSE
IS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL ON THE
RESOLUTION, SIR.
AN EXPLANATION IS REQUESTED.
MR. MAGNARELLI.
MR. MAGNARELLI: YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS
WOULD DECLARE THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE'S OPPOSITION TO A LAW
REQUIRING THE SUSPENSION, REVOCATION OR DELAY IN THE ISSUANCE OR
REINSTATEMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE OF A PERSON CONVICTED OF VIOLATING
THE FEDERAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT OR OF ANY DRUG OFFENSE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU. WOULD THE SPONSOR
YIELD?
169
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. MAGNARELLI: SURE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MAGNARELLI
YIELDS.
MR. GOODELL: MR. MAGNARELLI, UNDER OUR CURRENT
LAW IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS CONVICTED OF A FEDERAL DRUG OFFENSE IN NEW
YORK, THEY -- THEIR LICENSE CAN BE SUSPENDED, CORRECT?
MR. MAGNARELLI: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: AND THEY CAN ALSO THEN ASK FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES. DOES THAT ENABLE THEM TO
RESUME DRIVING IF IT'S GRANTED?
MR. MAGNARELLI: I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR THAT. YES.
MR. GOODELL: AND SO THE PURPOSE OF THE
SUSPENSION IS TO REQUIRE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A DRUG
OFFENSE TO GO THROUGH THAT EXTRA PROCESS --
MR. MAGNARELLI: I'M -- I'M HAVING TROUBLE
HEARING YOU. I'M SORRY.
MR. GOODELL: SO, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS CONVICTED
OF A DRUG OFFENSE --
MR. MAGNARELLI: YES.
MR. GOODELL: -- IN ORDER TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF
RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES, WOULD THEN NEED TO ESTABLISH THAT THEIR
PREVIOUS DRUG CONVICTION SHOULD NOT AND WOULD NOT AFFECT THEIR ABILITY
TO DRIVE SAFELY, CORRECT?
MR. MAGNARELLI: I WOULD IMAGINE SO.
MR. GOODELL: SO THE CURRENT PROCESS SAYS IF
170
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YOU'RE CONVICTED OF A DRUG OFFENSE, YOU'RE PRESUMED NOT TO BE A GOOD
DRIVER BECAUSE THERE'S A HIGHER RISK THAT YOU WOULD BE DRIVING WHILE
UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A DRUG UNLESS YOU ESTABLISH THROUGH THE
CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF PROCESS THAT IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. SHOULDN'T WE
MAINTAIN THE CURRENT PROCESS THAT PROTECTS ALL THE OTHER INNOCENT DRIVERS
AND HAVE THAT REVIEW PROCESS IN PLACE AND MAKE SURE THAT A DRIVER WHO
HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF VIOLATING DRUGS IN THE PAST IS CLEAN, DRY AND
SOBER BEFORE WE PUT THEM BACK ON THE ROAD AGAIN?
MR. MAGNARELLI: WELL, I GUESS THERE'S A NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AT THAT. THAT COULD BE ONE, OKAY? BUT
THERE'S ALSO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT FEEL THAT THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING
TO DO. THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS
FEELS THAT -- SHOWED A REPORT SHOWING THAT SUSPENDING LICENSES FOR
REASONS UNRELATED TO HIGHWAY SAFETY IS INEFFECTIVE AND POTENTIALLY
INCREASES THREATS TO PUBLIC SAFETY. THERE'S THE PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE,
A NON-PROFIT GROUP HAS STATED THAT, MANDATORY DRIVER'S LICENSE
SUSPENSIONS INTRODUCED NEW LEGAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BARRIERS FOR
PEOPLE REENTERING SOCIETY. SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS TO LOOK AT
HERE, AND THERE ARE ALSO -- YOU'RE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOMEONE
CONVICTED OF A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ACTUALLY TAKING THE DRUG. AND THAT
MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE CASE.
MR. GOODELL: AGREED. WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE
THE SAFETY VALVE IN THE CURRENT LAW WHICH ALLOWS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES. MY CONCERN, OF COURSE, IS THAT, YOU KNOW,
DRUNK DRIVING OR DRUG DRIVING CERTAINLY IS A LEADING CAUSE, IF NOT ONE OF
171
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE HIGHEST LEADING CAUSES, FOR INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING HURT, KILLED OR
MAIMED ON OUR HIGHWAYS. SO, DON'T WE WANT TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF
SAFETY FOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC?
MR. MAGNARELLI: IF YOU'RE CONVICTED OF DWAI
YOU STILL HAVE A SIX-MONTH REVOCATION.
MR. GOODELL: RIGHT.
MR. MAGNARELLI: THAT'S STILL THERE.
MR. GOODELL: RIGHT. SO MY QUESTION IS, DON'T WE
WANT TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF SAFETY FOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC BY REQUIRING
THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN AN ILLEGAL DRUG TRADE OR SALES OR POSSESSION
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'RE CLEAN, DRY AND SOBER BEFORE WE ALLOW THEM
TO DRIVE AGAIN ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS?
MR. MAGNARELLI: WELL, I THINK YOU'RE -- AGAIN,
YOU'RE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT THAT IS THE CASE. AND I'M SAYING
THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT MAY HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED OR SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED AS WELL. SO WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH ON THIS ALL DAY LONG.
YOU'RE SAYING ONE THING, I'M SAYING THE OTHER. I THINK WHAT WE'RE
SAYING IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION WITH THESE LAWS, AND I GUESS WE'RE GOING ON THAT SIDE.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
MAGNARELLI.
MR. MAGNARELLI: YOU'RE WELCOME.
MR. GOODELL: ON THE BILL, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,
NOT A BILL.
172
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU.
ON THE RESOLUTION.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: YES, SIR.
MR. GOODELL: UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE LITERALLY
THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT NEW YORKERS EVERY YEAR THAT ARE THE VICTIMS OF
CAR ACCIDENTS WHERE ONE OF THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTING CAUSES IS THE OTHER
DRIVER'S INTOXICATION OR IMPAIRMENT BY DRUGS. THE FEDERAL POLICY
STARTED WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THOSE WHO HAVE A FEDERAL DRUG
CONVICTION ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE USING THE DRUGS OR CONTRIBUTING TO THE
USE OF THE DRUG, WHICH IS CAUSING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT NEW YORKERS
TO BE HURT, KILLED OR MAIMED EVERY YEAR. WE HAVE A SAFETY VALVE IN THE
CURRENT SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS SUCH AN INDIVIDUAL TO APPLY FOR RELIEF FROM
DISABILITIES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER SUBJECT TO DRUG
ADDICTION AND THAT THEY CAN SAFELY DRIVE ON OUR HIGHWAYS. THE
QUESTION BEFORE US NOW IS DO WE ERR ON THE SIDE OF SAFETY FOR THE
INNOCENT PUBLIC THAT'S ON OUR ROAD, OR DO WE ERR ON THE SIDE OF LETTING
SOMEONE WHOM WE KNOW HAS BEEN DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ILLEGAL DRUGS TO
CONTINUE TO DRIVE WITHOUT UNDERGOING A REVIEW TO VERIFY THAT THEY ARE
NOW CLEAN, DRY AND SOBER.
I WILL BE ERRING ON THE SIDE OF SAFETY AND, THEREFORE,
WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS RESOLUTION. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MAGNARELLI.
MR. MAGNARELLI: MR. CHAIRMAN, ON THE BILL --
ON THE RESOLUTION.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,
173
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. MAGNARELLI.
MR. MAGNARELLI: JUST TWO THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO
MAKE SURE THAT I STATE HERE BEFORE WE'RE FINISHED. DATA SHOWS THAT
DRIVERS SUSPENDED FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY-RELATED REASONS ARE THREE TIMES
MORE LIKELY TO BE INVOLVED IN A CRASH THAN ARE DRIVERS SUSPENDED FOR
NON-DRIVING REASONS, AND THAT LIMITED RESOURCES SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON
DANGEROUS DRIVERS. ALSO, JUST AS A MATTER OF FACT, 38 TO 40 STATES HAVE
DONE THE SAME THING WE'RE DOING TODAY, AND NO -- AND THEY SHOW NO
INCREASE IN IMPAIRED DRIVING. SO I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT FOR THE
RECORD.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BARCLAY.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
THE SPONSOR YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MAGNARELLI, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MR. MAGNARELLI: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MAGNARELLI
YIELDS.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, BILL. I HEARD YOUR
DEBATE WITH MR. GOODELL. I BELIEVE UNDER -- TO GET A COMMERCIAL
DRIVER'S LICENSE YOU HAVE TO BE DRUG TESTED, CORRECT? AND IF YOU FAIL
THAT DRUG TEST YOU CAN'T HAVE THE -- DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
MR. MAGNARELLI: YES.
MR. BARCLAY: BUT WHY WOULDN'T YOU AGREE WITH
174
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT IF IT'S JUST REGULAR DRIVING? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
COMMERCIAL DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS VERSUS DRIVING A CAR
UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS?
MR. MAGNARELLI: BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
NOT ONLY DRIVING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BEING CONVICTED OF A DRUG OFFENSE
THAT HAS NOTHING DO WITH DRIVING.
MR. BARCLAY: RIGHT, BUT PRESUMABLY IT COULD. SO
WHY MR. GOODELL SAID THE EXACT THING IS WE ALREADY HAVE THE SAFETY
VALVE IN THERE. IT'S NOT LIKE SOMEONE CAN'T GET RELIEF ON THIS.
(PAUSE)
WE CAN GO ONE STEP FURTHER. HOW ABOUT AN AIRLINE
PILOT? NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS FLYING. HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF A
DRUG CRIME FOR TAKING DRUGS WHILE HE'S FLYING, BUT HE'S BEEN CONVICTED
OF A DRUG CRIME. I DON'T BELIEVE HE CAN GET A PILOT'S LICENSE. DO YOU
AGREE WITH THAT POLICY?
MR. MAGNARELLI: I GUESS THE THING THAT I'M
GETTING CONFUSED ON WITH THESE QUESTIONS A LITTLE BIT IS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN TAKING THE DRUGS AND USING THE DRUGS AND JUST BEING CONVICTED
OF A CRIME INVOLVING DRUGS AND NOT TAKING THEM.
MR. BARCLAY: SO -- UNDERSTOOD.
MR. MAGNARELLI: OKAY.
MR. BARCLAY: SO DO YOU BELIEVE IF YOU'RE
CONVICTED OF A CRIME OF DRUGS, SOMETHING TO DO WITH DRUGS, YOU SHOULD
BE ABLE TO GET YOUR COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE OR YOUR AIRLINE PILOT
LICENSE?
175
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. MAGNARELLI: NO, YOU WON'T.
MR. BARCLAY: I KNOW YOU CAN'T, BUT WHAT'S THE
DIFFERENCE HERE?
MR. MAGNARELLI: YOU WON'T. YOU STILL WON'T.
MR. BARCLAY: I'M MISSING. MY POINT IS WHY
SHOULD WE ALLOW -- WE DON'T ALLOW THEM TO GET A COMMERCIAL LICENSE,
DON'T LET THEM GET A PILOT'S LICENSE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THEY SHOULD BE
ABLE TO GET THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THANK YOU, MR. MAGNARELLI.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,
THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MR. ABINANTI TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. ABINANTI: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. ON THE
FACE OF THE RESOLUTION IT GIVES US THE BACKGROUND AS TO WHY WE'RE DOING
THIS. IT INDICATES THAT THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION IS REQUIRED TO
WITHHOLD 8 PERCENT OF THE STATE'S HIGHWAY-RELATED FUNDS UNLESS THE
STATE DOES ONE OF TWO THINGS, WHICH IS EITHER AN ACT OF LAW WHICH
WOULD REQUIRE A SIX-MONTH SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF THE DRIVER'S
LICENSE OF AN INDIVIDUAL CONVICTED OF A DRUG-RELATED MATTER, OR
ALTERNATIVELY, PASS A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE OPPOSITION TO THE
ENACTMENT OF SUCH LAW. SO WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY IS COMPLYING WITH
THE FEDERAL STATUTE BY -- BY SHOWING OUR OPPOSITION TO THIS PARTICULAR
LAW. IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY OUR COMMITTEE AND OTHERS WHO HAVE
WORKED WITH THEM THAT THIS LAW IS UNJUST. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS
176
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CONVICTED PERHAPS OF POSSESSION OF DRUGS, DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY
SHOULD BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO DRIVE. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IS
COMPLYING WITH THE FEDERAL STATUTE, SAYING WE DISAGREE WITH THIS. AND
I'M EXPECTING THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO EVENTUALLY IS AMEND OUR LAW
TO DO AWAY WITH THAT OTHER REQUIREMENT WHICH IS CLEARLY MORE IN LINE
WITH THE TYPES OF THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO DO AS AN ASSEMBLY TO ALLOW
PEOPLE TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND NOT HAVE UNREALISTIC
RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THEM SO THAT THEY CANNOT WORK IN OUR
COMMUNITY, CANNOT SEE THEIR FAMILIES AND -- AND FREELY TRAVEL IN OUR
COMMUNITY.
SO I RISE TO SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION, AND I COMMEND
THE SPONSOR FOR SETTING IT BEFORE US.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. RAIA.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. JUST TO QUICKLY
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. WE HAVE TWO CHOICES: ONE, PASS A -- A -- A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT CODIFIES WHAT THE FEDS WANT OR EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITION
TO IT. I HAPPEN TO THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING THE OPPOSITE AND PASSING A
RESOLUTION. WHETHER YOU'RE CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF DRUGS, BUT MORE
IMPORTANTLY, SELLING OF DRUGS. SUFFOLK COUNTY HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST
DRUNK DRIVING, DRUG DRIVING RATES IN THE STATE, IF NOT IN THE COUNTRY. I
DON'T THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE REWARDED THAT MAY HAVE BEEN BUSTED FOR
SELLING DRUGS OUT OF THEIR CAR BY GIVING THEM THEIR LICENSE BACK. SO I
WOULD HOPE WE'D TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THIS AND -- AND DO THE RIGHT THING
AND SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO THOSE THAT -- THAT SELL DRUGS, PARTICULARLY
177
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HEROIN, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE CONSEQUENCES THAT COME THAN JUST
JAIL TIME, POTENTIALLY.
THANK YOU. I VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MONTESANO TO
EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. FOR
THE REASONS SET EFFORTS BY MY COLLEAGUES, ESPECIALLY MOST RECENTLY FROM
MY COLLEAGUE FROM SUFFOLK COUNTY, I'LL BE VOTING NO. AND I JUST -- TO
ADDRESS MY COLLEAGUE FROM WESTCHESTER, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE RULE IN
THIS STATE AND UPHELD BY THE COURTS THAT A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS A PRIVILEGE
AND NOT A RIGHT, AND WHEN YOU'RE CONVICTED OF CERTAIN OFFENSES, YOU
LOSE THAT PRIVILEGE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN THIS STATE.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ARE THERE ANY OTHER
VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF WE CAN
NOW TURN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 4 - WE'RE STILL ON OUR BUDGET BILLS --
WE'RE AT RULES REPORT NO. 43, AND IT IS ON DEBATE BY MEMBER
WEINSTEIN.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MS.
WEINSTEIN, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS
ADVANCED. (A.02005-C)
178
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. BARCLAY.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
THE CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, I'D BE DELIGHTED TO.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, HELENE. NOW THAT
WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR SEVERAL HOURS, I JUST WONDERED IF YOU COULD GIVE
THE HOUSE AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE STAND ON -- I THINK WHEN WE TALKED
FIRST THIS MORNING WE STILL HAD THREE -- THREE BILLS AND WE HADN'T SEEN
THE AID TO LOCALITIES YET, BUT I -- THAT'S -- I THINK WE'VE SEEN THAT.
WHERE ARE WE ON THE OTHER THREE? STATE OPS, REVENUE AND
LEG/JUDICIARY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I BELIEVE THERE -- WELL, I KNOW
THAT THE REVENUE WAS PRINTED AND STATE OPS WAS PRINTED AND LEGI/JUDI
WAS PRINTED.
MR. BARCLAY: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO I THINK WE ARE --
MR. BARCLAY: WELL YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK
HERE SO WE CAN DIGEST THOSE; IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I THINK AFTER WE DO SOME OF
THIS, DEPENDING HOW FAST THIS GOES.
MR. BARCLAY: THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S THE RIGHT
179
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DIRECTION. HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE STILL A LITTLE BIT IN THE DARK
WITH THE FINANCIAL PLAN. HOW DO WE STAND ON THAT? IS THAT IN THE
WORKS, TOO?
MS. WEINSTEIN: AS WE -- AS WE MOVE ALONG TO
REVENUE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT, AND A LOT OF THE
INTENTIONALLY-OMITTED ITEMS THAT MR. RAIA CARED ABOUT.
MR. BARCLAY: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
CHAIRWOMAN. TO MOVE TO THE SPECIFICS ON THIS BILL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. BARCLAY: AIM FUNDING IS A BIG ISSUE WHERE I
LIVE. WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT IT SINCE THE GOVERNOR FIRST PROPOSED HIS
CUT TO AIM, AND THEN YOU'LL RECALL HE CAME OUT AND SAID, ALL RIGHT, I'M
GOING TO RESTORE AIM, BUT GOOD NEWS, COUNTIES, YOU CAN PAY FOR IT OUT
OF THE SUPPOSED SALES TAX, NEW SALES TAX REVENUE YOU'RE GOING TO GET. I
NOTICED AIM IS NOT IN THIS BILL. COULD YOU PROVIDE AN UPDATE WHERE
THAT STANDS? I ASSUME WE'RE GOING TO SEE IT IN FUTURE BILLS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT WAS INTENTIONALLY OMITTED FROM
THIS BILL. IT WILL BE IN THE REVENUE BILL, AND WE HAVE RESTORED THE $59
MILLION THAT THE -- THE $59 MILLION WILL -- FOR AIM WILL BE FOR THE TOWNS
AND VILLAGES THAT ARE -- WERE OMITTED FROM THE GOVERNOR'S ORIGINAL
BUDGET WILL BE PROVIDED FOR.
MR. BARCLAY: AND HOW -- WHO -- THE STATE'S
GOING TO PAY FOR THAT, OR IS THAT GOING TO BE OUT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE
COUNTY RAISES THROUGH SALES TAX?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, I'M -- I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE A
180
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FURTHER DISCUSSION WHEN WE GET THERE, BUT IT WILL BE THROUGH SALES TAX
REVENUES THAT COME INTO THE STATE THAT WILL BE INTERCEPTED AND THEN
GIVEN TO THE -- DISBURSED TO THE TOWNS AND VILLAGES.
MR. BARCLAY: OKAY, THANK YOU. SIMILARLY, WE
MAY HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS LATER, REAL PROPERTY TAX --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. BARCLAY: -- AND MAKING THE CAP PERMANENT.
AGAIN, INTENTIONALLY OMITTED.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. BARCLAY: WE'RE GOING TO SEE THAT LATER IN A
BILL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YES, WE WILL.
MR. BARCLAY: COULD YOU GIVE US A LITTLE SNEAK
PEEK OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING IN THAT? IS IT
-- IS IT IN THERE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I THINK IT'S BEEN WIDELY REPORTED
THAT THERE WILL BE A PERMANENT PROPERTY TAX CAP.
MR. BARCLAY: YOU KNOW, IT JUST LEADS ME TO
THINK THIS BUDGET, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, IS REALLY THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET.
IS THERE -- IS THERE -- WHAT DIDN'T THE GOVERNOR GET IN THIS BUDGET SO FAR?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE WERE -- THERE WERE A
NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE WE AMENDED SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT THE --
THE GOVERNOR PRESENTED WHERE WE RESTORED. WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT
SOME OF -- THE PRIOR TWO BILLS, RESTORATIONS THAT -- THAT WE MADE; SOME
OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS, REDUCED LUNCHES. AND
181
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AS WE GO FORWARD, EVEN IN THIS BILL, THERE ARE ADDITIONS THAT -- OR
CHANGES THAT WE MADE, AND THERE'S PLACES WHERE WE REDUCED. WHERE
WE OMITTED INTENTIONALLY AND NOT RETURNING PROVISIONS IN THE
GOVERNOR'S -- GOVERNOR'S BILL.
MR. BARCLAY: I'LL BE SURE TO KEEP MY EYES PEELED
FOR THOSE GOING FORWARD. THE LAST QUESTION, AND I THINK MY COLLEAGUES
ARE GOING TO SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME ON IT - IT'S BIG FOR US UPSTATE - THE
PRISON CLOSURE. THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION AROUND HERE. THIS
BILL ALLOWS THE GOVERNOR, WITH NOTICE TO THE LEGISLATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS,
TO CLOSE TWO PRISONS. THERE'S SOME RUMOR OUT THERE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, IT -- IT -- WE -- WE CHANGED
IT TO 90. IT'S 90 DAYS.
MR. BARCLAY: EXCUSE ME, 90 DAYS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: TWO PRISONS, UP TO THREE PRISONS,
AND WE PROVIDE -- WE BELIEVE THIS PROVIDES A SAVINGS OF $22 MILLION IN
--
MR. BARCLAY: I'M SORRY. I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
MS. WEINSTEIN: $22 MILLION IN THIS YEAR -- THIS
YEAR'S BUDGET, AND $35 MILLION IN THE OUT YEARS.
MR. BARCLAY: RELATED TO CLOSURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RELATED TO THE CLOSURE, YES.
MR. BARCLAY: SO HOW MANY -- THIS BILL, HOW
MANY PRISONS, WITH NOTICE, CAN THE GOVERNOR CLOSE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: TWO IN -- IN THIS BILL, TWO. THERE
ACTUALLY WILL BE A CHAPTER AMENDMENT THAT WILL ALLOW FOR UP TO THREE.
182
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. BARCLAY: AND WHAT'S THE THINKING BEHIND -- I
MEAN, THE GOVERNOR ALREADY HAS THE ABILITY -- HE HAS TO GIVE LONGER
NOTICE, I SUPPOSE. HE ALREADY HAS THE ABILITY TO CLOSE PRISONS. WHY ARE
WE SPEEDING UP THIS PROCESS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, I -- I THINK, AS YOU KNOW,
LUCKILY, IN OUR STATE THE CRIME RATE HAS BEEN REDUCING OVER THE YEARS.
THE PRISON POPULATION HAS REDUCED FROM ITS PEAK IN 1999 OF 73,000 TO
APPROXIMATELY 47,000 INMATES IN 2019. AT THE MOMENT WE HAVE
10,000 VACANT BEDS IN -- IN OUR SYSTEM, WHICH IS MORE THAN IS NEEDED
FOR ANY KIND OF EMERGENCY SITUATION. SO THAT'S -- THAT'S THE RATIONALE.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN. I THINK
YOU'LL HEAR SOME OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT GOING FORWARD. AGAIN, MY
THINKING IS WE HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE. THERE'S NO NEED TO DO
LEGISLATION TO SPEED THE WHOLE PROCESS UP. CLEARLY, YOU HAVE A
DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT ON THAT. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
COMMENTS ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. NORRIS.
MR. NORRIS: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD THE
-- WOULD THE MADAM CHAIRWOMAN YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE, I'D BE HAPPY TO.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. NORRIS: MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, I'M GOING TO
183
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FOCUS MANY OF MY QUESTIONS IN THE PORTION OF THIS BILL THAT DEALS WITH
ELECTIONS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
MR. NORRIS: IN TERMS OF PRIMARY DAY VOTING, IT'S
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S LANGUAGE CONTAINED WITHIN THIS BILL THAT
WOULD MANDATE THAT VOTING IS FROM 6:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M. STATEWIDE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. NORRIS: WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT
IMPLEMENTATION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. SO, IT'S 120 DAYS AFTER THE
JANUARY IT BECOMES LAW. SO, 2020 ELECTIONS AND 2020 -- 120 DAYS AFTER
JANUARY 1ST.
MR. NORRIS: WOULD THAT INCLUDE THE PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY NEXT YEAR?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. I -- I -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T
BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRIMARY DATE SET YET, SO TO BE -- TO BE CONTINUED.
MR. NORRIS: GREAT. MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN
INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN LOOKING AT THIS LANGUAGE GOING FORWARD.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CERTAINLY WE COULD.
MR. NORRIS: MY QUESTION, THEN, WE HAVE PASSED
EARLY VOTING IN NEW YORK STATE, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. NORRIS: AND THAT WILL TAKE PLACE STARTING WITH
THIS GENERAL ELECTION --
MS. WEINSTEIN: THIS ELECTION.
184
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. NORRIS: -- COMING UP?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. NORRIS: CORRECT? FOR AN EIGHT-DAY PERIOD,
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING. TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE SECOND DAY PRIOR TO A
GENERAL ELECTION, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE IT'S NINE DAYS,
BUT CORRECT, IN ADVANCE OF THE ELECTION.
MR. NORRIS: EIGHT OR NINE. I'LL GIVE YOU THAT. SO
IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THAT. SO, AN INDIVIDUAL COULD GO AND VOTE, EARLY
VOTING, SOMEWHERE WITHIN THEIR COUNTY FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. NORRIS: IS IT ALSO ACCURATE THAT WE HAVE TAKEN
STEPS TO IMPLEMENT NO EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING BY PASSING THE FIRST
PHASE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I'M SORRY. I WAS A LITTLE
DISTRACTED.
MR. NORRIS: HAVE WE TAKEN STEPS, THIS BODY, TO
VOTE ON A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR NO EXCUSE ABSENTEE
VOTING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I MEAN, WE DID, THOUGH IT WAS
JUST FIRST PASSAGE.
MR. NORRIS: THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH. SO WE'VE GOT A --
WE'VE GOT A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, POTENTIALLY, FOR THAT TO BE CONCLUDED.
185
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. NORRIS: ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT IN THIS
BILL, THERE IS A PROVISION THAT WOULD ALLOW AN EMPLOYEE FOR THREE HOURS
OF TIME OFF TO GO OUT AND VOTE IN ANY ELECTION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT. IT -- IT EXPANDS FROM THE
CURRENT TWO HOUR -- TWO HOURS TO THREE HOURS.
MR. NORRIS: TWO HOURS TO THREE HOURS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. IT ADDS AN ADDITIONAL HOUR.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. TIME OFF, DOES THAT -- IS THAT
PAID TIME OFF?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I BELIEVE WE SAY WITHOUT LOSS
OF PAY, SO -- SO THAT IT'S -- THAT'S EXISTING LAW FOR THE TWO HOURS WITHOUT
LOSS OF PAY. SO WE ADDED AN ADDITIONAL HOUR, SO THAT IS ALSO WITHOUT
LOSS OF PAY, THAT ADDITIONAL HOUR.
MR. NORRIS: ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.
FOR ALL OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS OUT THERE IN NEW YORK STATE, DO
THEY HAVE TO PAY AN EMPLOYEE FOR THREE HOURS OF TIME TO GO OUT AND
VOTE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T
CHANGE. SO THEY HAVE TO PAY CURRENTLY THE TWO HOURS, THEY WOULD HAVE
TO PAY FOR THE THREE HOURS.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THAT --
DEPENDING IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IT MAY NOT TAKE THAT LONG TO, YOU
KNOW, TO VOTE. IT'S -- IT'S FOR THE INTENTION OF VOTING. IT'S NOT A THREE-
186
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HOUR PAID, YOU KNOW, PAID BREAK TIME ON ELECTION DAY.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
UNDER THE CURRENT LAW THAT IF AN INDIVIDUAL HAS FOUR HOURS FROM THE
BEGINNING OF THE POLLING SITE, OPENING AT 6:00 A.M., UNTIL THEIR SHIFT
STARTS, THEN THAT PROVISION WOULD NOT APPLY UNDER CURRENT LAW. OR AT
THE END. IF THERE'S A FOUR-HOUR PERIOD AT THE END OF THE SHIFT AND DAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU'RE CORRECT, BUT THIS BILL
REPEALS THAT.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. NOW, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THIS WOULD -- THIS WOULD -- FOR THE EMPLOYEES WOULD INCLUDE
CRITICAL CARE PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY IMPORTANT -- NURSES, DOCTORS, NURSING
HOME PEOPLE WHO TAKE CARE OF OUR ELDERLY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TYPE OF EMPLOYEE.
MR. NORRIS: SO -- SO EVERYBODY. SCHOOL TEACHERS
-- I JUST WANT TO READ OFF THE LIST -- FIREFIGHTERS, CORRECTIONS OFFICERS,
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO MAY ONLY HAVE TWO OR THREE EMPLOYEES
WHO WORK AT THEIR PLACE, AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, FARMERS. I MENTIONED
TEACHERS. SO ALL THESE INDIVIDUALS COULD GET UP TO THREE HOURS OF PAID
TIME OFF TO VOTE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, THEY COULD GET PAID -- THAT
PAID TIME OFF. AGAIN, IT'S FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING. IT'S NOT A THREE-
HOUR VACA -- PAID VACATION. AND SO MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT --
PROFESSIONS THAT YOU DESCRIBED ARE PEOPLE WHO I KNOW ARE VERY
DEDICATED, AND IF THEY ARE ABLE TO VOTE WITHOUT MAKING USE OF THAT TIME
187
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OFF, THEY DO CURRENTLY AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING
TO MAKE USE OF THIS PROVISION. BUT FOR SOME PEOPLE, THEY DO NEED THIS
PROVISION OF -- OF TIME OFF.
MR. NORRIS: YES. OKAY. WILL THERE HAVE TO BE A
VERIFICATION, LIKE A DOCTOR'S SLIP FROM THE ELECTION WORKER FOR THEIR
EMPLOYER TO VERIFY? IS THERE A PROVISION THAT -- CAN THE EMPLOYER ASK
FOR A SLIP, PROOF?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE CURRENT STATUTE DOESN'T TALK TO
THAT, AND WE DON'T MAKE A CHANGE. WE DON'T CHANGE THE LAW AS REGARDS
TO THAT.
MR. NORRIS: I SEE. OKAY. WILL THIS APPLY FOR
EVERY ELECTION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. NORRIS: SO THAT WOULD BE SCHOOL BOARD
ELECTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: ON SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS, WE
MIGHT HAVE TO CHECK BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ELECTION LAW AND
WE'RE JUST NOT SURE. I THINK -- UNFORTUNATELY, I'M NOT SURE I'LL BE ABLE TO
GET YOU AN ANSWER IMMEDIATELY AS TO WHETHER SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS
ARE COVERED OR NOT.
MR. NORRIS: THAT -- THAT'S FINE. LET ME JUST POINT
OUT A COUPLE MORE, AND WHEN YOU'RE DOING YOUR RESEARCH, IF SOMEONE
COULD LET ME KNOW FROM YOUR STAFF I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. NORRIS: WOULD THAT INCLUDE FIRE DISTRICT
188
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ELECTIONS, VILLAGE ELECTIONS, PRIMARY ELECTIONS, SPECIAL ELECTIONS, LIBRARY
ELECTIONS, SPECIAL CAPITAL REFERENDUMS FOR BONDS? THIS IS LIKE,
POTENTIALLY, TEN ELECTIONS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO WE -- WE DO THINGS THAT ARE
ONLY COVERS ELECTIONS UNDER THE ELECTION LAW, SO THAT LIST THAT YOU
DESCRIBED, WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROVISION.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY, THANK -- THANK YOU VERY -- SO, A
SPECIAL ELECTION, THOUGH, A PRIMARY ELECTION, THEY WOULD BE UNDER THE
ELECTION LAW FOR SURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, CORRECT.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. NOW, WOULD ONLY REGISTERED
VOTERS BE ENTITLED TO TAKE THIS TIME OFF?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. AND WILL THERE BE -- AND I
WANTED TO ASK THIS AGAIN ON THE RECORD, WILL THE EMPLOYERS BE ABLE TO
VERIFY IN SOME WAY THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY A REGISTERED VOTER?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE
PROVISIONS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST TO -- TO THAT, AND THEY WOULD -- WE DON'T
CHANGE THAT IN THIS LEGISLATION.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. WILL THIS APPLY FOR INDIVIDUALS
WHO MAY VOTE BY EARLY VOTING IF THEY WANT TO TAKE THREE HOURS TO GO
AND EARLY VOTE?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE DO THINK THAT IT COULD APPLY TO
SOMEONE ON AN EARLY VOTING DAY WOULD TAKE THE TIME TO GO AND VOTE,
189
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
EARLY VOTING.
MR. NORRIS: SO IT COULD APPLY FOR A EARLY VOTER TO
GO AND VOTE. WHAT IF THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND AND THEY WANT TO GO TO
THE VOTING BOOTH ON ELECTION DAY? DO THEY GET A -- A DOUBLE CHANCE TO
GO FOR THREE HOURS OF PAID TIME?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU -- YOU GET ONE THREE-HOUR.
YOU GET ONE THREE-HOUR.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ONE MORE QUESTION
ON THAT TOPIC. WOULD IT APPLY FOR AN ABSENTEE VOTER WHO WANTS TO GET
ONE OF THOSE NO EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTERS IN THE FUTURE -- BALLOTS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO ABSENTEE
VOTERS, SO I WOULD -- MY BEST ANSWER WOULD BE THAT IT ONLY COVERS IN-
PERSON VOTING.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
WHERE -- IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS BUDGET THAT WOULD PROVIDE EMPLOYERS
WITH A TAX CREDIT FOR LOST WAGES TO ALLOW THESE VOTERS TO GO VOTE DURING
THEIR WORKDAY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE SAME WAY THAT THE -- NO, THE
SAME WAY THAT THERE ISN'T SOMETHING THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS FOR THE TWO-
HOUR WINDOW.
MR. NORRIS: IS THERE A SUNSET PROVISION FOR THIS
SECTION TO ALLOW FOR THE THREE HOURS OF VOTING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. AND THE REASON WHY I ASK IF
THERE'S A SUNSET PROVISION IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TAKEN ACTIONS IN THIS
190
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BODY TO IMPLEMENT EARLY VOTING FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT OR NINE DAYS PRIOR
TO ELECTION DAY, WHICH GIVES VOTERS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO GO OUT
DURING THOSE DAYS TO VOTE. AND IT ALSO -- WE'VE TAKEN STEPS -- THIS ONE I
SUPPORTED VERY PROUDLY -- FOR NO EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING. SO THAT
WAS THE REASON WHY I ASKED IF THERE WAS A SUNSET PROVISION MAYBE
THROUGH JANUARY OF 2021 -- I'M SORRY, DECEMBER OF 2021 ON THIS
PARTICULAR TOPIC, BUT THERE'S NOT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE IS NOT, BUT LIKE ANY OTHER
LAW IN NEW YORK STATE, WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND REVISIT IT IF THERE
IS A NEED TO.
MR. NORRIS: GREAT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE
YOU AND I CAN LOOK AT TOGETHER.
OKAY. IN TERMS OF ELECTRONIC POLL BOOKS, I NOTICED
THAT THERE'S SOME PROVISIONS THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THE ABILITY OF ELECTRONIC
POLL BOOKS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. NORRIS: ARE THE LOCAL BOARD OF ELECTIONS
REQUIRED TO HAVE THESE ELECTRONIC POLL BOOKS IN THEIR COUNTIES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, THEY'RE NOT. IT'S A --
PERMISSIVE LANGUAGE.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. AND IN TERMS OF THE SECURITY OF
THESE POLL BOOKS AT THE LOCATIONS, WILL THEY BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET
WHEREAS IT COULD BE SUBJECT TO SOME SORT OF ATTACK?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THEY -- THE POLL BOOKS WILL BE --
THEY WILL BE CERTIFIED BY CERTIFIED -- APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF
191
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ELECTIONS, AND THOSE ISSUES OF CYBER ATTACK WILL BE ADDRESSED IN TERMS
OF APPROVING INDIVIDUAL POLL -- ELECTRONIC POLL BOOKS.
MR. NORRIS: SO WHEN WE'RE VOTING ON THIS BUDGET
- JUST TO BE CLEAR - WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT TO THE STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THESE ELECTRONIC POLL BOOKS WILL
BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. THE BOARD HAS TO HAVE
SUFFICIENT SECURITY MEASURES. THERE'S RULES ABOUT THAT. AND IT'S SIMILAR
TO WHAT WE DID WHEN WE ORIGINALLY -- WITH THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT,
OR THE HAVA VOTE -- HAVA ACT WHERE THE BOARD DETERMINED CERTAIN
-- GAVE COUNTIES IN THAT INSTANCE THE REVIEW OF THE MACHINES THAT ARE
OUT THERE, AND THEY GAVE CHOICE OF -- LOCALITIES A CHOICE OF MACHINES,
BUT THEY'RE ALL APPROVED BY THE BOARD. THE BOARD HAS THAT EXPERTISE TO
MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. THAT -- THAT WOULD BE FOR, LIKE,
THE GENERAL ELECTION. I JUST WANT TO POINT THIS OUT ON THE RECORD. FOR
THE EARLY VOTING SITES - AND THERE WILL BE IN SOME COUNTIES UP TO SEVEN
OF THESE EARLY VOTING SITES - DO YOU KNOW IF THOSE EARLY VOTING
ELECTRONIC POLL BOOKS WILL ACTUALLY BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET SO
WHEN INDIVIDUALS ARE VOTING AT POLL PLACE A, WE KNOW THEY DON'T GO
AND VOTE AN HOUR LATER AT POLL PLACE B?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT
THEY BE CONNECTED. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY MAY BE, BUT THAT WOULD BE --
UNDER STANDARDS THAT THE STATE BOARD WOULD SET UP TO -- THAT WOULD
PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE SECURITY IN THOSE POLLING -- ELECTRONIC POLLING
192
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BOOKS.
MR. NORRIS: ALL RIGHT. LET'S JUST ASSUME AT THE
POLLING SITE THE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ELECTS TO HAVE ELECTRONIC
POLLING SITES, WILL THERE BE A BACKUP LIST OF REGISTERED VOTERS THERE IN
PAPER FORM IN CASE THERE'S SOME SORT OF AN EVENT THAT CAUSES THAT POLL
BOOK TO BE UNUSED?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE ACTUALLY -- THE LANGUAGE --
EXCUSE ME -- THE LANGUAGE ACTUALLY -- THE LANGUAGE ACTUALLY REQUIRES
SOME AMOUNT OF REDUNDANCY, SO I WOULD ASSUME THERE WOULD BE.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE TYPE
OF DEVICE THAT WILL BE USED WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL GOES IN TO SIGN ON AN
ELECTRONIC POLL BOOK, WILL IT BE LIKE WHEN WE GO TO THE STORE AND WE
SIGN WITH OUR CREDIT CARD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: MOST -- MOST OF THE EXISTING --
WE'RE NOT INVENTING THE WHEEL. THESE -- THESE DO EXIST IN OTHER STATES,
AND THAT IS HOW THEY OPERATE.
MR. NORRIS: I SEE THAT MY TIME HAS EXPIRED ON THIS
ROUND. I MAY BE BACK. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIRWOMAN, FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: THANK YOU, MR.
NORRIS.
MR. PALMESANO.
MR. PALMESANO: YES. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
WILL THE CHAIRWOMAN YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS, PLEASE?
193
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: THE CHAIR YIELDS.
MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU, MS. WEINSTEIN.
FIRST, I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE INTENTIONALLY-OMITTED ITEMS IN THE BUDGET,
IN THIS BUDGET BILL, WAS RELATIVE TO SPECIAL HOUSING UNITS OR SEGREGATED
UNITS IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES. IS THAT PERMANENTLY OMITTED, OR IS THAT
SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO COME BACK UP LATER ON IN ONE OF THE OTHER
BUDGET BILLS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE WILL NOT BE SEEING THAT LATER
ON TODAY, TONIGHT.
MR. PALMESANO: OKAY, GREAT. I WANTED -- A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I KIND OF -- I WANT TO ASK YOU TO SEE IF YOU
HAVE ANY IDEA, AND THEN I PROMISE I'LL GET BACK TO WHY I'M -- I'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THAT POINT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. PALMESANO: BUT, YOU WOULD AGREE THAT
CONTRABAND IN OUR -- OUR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IS A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS
TO BE ADDRESSED WITH ONE WAY OR ANOTHER; WOULDN'T YOU AGREE? DRUGS
GETTING INTO OUR PRISONS THAT INMATES ARE GETTING THEIR HANDS ON.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I -- I THINK IT'S A
CONTINUING ISSUE THAT DOCS ADDRESSES ON A DAILY BASIS.
MR. PALMESANO: DO YOU KNOW WHAT -- IN 2013
HOW MANY SEIZED CONTRABAND ITEMS WE HAD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I -- I COULDN'T TELL YOU THE
ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
194
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. PALMESANO: ABOUT 2,712. AND IN 2017 WE
HAD 4,124, OR 66 PERCENT. ISN'T THAT A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE? WOULD YOU
AGREE WITH THAT? OF DRUGS BEING FOUND IN OUR PRISONS AND IN INMATES'
POSSESSION IS SUCH A -- ISN'T THAT -- ISN'T THAT A SERIOUS ISSUE THAT WE
HAVE TO ADDRESS? WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE
LUXURY OF HAVING THE DATA THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, SO I REALLY COULDN'T
COMMENT ON IT.
MR. PALMESANO: FAIR ENOUGH. IN THIS BUDGET
BILL, IS THERE ANY DOLLARS TO HELP -- HELP STOP THE FLOW OF CONTRABAND
GETTING INTO OUR PRISONS? WHETHER IT'S TECHNOLOGY OR SCREENING,
WHETHER IT'S THE USE OF MORE DRUG DOGS OR A -- A MAIL VENDING PROGRAM
TO STOP DRUGS FROM GETTING INTO OUR FACILITIES. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING IN
THIS BUDGET THAT WILL HELP STOP DRUGS GETTING INTO OUR PRISONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE DON'T ADD ANYTHING IN THIS
BUDGET. THERE ARE PROCEDURES THAT DOCS CURRENTLY HAS IN PLACE TO TRY
AND IDENTIFY CONTRABAND COMING IN.
MR. PALMESANO: YEAH, BECAUSE EVEN -- EVEN
ACCORDING TO DOCS' OWN NUMBERS, THE -- THE NUMBER OF POSITIVE DRUG
TESTS HAPPENING, IN 2017 THEY DID RANDOM DRUG TESTS TO OVER 84,000
INMATES, AND 5,500 OF THEM, OR 6.51 PERCENT OF THOSE, TESTED POSITIVE
FOR DRUG USE IN THE PRISONS. SO THAT'S A PROBLEM. AND CONTRABAND IS
GETTING INTO OUR PRISONS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS. THAT'S WHY,
HOPEFULLY -- HONESTLY, WE'RE NOT SEEING ANY MORE RESOURCES IN THIS
BUDGET FOR THAT. WE SEE IT FOR OTHER THINGS, BUT NOT FOR THIS. I THINK
195
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT'S PROBLEMATIC.
NOW, THIS LANGUAGE IN THIS PARTICULAR BILL SAYS UP TO
TWO PRISONS. AND I KNOW PROBABLY WHEN YOU WERE NEGOTIATING THIS,
YOU SAID, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO SAVE A THIRD PRISON, SO WE'LL GIVE THE
GOVERNOR THE TWO PRISONS FOR 90 DAYS INSTEAD OF MAKING THEM -- SO
YOU'RE PROBABLY THINKING WE'LL SAVE ONE PRISON BY DOING THAT
NEGOTIATION, CORRECT, WHEN YOU WERE DOING IT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, AS I MENTIONED IN
ANSWERING MR. BARCLAY, THE -- ORIGINALLY THE DISCUSSION WAS TWO
PRISONS.
MR. PALMESANO: RIGHT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE WENT TO THE 90 DAYS INSTEAD
OF THE -- IT WAS 60 ORIGINALLY, WE ADDED THE EXTRA 30 DAYS. THOUGH
THERE IS -- WE WILL BE SEEING A CHAPTER AMENDMENT TO THIS IN THE
REVENUE BILL THAT SAYS UP TO THREE, BUT WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY'RE
LOOKING AT TWO DURING THIS YEAR, BUT WANTED THE AUTHORITY FOR THE THIRD.
MR. PALMESANO: SO WE'RE BASICALLY GOING TO
HAVE THREE PRISON CLOSURES. SO, BEFORE THE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: I JUST SAID TWO. IT WOULD GIVE THE
AUTHORITY FOR THREE, BUT WE'VE BEEN TOLD TWO.
MR. PALMESANO: RIGHT. BUT BEFORE THE INK WAS
EVEN DRIED ON THIS, WE ALREADY GAVE THE GOVERNOR WHAT HE WANTED
FROM THE GET-GO. AND INSTEAD OF GIVING HIM -- RIGHT NOW YOU SAY -- SO
NOW YOU GIVE HIM A 90-DAY WINDOW. WOULDN'T YOU ADMIT, WHEN
THERE'S A PRISON CLOSURE IT'S DEVASTATING TO A LOCAL COMMUNITY, FOR THOSE
196
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO BE RELOCATED OR LOSE THEIR JOBS, IN AND OF ITSELF, IS A
DEVASTATION TO A LOCAL COMMUNITY. I KNOW YOU -- YOU'RE GOING --
PEOPLE SAY IT'S NOT A JOBS PROGRAM, BUT YOU HAVE TO ADMIT, WHEN A
PRISON CLOSES IN A COMMUNITY, IT'S DEVASTATING TO THAT COMMUNITY.
WOULD YOU NOT AGREE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE -- WE'RE -- WE'RE BEING TOLD
THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE A LOSS OF -- THAT PEOPLE -- THERE WOULD NOT BE A
-- A LOSS OF -- OF JOBS AS A RESULT OF THIS, IN THAT PEOPLE COULD TRANSFER TO
OTHER -- OTHER POSITIONS. THERE'S A -- A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ATTRITION
THAT HAPPENS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IN THE PRISON -- IN THE DOCS SYSTEM,
SO THAT --
MR. PALMESANO: BUT A PRISON --
MS. WEINSTEIN: PEOPLE WILL NOT LOSE -- PEOPLE
HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO -- TO STAY WITHIN THE DOCS -- AS A DOCS
EMPLOYEE --
MR. PALMESANO: I UNDERSTAND THEY ALWAYS SAY
THAT NO ONE'S GOING TO LOSE A JOB. BUT, A PRISON CLOSING IN A COMMUNITY
IS DEVASTATING TO THAT COMMUNITY, IS IT NOT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THERE -- THERE ARE
COMMITMENTS THAT WHEN PRISONS CLOSE, THE -- THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT
ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THAT FACILITY. AND THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN -- IN
SOME OTHER AREAS.
MR. PALMESANO: RIGHT. I STILL HAVE A -- A SHOCK
FACILITY IN MY DISTRICT FROM SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE
ANYTHING WITH. THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH. SO, IT'S DEVASTATING TO
197
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT COMMUNITY. CAN YOU NOT AGREE THAT A PRISON CLOSURE IN A
COMMUNITY IS DEVASTATING TO THAT PARTICULAR COMMUNITY? "YES" OR
"NO"?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I THINK WHEN ANY
EMPLOYER CLOSE -- ANY EMPLOYER IN A COMMUNITY CLOSES, IT'S GOING TO
IMPACT --
MR. PALMESANO: EXACTLY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- IT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT, AND THEN
THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT -- THAT'S WHY THERE IS A DESIRE TO FIND
ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THESE -- FOR THESE FACILITIES AND, YOU KNOW,
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS AN IMPACT IN THE COMMUNITY.
MR. PALMESANO: SO WE KNOW THE GOVERNOR
WANTED TO CLOSE THREE PRISONS AT THE BEGINNING. YOU GUYS AGREED TO
TWO AT THE -- IN THE MIDDLE, AND THEN IT WAS ALREADY ADDED UP TO THREE.
SO, INSTEAD OF A NORMAL PROCESS NOW WE HAVE FOR A PRISON CLOSURE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. PALMESANO: -- IT WOULD BE A ONE-YEAR
NOTIFICATION, RIGHT? UNDER CURRENT LAW.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. PALMESANO: BUT THIS MAKES IT 90 DAYS. SO,
NOW, NOT ONLY ARE YOU DISRUPTING A COMMUNITY BY TAKING AWAY A
FACILITY, NOW, FOR THOSE FAMILIES WHO MIGHT NOT LOSE A JOB BUT MIGHT
HAVE TO MOVE SIX HOURS AWAY, INSTEAD OF HAVING A YEAR TO PREPARE FOR IT,
YOU'RE SAYING, YOU ONLY HAVE 90 DAYS TO PREPARE FOR IT. SO, NOT ONLY
YOU -- IS IT AN INSULT -- IS IT AN INSULT, YOU'RE ADDING INSULT TO THE INJURY
198
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OF THE CLOSURE AND NOT GIVING THE FAMILIES THE TIME THEY NEED TO ADJUST
WITH THAT TRANSFORMATION. SO, NOW WE'RE JUST SAYING -- GIVING THE
GOVERNOR EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED FROM THE GET-GO, BEFORE THE INK EVEN
DRIED ON -- ON THE TWO, WE CAVED AND GAVE HIM ANOTHER PRISON, IN 90
DAYS THEY COULD CLOSE THESE THINGS DOWN, WHICH WILL BE DEVASTATING TO
THAT COMMUNITY, IT WILL BE DEVASTATING TO THAT FAMILY, CORRECT?
WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVASTATING TO THAT COMMUNITY
AND DEVASTATING TO THAT FAMILY, HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT ALL WITHIN A
90-DAY PERIOD RATHER THAN A -- AT LEAST A YEAR TO DEAL WITH IT, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, IT'S HARDER, 90 DAYS VERSUS A
YEAR. THIS ISN'T SOMETHING NEW -- NEW AND UNIQUE. WE HAVE DONE THIS
BEFORE. AND, YOU KNOW, WE -- WE DO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE
-- IT HAS AN IMPACT. I WOULD AGREE THAT NOT EVERYBODY CAN RELOCATE EVEN
IF THEY'RE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, YOU KNOW. BUT I WOULD JUST
RESTATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER TO MR. BARCLAY, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY
10,000 EMPTY BEDS IN THE NEW YORK STATE PRISON SYSTEM, WE'RE PAYING
TO KEEP THESE FACILITIES OPEN WITH EMPTY BEDS. SO, WE -- YOU KNOW,
WE'RE SPENDING NEEDED STATE RESOURCES ON MAINTAINING THESE EMPTY
BEDS THAT WE DON'T NEED. AND CLEARLY, THE -- THE TREND IS GOING DOWN --
MR. PALMESANO: DOES -- DOES --
MS. WEINSTEIN: DOING NOTHING, WE'LL END UP WITH
MORE EMPTY BEDS.
MR. PALMESANO: DOES THIS BUDGET DO ANYTHING
TO ELIMINATE AND END THE DANGEROUS PRACTICE OF DOUBLE-BUNKING AND
DOUBLE-CELLING? BECAUSE I KNOW YOU MENTIONED 10,000 BEDS, BUT WE
199
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
KNOW THERE'S NEARLY 7,000, RIGHT NOW, ACTIVE TOP BEDS IN THE SYSTEM.
SO, DOES THIS BUDGET DO ANYTHING TO ELIMINATE THE DANGEROUS PRACTICE OF
DOUBLE-BUNKING AND DOUBLE-CELLING, WHICH WE -- WE KNOW IS INHUMANE
FOR INMATES. IT'S USED IN MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISONS, IT'S USED IN
MEDIUM SECURITY PRISONS. IS THERE ANYTHING TO ELIMINATE THE
DOUBLE-BUNKS AND DOUBLE-CELLS IN THIS BUDGET PRESENT -- PROPOSAL OR ARE
WE JUST TAKING THE -- THE CLOSURES AND SAYING, THAT'S IT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. WE -- WE THINK THAT
THEY -- BY THE WAY, WE THINK THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT MEDIUM --
MEDIUM PRISONS, WHICH HAVE THE MOST EMPTY BEDS. AND IN MEDIUM
PRISONS, THERE ARE... 3,000 -- RIGHT NOW A TOTAL OF 3,189 DOUBLE-BUNK
BEDS. AND SOME OF THE REASON WHY THEY KEEP THE -- THE DOUBLE-BUNK,
IT'S REALLY NOT A -- A PERMANENT FIXTURE, THEY -- THEY WANT TO KEEP A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF BEDS EMPTY IN ANY GIVEN FACILITY -- HAVE -- HAVE A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF BEDS AVAILABLE. AS SOON AS THE BED BECOMES
AVAILABLE, THE INMATE LEAVES THE TOP BUNK, AND THE TOP BUNK IS ONLY ON
THE -- THE FAR END OF THE DORMITORY-STYLE PRISONS.
MR. PALMESANO: DO WE KNOW WHAT TYPE OF
FACILITIES WE'RE LOOKING -- THE GOVERNOR IS LOOKING TO CLOSE? MAXIMUM
SECURITY FACILITIES, MEDIUM? SHOCK FACILITIES? WHICH ONES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE -- WE THINK THEY'RE MEDIUM,
BUT WE HAVEN'T -- IT HASN'T BEEN 100 PERCENT CONFIRMED.
MR. PALMESANO: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: AND THOSE ARE THE -- AS I SAID,
THOSE ARE -- THEY HAVE OVER -- ALMOST 4,400 EMPTY -- EMPTY BEDS IN
200
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MEDIUM FACILITIES IN OUR STATE.
MR. PALMESANO: I WANT TO ASK YOU ANOTHER
QUESTION. ANOTHER ISSUE, I TALKED ABOUT THE DRUG USE IN OUR PRISONS, IS
THE VIOLENCE THAT'S OCCURRED IN OUR PRISONS. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH
FROM -- SINCE 2013, WHEN THESE PRISON CLOSURES HAVE BEEN GOING PRETTY
-- ONGOING, FROM 2013, WHAT THE INCREASE IN ASSAULTS INMATE -- ON
INMATE -- INMATE-ON-STAFF ASSAULTS HAS INCREASED FROM 2013 TO 2018?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I DON'T KNOW THAT NUMBER, BUT
WHY DON'T I JUST TALK ABOUT THIS PAST YEAR. THERE WERE 1,033 ASSAULTS
COMMITTED BY INMATES AGAINST STAFF IN -- IN 2018. OF THAT 1,033, 1,019
OF THEM INVOLVED NO INJURIES AT ALL. CLASSIFICATION OF AN ASSAULT IN
PRISON IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK OF AS ASSAULT UNDER THE
GENERAL -- UNDER THE PENAL LAW. THIRTY-THREE -- I MEAN, 303 OF -- OF
THOSE ASSAULTS WERE CLASSIFIED AS MINOR, MEANING A SCRATCH OR A -- A
BRUISE. AN ASSAULT CAN BE THROWING A CUP AT A -- A CUP AT AN OFFICER
WITHOUT ANY -- THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF, YOU KNOW -- OR TOUCHING WITHOUT
INJURY, AND THERE WERE ONLY 11 ASSAULTS THAT REQUIRED ACTUAL MEDICAL
TREATMENT.
MR. PALMESANO: WELL, FROM 2013 TO 2018,
ASSAULTS -- INMATE-ON-STAFF ASSAULTS HAVE INCREASED FROM 645 TO 973, OR
OVER 50 PERCENT. I KNOW YOU SAID THAT, WELL, THAT COULD BE SOMEBODY
THROWING A CUP. BUT IT CAN ALSO BE AN INMATE SPITTING, IT CAN ALSO BE AN
INMATE THROWING FECES ON A CORRECTIONS OFFICER, AN INMATE EXPOSING
THEMSELVES. THAT'S THE TYPE OF THING THAT HAPPENS. THOSE ARE ASSAULTS
THAT ARE GOING ON. ALSO, INMATE-ON-INMATE ASSAULTS ARE UP FROM 767 TO
201
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
1,164, OR UP OVER 50 PERCENT. SO, THIS HAS ALL HAPPENED SINCE THESE
PRISON CLOSURES HAVE ALL STARTED AND IT'S CREATED A POWDERKEG
ENVIRONMENT IN OUR FACILITIES.
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. PALMESANO: -- FOR YOUR TIME.
MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. PALMESANO: MR. SPEAKER, MY COLLEAGUES,
I'M VERY, VERY FRUSTRATED BY THIS PRISON CLOSURE PLAN. YOU KNOW, WHEN
I SAW THERE WAS TWO PRISONS AND I THINK -- I CAN UNDERSTAND THE
THINKING MIGHT BE, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'LL SAVE ONE OF THE
FACILITIES. BUT BEFORE THE INK'S EVEN DRIED ON THIS BILL, YOU ALREADY
CAME TO THIS GOVERNOR AND GIVEN HIM WHAT HE WANTS AGAIN, ALLOW FOR
THE THIRD PRISON CLOSURE. AND INSTEAD OF ALLOWING -- IF YOU JUST WENT
THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS, AT LEAST THOSE FAMILIES AND THOSE
COMMUNITIES AND THOSE FACILITIES WILL LEAST HAVE A YEAR TO PLAN FOR THAT.
A WHOLE YEAR. BUT NOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE TOLD TO UP AND MOVE AND
RELOCATE IN 90 DAYS IF THEY HAVE TO GO TO ANOTHER FACILITY. THIS
GOVERNOR WANTS TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THE NUMBER OF PRISONS HE'S CLOSED
DURING HIS TENURE, BUT HE HAS FAILED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND CREDIT FOR
THE POWDERKEG ENVIRONMENT THAT HE HAS CREATED IN OUR CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES. I JUST GAVE YOU THE STATISTICS FROM 2013 TO 2018. INMATE-ON-
STAFF ASSAULTS ARE UP OVER 50 PERCENT. INMATE-ON-INMATE STAFF --
INMATE-ON-INMATE ASSAULTS ARE UP OVER 50 PERCENT AS WELL. AND THEN
202
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BEFORE WE EVEN LOOK TO CLOSE DOWN ONE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WE SHOULD
BE FIRST ELIMINATING THE DANGEROUS PRACTICE OF DOUBLE-BUNKING AND
DOUBLE-CELLING INMATES. WE KNOW THERE'S OVER THOUSANDS OF BEDS AND
THERE ARE 6-, 7,000 DOUBLE-BUNKS AND DOUBLE-CELLS IN OUR FACILITIES.
WHY NOT GET RID OF THOSE FIRST? BECAUSE THERE IS A PRESSURE COOKER
ENVIRONMENT GOING INTO THIS -- THESE FACILITIES. WITH THE POLICIES THAT
THIS ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO IMPLEMENT WITH THE PRISON CLOSURES,
LOOKING TO RESTRICT THE USE OF SHUS - SPECIAL HOUSING UNITS - LOOKING
TO STOP A MAIL VENDOR PROGRAM THAT STOPS KEEPING THE DRUGS FROM
COMING INTO OUR FACILITIES, NOT DEPLOYING DRUG DOGS IN OUR CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES, RECLASSIFICATION OF DANGEROUS PRISONERS FROM MAXIMUM
SECURITY FACILITIES TO MEDIUM SECURITY FACILITIES. DRUGS ARE RUNNING
RAMPANT IN OUR -- IN OUR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES. IT'S CREATED A VERY
DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I SEE OFTENTIMES, ONE OF OUR
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS IS BEING ASSAULTED OR BEATEN OR SPIT AT OR THROW --
HAVE FECES THROWN AT THEM. STUFF LIKE THAT HAPPENS DAILY IN OUR
PRISONS. AND WE'RE NOT SHOWING THEM THAT WE HAVE THEIR BACK. YOU
KNOW, THIS BODY ALWAYS SAYS THEY STAND UP FOR OUR UNIONS, WELL, HERE
WE HAVE SOME UNIONS THAT ARE OUR CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, AND INSTEAD OF
AT LEAST PUSHING BACK ON THIS ADMINISTRATION AND SAYING, ENOUGH IS
ENOUGH, WE GIVE HIM A CARTE BLANCHE 90 DAYS TO CLOSE DOWN ANY PRISON
HE WANTS. IF WE COULD AT LEAST WOULD'VE PUSHED BACK AND SAID, NO,
WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THIS PRISON CLOSURE, HE STILL COULD'VE DONE IT,
BUT IT WOULD'VE HAD TO TAKE A YEARLONG PROCESS INSTEAD OF 90 DAYS.
203
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
NOW, WE KNOW WHEN A PRISON CLOSES IN A COMMUNITY, IT'S -- IT'S
DEVASTATING TO THAT LOCAL COMMUNITY. IT'S DEVASTATING TO THAT FAMILY.
YES, THEY MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER JOB AVAILABLE FOR THEM, BUT THAT JOB
MIGHT BE SIX HOURS AWAY, AND THEY MIGHT HAVE TO UPROOT THEIR FAMILIES
AND RELOCATE. NINETY DAYS NOW VERSUS A YEAR? THIS IS AN -- THIS IS
ADDING INSULT TO INJURY TO OUR BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO WORK IN OUR
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES DOING A VERY DANGEROUS JOB, MY COLLEAGUES. I
DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RATIONAL BEHIND -- RATIONALE BEHIND IT, BUT THIS
ADMINISTRATION, AS MUCH AS THEY WANT TO KEEP BOASTING ABOUT THE
PRISONS THEY'RE CLOSING, THEY HAVE TO TAKE OWNERSHIP WITH THE RISE IN
VIOLENCE THAT'S GOING ON IN OUR CORRECTIONS FACILITIES BECAUSE OF THE
POWDERKEG DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT THEY'RE CREATING WITH THEIR POLICIES
AND WITH THESE CLOSURES.
FOR THIS REASON, AND FOR MANY OTHERS, I'M GOING TO BE
VOTING NO ON THIS BILL, AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MONTESANO.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
WOULD THE CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: HAPPY TO.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE
204
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
QUESTIONS IN TWO CATEGORIES. THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE -- IN THE BILL
ABOUT OGS EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY. I THINK IT EXTENDS THE
AUTHORITY OF THE OGS TO PERFORM EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT
COMPETITIVE BIDDING, AND I THINK IT CHANGES THE AMOUNT. COULD YOU TELL
US WHAT THE CURRENT AMOUNT IS, AND WHAT IT'S CHANGING IT TO?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT'S CURRENTLY $600,000, WE'RE
CHANGING IT TO $1.5 MILLION.
MR. MONTESANO: SO, WE'RE -- WE'RE GOING TO
ALLOW THEM TO GO OUT AND SPEND MONEY ON CONSTRUCTION UP TO $1.5
MILLION WITH NO COMPETITIVE BIDDING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IF THERE -- IF THERE IS AN
EMERGENCY THAT -- IT GETS THEM ADDITIONAL --
MR. MONTESANO: WELL, WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN
EMERGENCY FOR OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES? THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD
REQUIRE THEM TO SPEND $1.5 MILLION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT COULD BE WATER DAMAGE -- WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PRISONS -- IT COULD BE ASBESTOS ABATEMENT THAT NEEDS TO
TAKE PLACE IN A FACILITY WHERE PEOPLE ARE -- PEOPLE ARE LIVING.
SOMETHING THAT CAN'T -- CAN'T WAIT TO GO THROUGH THE NORMAL... THE
NORMAL PROCESS. I THINK THE ORDINARY NEEDING OF AN -- OF AN EMERGENCY
REPAIR.
MR. MONTESANO: AND HOW -- AND HOW WAS THIS
NEW NUMBER OF $1.5 MILLION FROM $600,000 DETERMINED? WAS THERE A
STUDY DONE? WAS THERE A HEARING CONDUCTED? WAS THERE A SPECIFIC
REQUEST FROM OGS?
205
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, ACTUALLY, THE GOVERNOR HAD
ASKED FOR $2 MILLION, AND WE SETTLED AT -- TO GO UP TO $2 MILLION, WE
SETTLED AT THE $1.5- --
MR. MONTESANO: WELL, I -- AND THAT I CAN
APPRECIATE. BUT -- BUT STILL, WHAT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INCREASE
IN THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY? IT HAD TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IF -- WELL, THE -- THEY HAVE --
EVERY TIME THEY GO OVER THIS CURRENT $600,000, THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO
THE COMPTROLLER FOR ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY, AND THIS HAS CREATED --
MR. MONTESANO: BUT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- DELAYS IN RESPONDING --
MR. MONTESANO: BUT THAT GIVES THE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- TO THE EMERGENCIES.
MR. MONTESANO: BUT THAT'S -- BUT THAT GIVES THE
COMPTROLLER OVERSIGHT OVER THE EXPENDITURE OF STATE FUNDS. SO, UP TO
$600,000 THEY HAVE A FREE HAND, AND THEN AFTER THAT, THE COMPTROLLER
HAS TO STICK HIS NOSE INTO IT IF THEY'RE GOING BACK FOR MORE MONEY. AND
WOULDN'T WE WANT THE -- THE COMPTROLLER TO EXERCISE OVERSIGHT OVER THE
SPENDING OF OUR FUNDS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I'D -- I WOULD JUST
RESPOND THAT THESE ARE EMERGENCY -- EMERGENCY REPAIRS, AND THE COSTS
HAVE -- HAVE GONE UP AND THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE THE ADDED DELAY
WOULD NOT BE BENEFICIAL TO MAKING THE REPAIRS.
MR. MONTESANO: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND THE
NEXT CATEGORY IS IN LABOR. AND I KNOW THERE'S BEING -- SOME
206
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MODIFICATIONS BEING MADE TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION MEDICAL
PROVIDERS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. MONTESANO: AND WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW SOME
NEW TYPES OF PROVIDERS TO -- TO OPERATE UNDER WORKERS' COMPENSATION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. MONTESANO: COULD YOU TELL ME SPECIFICALLY
WHAT THOSE NEW AREAS OF PRACTICE ARE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. SO, WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND
THE LIST OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE
AND TREATMENT. PROVIDERS INCLUDE ACUPUNCTURISTS, NURSE PRACTITIONERS
AND LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS.
MR. MONTESANO: CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS?
(SIDEBAR)
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'M SORRY, I...
MR. MONTESANO: THAT'S OKAY. YOU SAID CLINICAL
SOCIAL WORKERS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS,
YES.
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY. CURRENTLY, DO WE PERMIT
PSYCHOLOGISTS TO ACCEPT WORKERS' COMPENSATION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY. AND WHAT WOULD BE THE
FUNCTION OF A SOCIAL WORKER IN A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IF ADDITIONAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
207
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SERVICES AND -- SOMETIMES YOU CAN FIND A SOCIAL WORKER WHERE YOU
COULDN'T FIND A PSYCHOLOGIST. AND THEY'RE LIKE A NURSE PRACTITIONER
WHO'S LESS EXPENSIVE THAN A PHYSICIAN. A LICENSED SOCIAL WORKER HAS --
HAS LOWER FEES THAN A PSYCHOLOGIST.
MR. MONTESANO: WELL, IT -- IT'S JUST -- SO, MY
CONCERN IS, WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO PEOPLE WITH INJURIES OR
ILLNESSES THAT REQUIRE THE SERVICES OF A LICENSED PRACTITIONER, AND WE'RE
GOING TO PAY FOR THEM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION. I ASSUME, AT LEAST
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO RECEIVE THE BEST CARE.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WE WATERED DOWN THAT CARE LIKE -- SO, INSTEAD OF
A PHYSICIAN TREATING THEM, WE ENCOURAGE A NURSE PRACTITIONER, OR,
INSTEAD OF A PSYCHOLOGIST TREATING THEM, WE GO TO A SOCIAL WORKER. AND
I JUST CAN'T, IN MY MIND, UNDERSTAND WHERE A SOCIAL WORKER FITS IN. AND
ESPECIALLY IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE'VE PASSED LEGISLATION IN THIS
HOUSE TO REVAMP WORKERS' COMPENSATION SO WE WOULD BRING DOWN THE
COST TO THE EMPLOYERS, AND -- AND I APPRECIATE SOME OF THE OTHER
PRACTICES YOU'RE BRINGING IN. YOU KNOW, ACUPUNCTURE, THEY SERVE A
LEGITIMATE NEED IN -- IN PEOPLE RECOVERING FROM CERTAIN INJURIES RATHER
THAN TAKING, YOU KNOW, DRUGS AND STUFF OF THAT NATURE. BUT, THAT'S JUST
MY CONCERN, IS THAT WE'RE GOING INTO AN AREA HERE WHERE WE REDUCE
EXPENSES IN ONE AREA, THEN GO RIGHT BACK AND INCREASE THEM IN THE
OTHER.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL --
MR. MONTESANO: AND THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, I'M
SORRY.
208
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, IT
HAS TO BE THE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT AND A MEDICAL NECESSITY FOR SUCH
TREATMENT. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SHORTCHANGE AN INJURED WORKER. BUT IF
THAT'S WHAT'S APPROPRIATE AND MEDICALLY NECESSARY, WE WANT TO ALLOW
THAT TO HAPPEN.
MR. MONTESANO: AND DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY
THAT IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SERVICES OF THESE NEW PROVIDERS, THAT
LIKE A PRESCRIPTION OR A REFERRAL HAS TO BE PREPARED BY THE PHYSICIAN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, THAT -- THAT'S TRUE.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PALUMBO.
MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
THE -- WOULD THE CHAIRWOMAN MIND YIELDING FOR A FEW QUESTIONS,
PLEASE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU, MS. WEINSTEIN. I JUST
HAVE GENERALLY TWO AREAS TO DISCUSS. AND THE FIRST ONE I'D LIKE TO
DISCUSS IS REGARDING THE REDUCTION OF ONE YEAR TO NOW MEAN 364 DAYS --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
209
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. PALUMBO: -- AND -- AND AS FAR AS OUR
SENTENCING GUIDELINES ARE CONCERNED. AND I'M ASSUMING, AND I'LL JUST
CITE THE SECTION HERE. IT'S TITLE 8 UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1251
REGARDING DEPORTATION, SPECIFICALLY STATES IN (2)(A)(I), ANY ALIEN WHO IS
CONVICTED OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE COMMITTED WITHIN FIVE
YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF ENTRY - WITH SOME OTHER CAVEATS - AND (II) EITHER
IS SENTENCED TO CONFINEMENT OR IS CONFINED THEREFORE IN A PRISON OR
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR ONE YEAR OR LONGER IS DEPORTABLE. SO, IN
THAT REGARD, IS THAT THE REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THIS? IS THAT BASICALLY
SO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO ULTIMATELY HAVE RECEIVED A MISDEMEANOR
CONVICTION UP TO ONE YEAR -- OR THAT IS ACTUALLY FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR,
WE REDUCE IT BY A DAY THAT MIGHT NOT FIT WITHIN THAT STATUTE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THE -- THE PURPOSE OF OUR
CHANGE HERE IS TO REDUCE POSSIBLE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES TO AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS CONVICTED. YOU MENTIONED ONE, THERE ARE OTHERS. IN
SOME STATES -- A FEW STATES RESTRICT VOTING OR DENY VOTING RIGHTS BASED
ON CONVICTION WITH A SENTENCE OF ONE YEAR OR MORE. THERE ARE ALSO A
FEW STATES THAT DENY EMPLOYMENT OR LICENSURE IN SOME PROFESSIONS
BASED ON A CONVICTION OR OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY ONE YEAR OR MORE. THE
-- THE POINT FOR SOMEONE WHO SUFFERS COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES FOR A
SENTENCE OF A YEAR, A CRIME THAT HAS A SENTENCE OF A YEAR, CAN BE
SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER SERVED A DAY IN JAIL, BUT BECAUSE THEIR
MISDEMEANOR, THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR QUALIFIED FOR UP TO -- QUALIFIED
FOR A MINIMUM OF A YEAR IN JAIL, THEY WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE
STATUTE YOU MENTIONED AS WELL AS THOSE THAT -- THAT I MENTIONED. AND
210
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PARTICULARLY SINCE, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED OTHER TIMES HERE, THERE IS A
DISPROPORTIONATE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF PEOPLE OF COLOR, OF LOWER-
INCOME PEOPLE, AND THIS IS A WAY TO...TO ASSIST -- ASSIST THOSE PEOPLE
FROM FACING THESE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES.
MR. PALUMBO: UNDERSTOOD. AND SO, IN THAT
SUBSECTION PART OO, GOES FURTHER TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE A REMEDIAL
MEASURE FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT ALREADY MAY HAVE PETITIONS PENDING IN
THE -- IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OR IN THE IMMIGRATION COURTS, THAT THEY CAN
ACTUALLY MAKE A POSTJUDGMENT MOTION TO BE RESENTENCED AND HAVE IT
VACATED IN LIGHT OF THIS -- THIS CURRENT STATUTE, OR THE EFFECT THAT THIS WILL
HAVE. SO, IT APPLIES RETROACTIVELY AS WELL. IS THAT ACCURATE?
(SIDEBAR)
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, YOU CAN. I MEAN, I WAS JUST
VERIFYING THAT POINT. YOU'RE -- YOU'RE CORRECT THAT YOU CAN APPLY TO --
ANYBODY CAN APPLY TO HAVE THEIR SENTENCE --
MR. PALUMBO: RECONSIDERED AND GET IT BACK ON
THE SENTENCING CALENDAR. AND THEN THE MAXIMUM, IN THE EVENT IT WAS
JUST A SENTENCING THAT WAS VACATED, NOT THE CONVICTION, SINCE IT WOULD
BE A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OR LESS --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. PALUMBO: -- THE MAXIMUM TERM OF JAIL IS 364
DAYS FOR ALL --
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT STILL WOULD --
MR. PALUMBO: -- CRIMES AT THIS POINT THAT ARE
MISDEMEANOR OR LOWER.
211
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT WOULDN'T REDUCE THEIR -- IT
WOULDN'T CHANGE THE -- WHAT THEY WERE CONVICTED OF, IT WOULD CHANGE
THEIR SENTENCE.
MR. PALUMBO: RIGHT. IT WOULD JUST VACATE THE
SENTENCE. I THINK IT WAS UNDER 440 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW,
WHERE 330 IS TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, I BELIEVE, AND 440, THAT ARTICLE IS
FOR JUST SENTENCING ISSUES. SO, HAS THAT BEEN AMENDED AS WELL TO ADD
THAT TO ALLOW THAT AS THE VEHICLE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, IT HAS.
MR. PALUMBO: OKAY. AND JUST ONE LAST QUESTION
ON THIS SECTION. IN PART OO, AND IT'S ON PAGE... LET ME TAKE A LOOK, PAGE
51, IT'S LINES 15 THROUGH 31, THERE ARE -- ALL THAT LANGUAGE THAT'S STRICKEN,
THAT THEY SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE YEAR. AND THEN IT ALSO SAYS, PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED UPON A CONVICTION FOR
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE FOURTH DEGREE HAS CERTAIN
MANDATORY MINIMUMS, I WON'T READ THE WHOLE SECTION. SO, IT LOOKS AS
THOUGH THAT HAS BEEN STRICKEN REGARDING A SENTENCING GUIDELINE FOR
SOME WEAPONS CONVICTIONS. THAT HAS NOT SEEM TO COME BACK WITH THE
NEW LANGUAGE IN THIS BUDGET BILL. SO, IS THAT NOW COMPLETELY REPEALED?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, THAT CRIME IS NO LONGER A
MISDEMEANOR, IT'S BEEN ELEVATED. SO, THAT'S WHY IT'S STRICKEN.
MR. PALUMBO: CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON
FOURTH IN THAT SUBSECTION, 265.01. I BELIEVE THIS WAS BY WAY OF A PLEA.
SO, NOW -- I'LL -- I'LL SUBSEQUENTLY CHECK THAT OUT. BUT I -- I APPRECIATE
THE CLARIFICATION.
212
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
NOW, COULD WE GO TO, PLEASE, PART... II. THIS IS FOR THE
REENTRY PACKAGE FOR FORMERLY-INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. PALUMBO: NOW, THERE IS A LOT -- THERE'S A
HANDFUL OF INFORMATION IN THERE, AND JUST ONE THAT I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS. IT
SAYS IN -- IN PART 2 THAT THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED COMPASSIONATE PAROLE
FOR INCAPACITATING MEDICAL CONDITIONS THAT CAN BE -- THAT ARE
EXACERBATED BY AGE. AND I BELIEVE IT SET AN AGE REQUIREMENT AS 55.
AND THEN BELOW IT, IT SAYS THESE -- ALL OF THOSE SECTIONS ENUMERATED IN
SUBPARTS A THROUGH P. AND I LOOKED THROUGH ALL THOSE, I DID NOT SEE
ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO COMPASSIONATE PAROLE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT -- THAT'S ONE OF THE SECTIONS
THAT'S OMITTED AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE COMING BACK.
MR. PALUMBO: OH, OKAY. SO -- SO THE LINE THAT
ACTUALLY SAYS THAT THAT SECTION IS CONTAINED IS PROBABLY MAYBE AN ERROR
THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP? MORE OF A SCRIVENER'S ERROR THAT IT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ONE OF THE
THE SECTIONS THAT'S INTENTIONALLY OMITTED?
MR. PALUMBO: NO, NO. IT SAYS RIGHT HERE IN PART
2, LINE 36 -- PART 2, LINE 39 -- YES, LINE 39 ON PAGE 36, FINALLY, THIS PART
ESTABLISHES COMPASSIONATE PAROLE FOR INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS OVER
THE AGE OF 55 WHO HAVE INCAPACITATING MEDICAL CONDITIONS EXACERBATED
BY AGE. AND THEN IT GOES ON TO RIGHT AFTER -- EACH COMPONENT IS WHOLLY
CONTAINED WITHIN THE SUBPART IDENTIFIED AS SUBPARTS A THROUGH P.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. SO -- SO THE TITLE
213
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REMAINED, BUT THE OTHER PART -- THE SUBSTANCE OF IT HAS BEEN OMITTED.
MR. PALUMBO: OKAY. GREAT. IS THAT -- ARE WE
GOING TO SEE THAT IN A SUBSEQUENT BUDGET BILL, OR IS THAT -- IS THAT OUT OF
THE BILL --
MS. WEINSTEIN: OH NO, THAT IS NOT RETURNING.
MR. PALUMBO: OH, TERRIFIC. THANK YOU.
JUST A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS REGARDING THE BALANCE OF
THAT SECTION, THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT LICENSES NOW THAT
PAROLEES OR PEOPLE CONVICTED OF FELONIES AND CRIMINAL OFFENSES ARE NOW
ABLE TO GET, AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND IN LAW THE -- THE IDEA IS THAT WE
CERTAINLY WANT THESE FOLKS TO ASSIMILATE BACK INTO SOCIETY. BUT SOME OF
THESE -- IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE MULTIPLE AGENCIES THAT ARE ABLE TO
DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY. AND FOR EXAMPLE, AS FAR AS A DRIVING SCHOOL
POSITION, IN SUBPART I, IT SAYS THEY MAY EMPLOY SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN
CONVICTED - AND I'LL GET TO IT SPECIFICALLY IF YOU'D LIKE - BUT IT DOESN'T
INDICATE WHO DETERMINES THE ELIGIBILITY. SO, THAT'S MY QUESTION WITH
REGARD TO A LOT OF THESE. SOME OF THEM SEEM TO BE, MAYBE THE
SECRETARY OF INSURANCE, OR FOR REAL ESTATE BROKERS, THERE ARE CERTAIN
AGENCIES THAT MAY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION
WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE'S ELIGIBLE FOR THE LICENSE. BUT IN SUBPART I, IT'S
A SHORT -- IT'S ONLY ABOUT SIX LINES -- A LICENSEE MAY EMPLOY IN
CONNECTION WITH A DRIVING SCHOOL A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF
A CRIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 23(A) OF THE CORRECTION LAW.
THAT'S IT. AND MY CONCERN WITH THAT - WHILE YOU'RE CONFERRING - IS THAT,
THAT IS ANY CRIME -- SEX CRIMES, WHATEVER IT MAY BE. AND MY CONCERN
214
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IS IT'S A DRIVING SCHOOL, TYPICALLY IT'S STUDENTS AND KIDS, WHO CAN MAKE
THAT VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS
PERSON CAN MAKE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE AS A DRIVING SCHOOL INSTRUCTOR.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- THERE ARE NUMEROUS FACTORS,
AS -- AS YOU MENTION. AND THIS IS PERMISSIBLE, SO STILL WOULD LOOK AT
WHETHER A THREAT TO THE SAFETY IN THE COMMUNITY -- OR SAFETY TO -- THREAT
TO SAFETY OR TO PROPERTY IN THE COMMUNITY.
MR. PALUMBO: CERTAINLY. AND -- AND I SAW THERE
WERE SOME FACTORS ENUMERATED. SO, IN SUBPART I, IT COULD JUST BE THE
OWNER OF THE DRIVING SCHOOL WOULD HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. PALUMBO: SEE -- AND NOW DON'T WE -- I KNOW
WE HAVE SOME BILLS PENDING FOR STATEWIDE SITUATIONS. BUT I BELIEVE IN
NEW YORK CITY, AREN'T YOU NOT ALLOWED, AS A PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER, TO
ASK SOMEONE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME OR
CONVICTED OF A FELONY PRIOR TO OFFERING THEM THE JOB? I KNOW THERE WAS
SOMETHING THAT THE MAYOR RAN ON. OR DISCUSSED.
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I -- I BELIEVE YOU -- YOU CAN
ASK ABOUT CONVICTIONS, YOU CAN'T ASK ABOUT --
MR. PALUMBO: ARRESTS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- AN ARREST THAT DIDN'T RESULT IN A
CONVICTION.
MR. PALUMBO: OKAY. SO, IN THE EVENT -- IF THIS IS
ULTIMATELY GOING TO BECOME LAW PROBABLY SOME TIME TODAY OR EARLY
TOMORROW, I JUST THINK WE SHOULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER THAT. WE'RE GETTING
215
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THERE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YEAH.
MR. PALUMBO: -- ABOUT TEN TO 6:00 -- THAT WE
SHOULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER THOSE RAMIFICATIONS, BECAUSE I THINK THERE
MAY BE A BACK-DOOR SITUATION WHERE WE MAY HAVE A -- ALL EMPLOYERS IN
THESE SITUATIONS OR PEOPLE WHO ARE PROVIDING LICENSES, MAY HAVE THE
INABILITY TO ASK SOMEONE PROPERLY WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE BEEN
CONVICTED OF A CRIME. AND SO, ANYONE WOULD BASICALLY JUST BE ABLE TO
FORCE THEIR WAY IN AND -- AND RECEIVE THESE LICENSES. AND I GET IT. AS I
SAID, WE WANT THESE PEOPLE TO ASSIMILATE INTO SOCIETY, I THINK WE ALL CAN
AGREE. JUST THAT ONE WRINKLE IS THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE BACK
INTO SOCIETY ENTIRELY, PRIOR TO PAYING THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY.
NOW, ONE LAST AREA --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. PALUMBO: -- PLEASE. THERE ARE -- THERE'S
SOME EXCLUSION OF CRIMINAL HISTORY ON THE UNDISPOSED CASES, AND I SEE
OTHERS -- WE'RE REMOVING SUSPENSIONS OF DRIVER'S LICENSES, AND I KNOW
-- AND I KNOW IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE PRIOR RESOLUTION. LET ME ADDRESS
DRIVER'S LICENSES FIRST. SO, NOW UNDER 510, THAT -- THAT AREA IS -- IS
COMPLETELY REPEALED. SO IF SOMEONE'S CONVICTED UNDER ARTICLE 220 OF A
DRUG OFFENSE, THE COURT CANNOT TAKE ACTION ON THEIR LICENSE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU'RE -- THIS RELATES TO THE -- IT'S
JUST REPEALS THE STATUTE, THAT RESOLUTION THAT WE JUST ADOPTED.
MR. PALUMBO: RIGHT. AND THAT -- AND THAT
RESOLUTION COVERS US BECAUSE WE WOULD LOSE FEDERAL FUNDING --
216
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. PALUMBO: -- IF WE HAD -- IF WE REPEALED THAT
STATUTE? OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. PALUMBO: SEE, NOW, IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE
COURT -- IT WAS ALWAYS A DISCRETIONARY POSITION. SO, THE COURT NO LONGER
HAS ANY DISCRETION. THEY CANNOT, WHETHER THEY WANT TO OR NOT, CONSIDER
TAKING ACTION AGAINST SOMEONE'S DRIVER'S LICENSE IN THE EVENT THEY'RE
CONVICTED OF A DRUG OFFENSE. IS THAT ACCURATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THIS -- THIS WAS A MANDATORY
SUSPENSION, SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ELIMINATING.
MR. PALUMBO: BUT IT WAS --
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT WASN'T DISCRETIONARY.
MR. PALUMBO: WELL, THERE WERE -- THERE WERE
COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE OLD STATUTE THAT THE JUDGE COULD
CONSIDER WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT THE INDIVIDUAL NEEDED THEIR
LICENSE. AND THERE WERE SOME COMPELLING SITUATIONS, IN FACT, IN
PRACTICE. I'VE HAD IT HAPPEN HUNDREDS OF TIMES. AND GENERALLY, IF THE
PERSON'S WORKING AND NEEDS TO DRIVE, THE COURT WOULD TYPICALLY TAKE NO
ACTION, AND THEY WOULD SIGN THE SUSPENSION FORM AND SIGN IT AND CHECK
THE BOX THAT SAYS NO ACTION. THERE'S A SPECIFIC BOX, AT LEAST IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY, THAT THE COURT CAN CHECK.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'M BEING TOLD THAT UNLESS THERE
WAS A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF, IT WAS MANDATORY.
MR. PALUMBO: OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT -- HOPEFULLY,
217
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT WASN'T THE GENESIS OF THIS -- OR THE NEED TO CREATE THIS PARTICULAR
PIECE OF LEGISLATION. THANK YOU --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. PALUMBO: CHAIRMAN -- CHAIRWOMAN.
ON THE BILL, PLEASE, IF I MAY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. PALUMBO: JUST -- JUST VERY BRIEFLY -- AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE -- THE DESIRE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IN THIS
HOUSE -- REFORM IN THIS HOUSE, BUT I THINK SOME OF THESE SITUATIONS ARE
GOING TO BE COUNTERINTUITIVE. WHEN YOU HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE -- AND I'LL
JUST SPEAK VERY BRIEFLY ON THE REDUCTION OF A -- OF A YEAR TERM, OF A YEAR
SENTENCE NOW TO 364 DAYS. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT NOW YOU WILL
HAVE BY WAY OF THE PLEA PROCESS, WHERE SOMEONE IS CHARGED WITH A
FELONY, YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SAY, WE'LL GIVE YOU A MISDEMEANOR AND A
YEAR, BECAUSE THAT'S -- IT'S AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE, WE WON'T SEND YOU
UPSTATE, AND YOU'LL HAVE A SHOT AT POSSIBLY STAYING IN THE COUNTRY.
NOW, YOU WOULD THINK THAT IN FACT THERE WERE NO PROCEEDINGS THAT WILL
EVALUATE THAT INDIVIDUAL'S PARTICULAR IMMIGRATION STATUS, YOU'RE NOW
GOING TO HAVE, BY -- THE PLEA WILL BE TO A FELONY. AND IF YOU READ THE
AGGRAVATED FELONY STATUTES, WHICH IS ANOTHER MANDATORY DEPORT
SITUATION, YOU'RE NOT -- THEY'RE NOT -- THERE'S ALMOST NO DISCRETION. AND
IT'S A LAUNDRY LIST THAT INCLUDES ALMOST EVERY SINGLE FELONY IN THE NEW
YORK STATE PENAL LAW, AND OTHERWISE. SO, THOSE ARE -- I THINK THAT'S
GOING TO CREATE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE, WHERE YOU WOULD THINK
THAT THIS WOULD GO TO THE BENEFIT OF SOMEONE WHO HAS QUESTIONABLE
218
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IMMIGRATION STATUS AND HAS A PETITION PENDING AGAINST THEM, BUT WHEN
IT'S A CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
EVALUATE AND PRESENT A CASE THAT THEY SHOULD STAY FOR OTHER REASONS. IF
THEY'RE CONVICTED OF AN AGGRAVATED FELONY, IT'S NOT GOING TO GO THEIR
WAY.
SO, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD VOTE NO ON THIS ENTIRE
PACKAGE, MOST RESPECTFULLY. I THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR YOUR TIME.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. REILLY.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
MADAM CHAIR YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. REILLY: I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO DISCUSS PART RR,
WHICH IS THE USE OF FORCE POLICY FOR POLICE OFFICERS. IN THE -- IN THE
LEGISLATION IT ACTUALLY STATES "BRANDISHES." CAN YOU GIVE ME THE
DEFINITION OF WHAT THAT -- OF "BRANDISH" IS INTENDED IN THE LEGISLATION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S NOT DEFINED IN -- IN STATUTE. IT
HAS ITS PLAIN MEANING.
MR. REILLY: I'M SORRY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT IS NOT DEFINED IN STATUTE, IT HAS
ITS PLAIN MEANING -- MEANING.
MR. REILLY: MEANING. OKAY. SO -- SO THE PLAIN --
219
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE PLAIN MEANING, ACCORDING TO WEBSTER'S, RIGHT, IF -- IF YOU AGREE
PLEASE LET ME KNOW, IS TO WAVE OR FLOURISH SOMETHING AS A THREAT OR AN
ANGER OR EXCITEMENT. WOULD YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE THE DEFINITION IN
THIS CASE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I -- SINCE THIS IS A
REPORTING STATUTE, DCJS WILL DETERMINE, I WOULD THINK, THE GUIDANCE FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT SO THAT THEY COULD -- THERE COULD BE UNIFORM REPORTING
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
MR. REILLY: ALL RIGHT. ANOTHER DEFINITION FOR
"BRANDISH" UNDER THE FEDERAL CODE IS JUST HAVING ANY PART OF A FIREARM
SHOWING. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT DEFINITION AS WELL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST RESTATE
THAT THE DCJS WILL DEVELOP THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF WHAT SHOULD BE
REPORTED.
MR. REILLY: OKAY. SO, THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING
THAT IS BECAUSE EVERY TIME A POLICE OFFICER SHOWS UP TO A SCENE
RESPONDING TO A CALL, ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, IN THE-- IN THEIR CODE, JUST THE BUTT OF THE GUN SHOWING OUT
OF THEIR HOLSTER WOULD CONSTITUTE BRANDISHING. IF YOU JUST TAKE IT THAT
WAY. DO YOU -- DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I -- I WOULD JUST
REPEAT --
MR. REILLY: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- WHAT I SAID THAT SINCE --
MR. REILLY: FAIR ENOUGH.
220
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE A
REPORTING STATUTE, SO THE AGENCY WILL HELP DETERMINE THAT TO PROVIDE THE
GUIDANCE FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AROUND THE STATE.
MR. REILLY: FAIR ENOUGH. SO, LIKE I'VE SPOKEN
SEVERAL TIMES ON OTHER BILLS IN THE PAST, OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS, ONE
THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS I THINK WHEN WE WRITE LEGISLATION OR
INTRODUCE LEGISLATION AND WE DON'T DEFINE THE WORDS WE'RE USING, THE
TRANSITION TO THE STREET IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE INTEND HERE. SO,
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: PERHAPS. BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN,
I'LL -- I'LL JUST GO, YOU KNOW, BACK TO IT'S A REPORTING STATUTE AND THERE --
THERE'LL BE GUIDANCE ISSUED ON THAT.
MR. REILLY: OKAY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE
CONTINUUM OF FORCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I MEAN, I GUESS YOU'RE -- YOU'RE
REFERRING TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE PRINCIPLE OF USING THE LEAST -- LEAST FORCE
NECESSARY IN A SITUATION?
MR. REILLY: YES. SO, IF I MAY, I'LL -- CAN I EXPLAIN
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: PLEASE DO.
MR. REILLY: WITH A QUESTION AS A FOLLOW UP.
CONTINUUM OF FORCE IS JUST A MERE PRESENCE IN UNIFORM BY A POLICE
OFFICER, IS THE FIRST LEVEL OF FORCE. DOING A VEHICLE STOP CAN BE
CONTINUUM OF FORCE. IF THE SITUATION RISERS -- RISES TO ANOTHER LEVEL, YOU
CAN DO VERBAL COMMANDS. AND THEN YOU COULD USE THE EQUIPMENT
221
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT'S PROVIDED TO YOU AS A POLICE OFFICER, WHETHER THAT BE A BATON, A
HANDCUFF, YOUR ACTUAL SHIELD, A FIREARM. SO, WOULD ALL THOSE THINGS
CONSTITUTE THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN THIS LEGISLATION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CLEARLY, NOT. AND I WOULD THINK
YOU -- YOU WOULD AGREE, AND I GO BACK TO ALL OF -- IN TERMS OF DETAIL,
REQUIREMENT OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE REPORTED, THAT DCJS WILL DETERMINE
THAT -- THEY -- THEY WILL DETERMINE WHAT NEEDS TO BE REPORTED WITH
GUIDANCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.
MR. REILLY: WELL, ACCORDING TO THE LEGISLATION,
THERE WERE SOME PARTS THAT WERE LABELED HERE IN THE BILL. SO, IT'S
BRANDISHING A FIREARM AT OR IN THE DIRECTION OF ANOTHER PERSON; A
TASER; OC SPRAY, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS PEPPER SPRAY SOMETIMES;
USING SOME ELECTRONIC DEPLOYMENT, WHICH IS A NEW TECHNIQUE IN -- IN
LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHERE WE TRY AND IMPACT THE PERSON'S HEARING TO
MAKE THEM STOP DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING. ALSO, THERE'S ALSO IN THIS
BILL, IT SAYS ANY SPECIFIC USE OF A CHOKE HOLD OR SIMILAR RESTRAINT THAT
APPLIES PRESSURE TO THE THROAT OR WINDPIPE OF A PERSON IN A MANNER
THAT MAY HINDER BREATHING OR REDUCE INTAKE OF AIR. ARE -- ARE THERE ANY
OTHER USES OF FORCE THAT DCJS MAY INCLUDE IN THAT, DO YOU THINK?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THEY -- YOU KNOW, THEY ALSO
LEFT OUT THE SECTION F, WHICH ENGAGES IN CONTACT -- CONDUCT RESULTS IN
THE DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OF ANOTHER PERSON, SO --
MR. REILLY: YES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT
ISN'T OTHERWISE DELINEATED IN -- IN THE LIST ABOVE.
222
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. REILLY: OKAY. SO, ONE OF MY -- ONE OF MY
INSTRUCTORS IN THE ACADEMY MANY YEARS AGO WHEN I WENT THROUGH, TOLD
ME THAT WHEN WE RESPOND TO AN INCIDENT, A 911 CALL, REMEMBER, HOW
MANY TIMES IS THERE A GUN WHEN A POLICE OFFICER RESPONDS? DO YOU
KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I -- I DON'T. BUT I, YOU KNOW,
CERTAINLY KNOW THAT YOU -- YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU -- WHEN YOU
ARRIVE AT A SCENE, NECESSARILY.
MR. REILLY: ACTUALLY, AT EVERY INCIDENT A POLICE
OFFICER RESPONDS TO, THERE IS A GUN --
MS. WEINSTEIN: OH YOU --
MR. REILLY: BECAUSE THAT GUN --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOUR -- YOUR OWN GUN.
MR. REILLY: -- IS THE WEAPON OF THE POLICE OFFICER.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. REILLY: AND AT ANY TIME IT CAN ACTUALLY
BECOME AN INSTRUMENT USED BY THE PERPETRATOR.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. REILLY: ARE YOU AWARE OF HOW MANY TIMES
FIREARMS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM POLICE OFFICERS AND USED ON THEM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I -- I DO NOT. I DID HAVE THE
PLEASURE OF VISITING THE NEW POLICE ACADEMY IN -- IN QUEENS, AND WE
SAW SOME DEMONSTRATIONS, YOU KNOW, OF THAT.
MR. REILLY: DID YOU GET TO USE TO THE FATS
MACHINE? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FATS MACHINE IS?
223
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: I JUST WATCHED.
MR. REILLY: ALL RIGHT. IT'S ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, A
SIMULATION OF --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. REILLY: -- WHAT YOU WOULD DO AND RESPOND.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT --
MR. REILLY: YEAH.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SOME -- SOME OF THE COLLEAGUES
THERE --
MR. REILLY: YEAH.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THERE DID. NO, IT WAS VERY -- IT
WAS AN IMPRESSIVE... IMPRESSIVE VISIT.
MR. REILLY: YEAH. SO, I -- SO, GETTING BACK TO
BRANDISHING THE FIREARM --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. REILLY: WE'RE DOING A VEHICLE STOP AS A POLICE
OFFICER, WOULD YOU THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REQUIRED IF YOU'RE WORKING
A MIDNIGHT TOUR AND YOU AND YOUR PARTNER PULL OVER THIS VEHICLE WITH
SOME OCCUPANTS THAT MAY FIT A ROBBERY PATTERN, AND YOU DO NOT POINT
YOUR FIREARM AT THE VEHICLE OR AT THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT YOU HAVE THE
FIREARM ALONG YOUR -- ALONG YOUR LEG AS YOU APPROACH THE CAR, THE
OCCUPANTS DON'T SEE THE FIREARM, WOULD THE POLICE OFFICER BE REQUIRED
UNDER THIS LEGISLATION TO GIVE THE -- AND TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AS
USE OF FORCE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I -- I THINK I'M GOING
224
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TO GO BACK TO WHAT I WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, DCJS IS THE MAIN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN OUR STATE. THEY ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING THE
REPORTING REQUIRE -- THE -- THE REPORTING FORM, THE GUIDANCE. SO I THINK,
YOU KNOW, DISCUSSING INDIVIDUAL TYPE OF SITUATIONS WON'T -- I DON'T
THINK WILL IMPACT MY ANSWER. BUT I WOULD JUST REFER BACK TO THE FACT
THAT THEY DO TRAINING, THEY DEVELOP POLICIES, THEY KNOW WHAT IS
HAPPENING IN THE FIELD, SO THEY'RE -- THE FORMS THAT THEY -- THE FORM THEY
DEVELOP, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTING, I THINK WILL FIT IN WITH TRAINING
THAT OFFICERS AND PRACTICE THAT OFFICERS IN OUR STATE HAVE.
MR. REILLY: DO WE KNOW HOW MANY -- HOW MANY
DEPARTMENTS THROUGHOUT NEW YORK STATE ALREADY COMPILED THIS
INFORMATION OF USE OF FORCE AND MADE IT PUBLIC?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I COULDN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY
DO. SOME DO. YOU KNOW, CLEARLY, THE -- IN NEW YORK CITY, WHICH
COVERS A LARGE PART OF OUR STATE'S POPULATION, THERE IS THE REQUIREMENT
FOR REPORTING FOR A STOP. WHEN THERE'S A STOP AND FRISK SITUATION, THEY'RE
HAVING -- THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING. SO IT -- IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S AN
OVERLY-BURDENSOME TASK TO REQUIRE.
MR. REILLY: OKAY. ARE THERE -- ARE THERE ANY
REQUIREMENTS IN THE LEGISLATION TO COMPILE AND DOCUMENT THE USE OF
FORCE OR ASSAULT COMMITTED BY PERPETRATORS ON POLICE OFFICERS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NOT ON -- NOT ON THIS FORM. BUT
PRESUMABLY, THOSE SITUATIONS WOULD BE REPORTED AS A CRIME. THE -- IF A
POLICE OFFICER IS ASSAULTED.
MR. REILLY: OKAY. WELL, THIS -- THIS LEGISLATION
225
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REQUIRES THAT WITHIN -- ON AN ANNUAL BASIS FOR THE -- FOR THE PRIOR YEAR
THAT AGENCIES GIVE THIS -- GIVE THIS INFORMATION TO DCJS SO THEY COULD
PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE, RIGHT. AND TO GIVE AN EXACT DATE, LOCATION AND
COUNTY WHERE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED FOR THE PRIOR YEAR. DOESN'T --
DOESN'T -- AND I -- AS I READ CORRECTLY, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE NAMES TO BE
SHARED --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT. NO --
MR. REILLY: -- BUT IT -- RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, CORRECT. NOT THIS --
MR. REILLY: BUT IT CAN -- BUT IT CAN -- IT CAN GIVE
THE EXACT DATE AND TIME AND COUNTY WHERE IT OCCURRED. AND IF WE'RE
DOING THAT WITHIN A YEAR, IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
OR CRIMINAL PROCESS HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS
COULD ACTUALLY IMPACT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, BECAUSE WE'LL BE GIVING
INFORMATION OUT PUBLICLY THAT IS NOT YET PRESENTED IN COURT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I DON'T SEE HOW IT WOULD
IMPACT AN EXISTING CASE.
MR. REILLY: IT ACTUALLY STATES IN THE LEGISLATION THAT
THEY HAVE TO GIVE SOME -- SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE
OCCURRENCE, EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED. THAT MAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO BOTH
THE PERPETRATOR AND POTENTIALLY THE POLICE OFFICER, IF THERE IS A QUESTION
ABOUT WHETHER THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO USE THAT FORCE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT, YOU -- YOU KNOW, SO THE --
THE NOTION IS NOT TO BE ABLE -- NOT TO LOOK AND FOCUS IN ON ONE
INDIVIDUAL INCIDENT, BUT TO USE THIS COLLECTED ANNUAL DATA TO LOOK TO SEE
226
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IF THERE ARE PATTERNS, IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN PARTICULAR -- IN PARTICULAR
AREAS, PARTICULAR COMMUNITIES. SO, IT'S NOT TO FOCUS IN ON ONE
INDIVIDUAL INCIDENT.
MR. REILLY: I -- I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT ARE YOU
AWARE THAT IF THEY DO PUT THAT INFORMATION OUT INTO THE PUBLIC REALM, ON
A WEBSITE, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ROSARIO?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THERE -- THERE'S NO OFFICER'S
NAME, IT'S -- IT'S JUST DATE AND -- DATE AND LOCATION.
MR. REILLY: ABSOLUTELY, I AGREE WITH YOU. I READ
THE LEGISLATION, THERE ARE NO NAMES, THERE ARE NO DATE OF BIRTHS, THERE ARE
NO PERTINENT INFORMATION TO THE INDIVIDUAL. BUT THERE IS PERTINENT
INFORMATION TO THE TYPE OF OCCURRENCE, THE LOCATION WHERE IT HAPPENED
AND DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT. AND, THEREFORE, DON'T YOU THINK THAT THAT
MAY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY, IF IT IS A PUBLIC -- LET'S JUST SAY IT'S A
NEWSWORTHY CASE THAT'S OUT THERE, SO THIS COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. DON'T YOU THINK?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I DOUBT THAT. AND I'M SURE AS
WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION LATER ON ABOUT DISCOVERY, THE CHANGES IN
DISCOVERY, THAT INFORMATION, I ASSUME, WOULD ALREADY -- ALREADY BE OUT
THERE. AND AS I SAID THAT IN NEW YORK CITY, THE STOP AND FRISK
INFORMATION, WHICH IS MUCH MORE DETAILED THAN IS REQUIRED UNDER THIS
PROPOSAL, HAS ALREADY BEEN HAPPENING AND THERE HAVE NOT BEEN
INCIDENTS THAT I'M AWARE OF BECAUSE OF THAT.
MR. REILLY: SO, BASED ON THE INFORMATION, AND --
AND I, TRUST ME, I KNOW NEW YORK CITY HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS,
227
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THEY DON'T -- WHEN THEY PUT OUT THEIR INFORMATION, THE NYPD, ON THEIR
WEBSITE, IT IS NOT FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IT'S GENERALLY A TWO- TO THREE-
YEAR LAG, ALL RIGHT, WHEN IT GETS PUBLICIZED. THE -- SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT TODAY IN THIS LEGISLATION HAS ALREADY BEEN
DOCUMENT BY THE NYPD. I JUST WANT TO SHARE SOME DATA. I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU THINK THIS IS PERTINENT TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO ACROSS THE STATE.
SO, IN 2016 THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 35,000 OFFICERS IN THE NYPD.
THERE WERE 72 INTENTIONAL FIREARM DISCHARGES BY POLICE OFFICERS.
SEVENTY-TWO. THERE WERE 32 SUBJECTS SHOT; NINE FATALLY, ONE INCLUDING
A POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS KILLED BY THE PERPETRATOR. TASERS HAD 501
DISCHARGES. OC SPRAY, 227 DEPLOYMENTS. NINETY-FIVE IMPACT
WEAPONS, WHICH ARE BATONS. SO, DO WE THINK THAT THE NUMBERS WILL BE
THAT MUCH GREATER IN THE STATE --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. REILLY, YOU HAVE
ELAPSED THE FIRST 15.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: IF YOU ARE INTERESTED,
YOU MAY RETURN.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THANK YOU
--
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY.
MR. REILLY: -- MS. WEINSTEIN.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RA.
MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE CHAIR
YIELD?
228
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. RA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO, I HAVE KIND OF A
SMORGASBORD OF DIFFERENT AREAS I WANT TO ASK ABOUT HERE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: GOOD.
MR. RA: -- BUT I WANT TO START WITH THE SWEEPS AND
TRANSFERS, WHICH IS NORMALLY INCLUDED IN THIS BILL. PRESUMABLY, WE'RE
GOING TO BE SEEING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. RA: OKAY. DO WE KNOW WHAT BILL THAT IS IN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT -- IN THE REVENUE BILL --
MR. RA: IT'S IN THE REVENUE BILL, OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WHICH IS -- WHICH IS IN PRINT.
MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
SO, PART J, THE NASSAU COUNTY REASSESSMENT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. RA: I KNOW THAT THERE WAS, YOU KNOW,
AMENDMENTS IN THE 30 DAYS TO THAT ORIGINAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION, BUT
THEN THERE WAS ALSO SOME PROPOSALS IN THE SENATE, AND THEN MORE
RECENTLY I HEARD SOME RUMORS BACK HOME OF DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON
WITH THAT. THIS LANGUAGE IS AS IT WAS IN THE ONE-HOUSE AND AS IT WAS IN
THE 30-DAY AMENDMENT. IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. RA: OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IS THIS BILL OR
229
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE EXPECT TO SEE RELATED TO THE NASSAU REASSESSMENT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. NO.
MR. RA: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT WILL NOT REAPPEAR IN THE
REVENUE BILL.
MR. RA: OKAY. THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR. SO, JUST -- JUST
WITH REGARD TO THIS, THOUGH, YOU KNOW, AS MANY OF US BACK IN NASSAU
HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN GOING
ON AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF NEWS COVERAGE OF IT AND A LOT OF CONCERN
FROM -- FROM OUR RESIDENTS. AND IN DOING SOME RESEARCH AS THIS HAS
BEEN COMING UP, WE'VE SEEN THAT THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF -- OF
THESE TYPE OF EXEMPTIONS BEING -- BEING PUT FORTH. I THINK THE MOST
RECENT ONES WE DID IN THE -- IN THIS LEGISLATURE FOR A COUPLE OF TOWNS IN
WESTCHESTER COUNTY, BUT THEY WERE MUCH MORE LIMITED IN THAT THEY --
THEY ONLY APPLIED IF YOU -- YOU WERE GOING UP BY A CERTAIN AMOUNT. IS
THERE A REASON WHY THIS IS SUCH AN EXPANSIVE PHASE-IN THAT IS ACROSS THE
BOARD, WHETHER YOU'RE GOING UP OR DOWN, AS OPPOSED TO DOING
SOMETHING MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT'S BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THIS IS WHAT THE COUNTY
REQUESTED. THEY'RE DOING -- THERE'S A MAJOR REASSESSMENT HAPPENING,
AND THIS IS THE -- WHAT THEY ASKED -- THEY ASKED FOR TO HELP ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS OF THEIR CITIZENS.
MR. RA: OKAY. BUT IN THIS LANGUAGE, IT'S JUST --
ACROSS THE BOARD THERE'S GOING TO BE FIVE YEARS, AND IF YOU'RE GOING -- IF
YOU'RE GOING UP IN YOUR TAXES, IT'S GOING TO GO UP OVER FIVE YEARS, IF
230
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YOUR TAXES ARE GOING DOWN, IT'S GOING TO GO DOWN OVER FIVE YEARS,
CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I BELIEVE IT'S ONLY -- WE'LL TAKE
ANOTHER LOOK AT IT, BUT I BELIEVE IT ONLY DOES THE SMOOTHING GOING UP,
THAT IT DOESN'T EXTEND TO THE FIVE YEARS GOING DOWN. DO YOU WANT TO
WAIT A MOMENT AND LET ME JUST VERIFY?
MR. RA: SURE. NO, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE
FROM WHAT WE WERE TOLD PREVIOUSLY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, I'M -- I'M TOLD THAT IF YOU'RE
TAXES GO DOWN, IT -- THIS SECTION DOES NOT IMPACT.
MR. RA: IF YOU'RE TAXES ARE BEING REDUCED, THIS
SECTION --
MS. WEINSTEIN: REDUCED. CORRECT.
MR. RA: OKAY. I WANT TO MOVE TO SECTION YY,
WHICH WE WERE DISCUSSING EARLIER ABOUT THE PAID TIME OFF FOR ELECTIONS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. SURE.
MR. RA: AND I KNOW THERE'S A -- A LOT OF SHIFTING
WITH STAFF, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR --
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, NO, THAT'S --
MR. RA: -- BEING ALL OVER THE MAP.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT'S FINE. PEOPLE NEED
EXERCISE.
MR. RA: SO, YOU KNOW, IT WAS ASKED EARLIER ABOUT
HOW THIS WAS GOING TO WORK IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO
VERIFY AN EMPLOYEE IS, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS REGISTERED TO VOTE. BUT, YOU
231
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
KNOW, COMING -- WE -- WE DID A FIRST PASSAGE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW FOR SAME-DAY REGISTRATION. SO,
PRESUMING A COUPLE OF YEARS FROM NOW THAT IS IMPLEMENTED, BASICALLY,
ANY EMPLOYEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE, CORRECT? BECAUSE THEY'D BE ABLE TO
JUST GO AND SAY, WELL, I'M NOT REGISTERED NOW, BUT I'M GOING TO REGISTER
TODAY AND I'M GOING TO VOTE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SOMEONE COULD, ONCE THAT WERE --
ONCE WE WERE TO HAVE SECOND PASSAGE, BECOME LAW, IN THEORY,
SOMEONE COULD ON ELECTION -- ON AN ELECTION DAY, GO REGISTER TO VOTE,
DEPENDING ON HOW THAT IS IMPLEMENTED.
MR. RA: OKAY. NOW, IS THERE ANY RECOURSE FOR --
SUPPOSE AN EMPLOYER GIVES, YOU KNOW, GIVES AN EMPLOYEE THIS THREE
HOURS TIME OFF TO GO VOTE, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY FIND OUT THEY NEVER
WENT TO VOTE. CAN THEY DOCK THEIR PAY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- OUR LANGUAGE JUST ADDS THE
ONE DAY -- I MEAN, THE ONE HOUR -- SORRY, ADDS THE ONE HOUR. IF THEY
COULD UNDER CURRENT LAW RECOUP THE TIME THAT WAS SAID WAS GOING TO BE
FOR ELECTION AND IT WASN'T, THEN THEY COULD WITH THIS EXPANSION. WE
DON'T CHANGE THE CURRENT LAW IN TERMS OF ANY KIND OF RECOUPMENT, IT'S
ONLY THAT WE ADD -- GO FROM TWO HOURS TO THREE HOURS.
MR. RA: SEE, I -- I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT ONE
HOUR CHANGE, I THINK PROBABLY SEEMS LIKE NOT MUCH TO MOST PEOPLE, BUT
I THINK THE MUCH MORE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE THAT'S TAKING PLACE HERE IS
GETTING RID OF THAT EXEMPTION THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, WHERE IF YOU HAVE
FOUR HOURS OUTSIDE OF YOUR WORK TIME THAT YOU CAN -- THAT YOU DON'T --
232
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THIS. SO, CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE WORKING
UNTIL 5:00 AND THE POLLS ARE OPEN TILL 9:00, THE EMPLOYER IS NOT SUBJECT
TO THIS. SO -- SO THIS ISN'T JUST CHANGING THE ONE HOUR, IT REALLY IS GOING
TO MAKE THIS APPLICABLE TO MANY, MANY MORE EMPLOYERS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY YOU
COULD APPRECIATE A SITUATION WHERE IF SOMEBODY DOES GET OFF FROM WORK
AT 5:00 AND THEY HAVE A LONG COMMUTE BACK TO THEIR -- BACK TO THEIR
HOME AND THEY HAVE FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES OR OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES,
THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO -- TO VOTE, AND THIS WILL ALLOW THEM TO HAVE
THE TIME DURING -- DURING THEIR -- THE WORK HOUR, WHETHER IT MEANS
COMING IN LATE, LEAVING WORK EARLY, TO BE ABLE TO -- TO TRAVEL TO VOTE.
MR. RA: I -- I GUESS THE THING I'M HAVING TROUBLE
UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH, WE -- WE HEARD ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS WHEN WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLY VOTING. SO, NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EARLY
VOTING, YET WE'RE EXPANDING THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE -- WE'RE GOING
TO GIVE PEOPLE OFF DURING THE WORKDAY. AND I -- TO ME, I DON'T -- I
DON'T SEE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SOME OF THAT MAY BE TO MAKE USE
OF THE -- OF EARLY -- OF THE EARLY VOTING, ALSO. IT MAY NOT JUST BE ON...
(SIDEBAR)
RIGHT. IT'S NOT -- IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT IT'S LIMITED TO
ELECTION DAY, SO IT COULD BE ON AN EARLY VOTING DAY, ALSO. YOU KNOW,
THE -- OBVIOUSLY, THE -- OUR GOAL THROUGH THE LEGISLATION WE PASSED, AND
THROUGH THIS, IS TO ENCOURAGE AND PROVIDE ALL OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZENS
TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE.
233
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. RA: OKAY. THANK -- THANK YOU.
MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR. RA.
MR. RA: SO, YOU KNOW, THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF THIS
-- LIKE I MENTIONED, BECAUSE OF THAT CHANGE WITH THE EXEMPTION, IT
APPLIES TO A LOT MORE EMPLOYERS. SO IF, FOR INSTANCE, SCHOOLS. SO, A
SCHOOL DISTRICT IN A SCHOOL BUILDING, IF SOMEBODY SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO
TAKE THIS TIME OFF TO VOTE, NOW THEY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING A SUB
COME IN. AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, CURRENTLY, A -- A NUMBER OF OTHER
PROVISIONS THAT THEY ALSO HAVE TO DEAL WITH. AND MANY OF THEM ARE
GOOD, THEY'RE WELL-INTENTIONED THINGS, BUT THEY'RE STILL THINGS THAT HAVE
TO BE DEALT WITH THAT ESSENTIALLY BECOME UNFUNDED MANDATES ON -- ON
THE SCHOOLS. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, FMLA UNDER FEDERAL
LAW. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT EMPLOYEES BE GIVEN TIME OFF FOR
CANCER SCREENINGS. AGAIN, A GOOD THING, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO
BRING IN A SUB TO -- TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT
THEY BE GIVEN THREE HOURS TO GO DONATE BLOOD. AGAIN, A POSITIVE THING,
BUT WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THE COST THAT THAT DOES PUT ON -- ON A SCHOOL
DISTRICT. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING IN SUBS. WE'RE EXPANDING
POLLING HOURS UPSTATE. WE HAVE EARLY VOTING. YET, WE ARE, FOR SOME
REASON, EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES THAT PEOPLE CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, TAKE
TIME DURING THEIR WORKDAY TO VOTE, WITHOUT DEALING WITH WHAT THE COST
IS GOING TO BE, I THINK PARTICULARLY ON -- ON THINGS LIKE OUR SCHOOLS, ON
OUR SMALL BUSINESSES. AND, YOU KNOW, I -- I JUST -- I DON'T -- I DON'T
FULLY SEE THE -- THE REASON FOR DOING THIS, GIVEN THAT WE'VE ADOPTED ALL
234
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THESE OTHERS WAYS TO MAKE PEOPLE HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO VOTE.
THE OTHER -- THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO JUST ADDRESS
FOR A MINUTE IS THIS USE OF FORCE POLICY. AND I CERTAINLY CAN'T SPEAK TO
IT QUITE WITH THE LEVEL OF EXPERTISE AND DETAIL THAT MY COLLEAGUE DID AS A
FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, BUT I'M REALLY CONCERNED HERE THAT WE
HAVE ALL OVER THE STATE POLICIES IN -- WITHIN OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT
DEPARTMENTS ON WHEN THEY ARE TO USE FORCE, THEY GO THROUGH EXTENSIVE
TRAINING, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, AND I THINK WHAT
THIS IS GOING TO HAVE THE IMPACT OF DOING IS MAKING THE JOB OF OUR
POLICE OFFICERS MORE DIFFICULT AND MORE DANGEROUS. BECAUSE THEY ARE
GOING TO JUST HAVE ANOTHER LEVEL OF SCRUTINY. THEY ARE UNDER A
TREMENDOUS LEVEL OF SCRUTINY IN DOING THEIR JOBS EACH AND EVERY DAY.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S ONLY WHEN SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS THAT WE SEE
IT IN THE NEWS, AND WE DON'T SEE THE COUNTLESS TIMES THAT THEY SHOW UP
AT A SCENE, DIFFUSE A SITUATION AND AVOID A TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCE FOR
THEMSELVES, THEIR COLLEAGUES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, INNOCENT BYSTANDERS,
AND EVEN SOMEBODY THAT THEY'RE -- THEY'RE COMING IN TO -- TO PERHAPS
ARREST. SO, WE SHOULDN'T REALLY BE -- BE LOOKING TO BE THIS EXPANSIVE IN
TERMS OF -- IN TERMS OF THESE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE --
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE JUST ANOTHER THING THAT HAS TO BE IN THE
BACK OF A MIND OF THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHEN THEY ARRIVE UPON
A SCENE. AND IT -- IT REALLY SUBJECTS THEM TO -- TO MORE DANGERS IN -- IN
THEIR DAY-TO-DAY JOBS.
SO, YOU KNOW, THIS -- THIS BILL HAS A NUMBER OF THINGS
THAT ARE -- THAT ARE TROUBLING TO ME AND I'M GOING TO BE CASTING MY VOTE
235
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IN THE NEGATIVE. BUT -- BUT REALLY ONE -- ONE OF THE MAIN ONES IS -- IS
THIS POLICY THAT I THINK IS GOING -- GOING TO MAKE THINGS MORE
DANGEROUS FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. LALOR.
MR. LALOR: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
SPONSOR YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE. YEAH, I'D BE HAPPY TO.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. LALOR: RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF THREE HOURS OFF,
DOES IT APPLY TO FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME EMPLOYEES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE LAW DOES NOT DISTINGUISH -- I
-- I SHOULD JUST SAY IT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S COME UP IN THE PRIOR
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS SECTION, THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF
PROVIDING TWO DAYS NOTICE TO YOUR EMPLOYER.
MR. LALOR: BUT, DO YOU THINK IT WILL POTENTIALLY
APPLY TO PART-TIME EMPLOYEES? SOMEBODY WHO WORKS FOUR HOURS A
DAY, THEY'RE GOING TO GET THREE HOURS OFF TO VOTE AND ONE HOUR TO WORK?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT TO VOTE
OBVIOUSLY IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS WORKING
PART-TIME AT ONE LOCATION DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT WORKING PART-TIME AT
A SECOND JOB AT ANOTHER LOCATION, SO THE -- THE FACT THAT -- THAT IS --
236
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. LALOR: YOU -- YOU BRING UP A GREAT POINT.
WHAT IF I HAVE TWO JOBS? DOES EACH EMPLOYER HAVE TO GIVE ME THREE
HOURS OFF?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE -- WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE
TO VOTE JUST ONCE, EVEN THOUGH SOMETIMES WE WILL KID AROUND AND TELL
THEM TO VOTE TWICE. SO, YOU'RE -- YOU'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO VOTE ONCE, SO
YOU SHOULD ONLY BE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE THREE HOURS OFF TO -- TO VOTE
ONCE.
MR. LALOR: IS THERE A MECHANISM IN PLACE THAT
WOULD VERIFY THAT SOMEONE ISN'T USING TWO EMPLOYERS AND GETTING THREE
HOURS OF TIME?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, IN THE SAME WAY THERE'S NOT
SOME -- SOME PROCEDURE IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE SOMEBODY ISN'T GETTING
-- SIGNING UP FOR A COLONOSCOPY EVERY OTHER WEEK.
MR. LALOR: INTERESTING -- INTERESTING ANALOGY.
INTERESTING ANALOGY.
(LAUGHTER)
BUT THAT LEADS ME TO A QUESTION: IF AN EMPLOYEE SAYS
TWO -- TWO DAYS NOTICE, I -- I NEED SOME TIME TO GO VOTE, AND THEY LEAVE
FOR THREE HOURS AND THEY DON'T VOTE AND THEY'RE PAID THOSE THREE HOURS,
HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN PUNCHING IN FOR THREE HOURS WHEN YOU'RE NOT
WORKING? AND SHOULD IT BE PROSECUTABLE? OR WOULD IT BE
PROSECUTABLE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A -- A CRIME
TO INTEND TO VOTE AND THEN DECIDE NOT TO VOTE. YOU KNOW, IF -- IF AN
237
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
EMPLOYER WERE TO DETERMINE THAT SOMEONE ON ELECTION DAY TOOK OFF
THREE HOURS AND DIDN'T AND THEY DETERMINED THEY DIDN'T VOTE, THEY
CERTAINLY COULD -- I WOULD THINK THEY COULD DOCK THEM -- DOCK THEM
THAT PAY. BUT THIS IS -- THERE IS NO -- NO ONE IS GOING AROUND AND
CHECKING TO SEE IF THEY ACTUALLY WENT TO THE POLLING SITE AND -- AND
VOTED.
MR. LALOR: RIGHT. BUT IF I HAVE 100 EMPLOYEES
AND THEY ALL GET $15 AN HOUR, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM WAGE OF SOME
PLACES, THAT'S $45 TIMES 100 EMPLOYEES. THAT'S BIG MONEY. IS IT ON ME,
THE EMPLOYER, TO POLICE WHETHER THE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY VOTING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, RIGHT NOW, IT IS -- AS I SAID,
ALL WE ARE DOING IS WE'RE BASICALLY ADDING THE HOURS FROM TWO HOURS TO
THREE HOURS. WE DON'T SET UP A MECHANISM TO FOLLOW PEOPLE TO THE
POLLS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE VOTING.
MR. LALOR: COULD I CLOSE MY HYPOTHETICAL
RESTAURANT ON ELECTION DAY TO AVOID THIS? ANY PROHIBITION ON THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IF YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T -- IF
SOMEONE DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT THEIR BUSINESS OPEN ON ELECTION DAY,
THAT'S THEIR, CLEARLY --
MR. LALOR: BUT HERE'S WHERE IT'S A LOGICAL
QUESTION. IF I HAVE TO ALLOW SOME EMPLOYEES TO LEAVE FOR THREE HOURS,
NOW I HAVE TO BRING IN OTHER EMPLOYEES TO FILL IN FOR THEM, AND THEY
HAVE TO GET THREE HOURS. IT SEEMS LIKE NEVER-ENDING CYCLE. I MIGHT JUST
SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M GOING TO CLOSE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S
NO PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYERS CLOSING ON ELECTION DAY.
238
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, THE -- THE CURRENT LAW AND
THEN WE'RE ADDING THE EXTRA HOUR HAS TO DO WITH SOMEONE COMING IN AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY --
MR. LALOR: SURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- LATE -- LATER, OR LEAVING EARLY --
MR. LALOR: YES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IF YOU WANT TO
CLOSE -- IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CLOSE THEIR BUSINESS, THAT'S THEIR OPTION.
WE'RE TRYING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO -- TO VOTE. POLLING SITES ARE NOT ON EVERY CORNER,
AND OFTEN THERE CAN BE LONG LINES AND WAITS AT A -- AT A POLLING SITE, AND
MANY PEOPLE HAVE OBLIGATION -- FAMILY OBLIGATIONS, OTHERS HAVE SECOND
JOBS, AS I MENTIONED -- OBLIGATIONS THAT PREVENT THEM FROM BEING ABLE
TO SPEND THE TIME THEY'RE NOT WORKING WAITING AT A POLLING SITE TO VOTE.
MR. LALOR: GREAT. FAIR ENOUGH. AND ONLY
SOMEONE WHO'S A CITIZEN AND A REGISTERED VOTER WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR
THIS... WHAT AMOUNTS TO A BENEFIT. WILL THE STATE HOLD HARMLESS THE
EMPLOYER WHEN THE NONCITIZEN OR NONREGISTERED VOTER SUES THE
EMPLOYER FOR UNEQUAL TREATMENT? IN OTHER WORDS, SOME EMPLOYEES ARE
GOING TO HAVE A THREE-HOUR PAID BREAK, OTHER EMPLOYEES - BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT A CITIZEN, OR BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE ARE NOT -
THAT -- THAT OPENS PANDORA'S BOX OF LITIGATION. WILL THE STATE -- WILL THE
STATE HOLD HARMLESS THE EMPLOYER WHEN THAT HAPPENS? WHICH, IN THIS
LITIGIOUS -- LITIGIOUS STATE, IT INEVITABLY WILL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I DON'T THINK THERE'S A EQUAL
239
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PROTECTION CLAIM FOR SOMEONE NOT BEING -- NOT GETTING TIME OFF BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT -- NOT ALLOWED TO -- TO VOTE.
MR. LALOR: REALLY? IF YOU GOT THREE HOURS OFF BUT
THE GUY WORKING NEXT TO YOU DIDN'T GET THE THREE HOURS OFF, HE MIGHT BE
UPSET. BECAUSE -- BECAUSE OF HIS CITIZENSHIP STATUS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, I MEAN -- YOU KNOW, WE --
THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS IN LAW WE HAVE TIME -- TIME OFF FOR THAT OTHER
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ADVANTAGE. WE HAVE FAMILY LEAVE. THAT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE A CHILD CAN SAY, I DIDN'T GET MY
FAMILY LEAVE BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE A CHILD --
MR. LALOR: ACTUALLY, WE JUST -- ACTUALLY, WE JUST
DID THAT. WE -- WE EXPANDED FAMILY LEAVE TO COVER PEOPLE WHO DON'T
HAVE CHILDREN, BUT... SO, THAT -- THAT KIND OF DOES SHOW WHERE WE'RE
GOING WITH THIS LEGISLATION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL -- OKAY.
MR. LALOR: LET ME MOVE ON TO MY NEXT QUESTION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. LALOR: THIS IS -- THIS IS GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE.
DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL COST THE EMPLOYERS OF NEW YORK STATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. LALOR: ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL.
MR. LALOR: MR. SPEAKER, A HALF A DOZEN OF MY
COLLEAGUES, MAYBE MORE, HAVE PUNCHED SO MANY HOLES IN THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S LEFT OF IT. IT DOESN'T BELONG IN A BUDGET.
240
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IT CLEARLY HASN'T BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH. BASIC, BASIC QUESTIONS OF WHO IT
APPLIES TO AND WHO IT DOESN'T APPLY TO HAVE -- HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED,
CANNOT BE ADDRESSED. WE SHOULD PULL THIS OUT OF THE BUDGET AND MAYBE
DEBATE IT AS A STANDALONE BILL. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A $175 BILLION
BUDGET HERE, AND HUGE PORTIONS OF IT, INCLUDING THIS, HAVE NOT BEEN
THOUGHT THROUGH. SO, I'LL -- I'LL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. FINCH.
MR. FINCH: WILL THE CHAIRMAN [SIC] ANSWER A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE. I'D BE HAPPY TO, GARY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MR. FINCH: I THINK WE'VE GONE OVER THIS SO, I DON'T
WANT TO BE REDUNDANT, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND, THERE'S 45,000 CONVICTS,
PRISONERS, RESIDENTS - HOWEVER WE CHOOSE TO CALLED THEM - IN THE
SYSTEM. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CORRECTIONS NOW.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. I THINK 47- DOWN FROM, I
BELIEVE I SAID 73- IN 1999.
MR. FINCH: DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY HAVE BEEN
RECLASSIFIED, OF THOSE, FROM MAXIMUM TO MEDIUM TO -- I GUESS THEY
HAVE SOME HALFWAY HOUSES AS WELL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I REALLY COULDN'T TELL YOU. I
KNOW THAT DOCS DOES MAKE TRANSFERS FOR VARIOUS REASONS, AND I WOULD
TELL YOU WE HAVEN'T CHANGED -- WE HAVEN'T -- THERE'S BEEN NO TRANSFERS
THAT WE'RE AWARE OF THAT WERE A RESULT OF A PRIOR PRISON CLOSING, AND WE
241
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HAVEN'T CLOSED ANY MAXIMUM FACILITIES.
MR. FINCH: HOW MANY -- HOW MANY TRANSFERS OR
RECLASSIFICATIONS HAPPENED PRIOR TO A CLOSING, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE
CLOSING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE
THAT INFORMATION AND I DON'T KNOW THAT -- THAT THEY'RE -- WE'RE AWARE
THAT THERE HAVE -- TRANSFERS HAVE BEEN MADE -- THAT TRANSFERS ARE MADE
IN ANTICIPATION OF CLOSING OF A FACILITY. AS I MENTIONED, MAX -- MAX
FACILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN -- HAVE NOT BEEN CLOSED.
MR. FINCH: WELL, THERE ARE TRANSFERS. I MEAN, I
UNDERSTAND THAT -- THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK AND FOR A
MULTITUDE OF REASONS. I'M TALKING ABOUT RECLASSIFICATION SPECIFICALLY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF TAKING AN INMATE AND MOVING HIM FROM A MAX TO A
MEDIUM SECURITY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: ARE -- ARE YOU TALKING IN TERMS OF
A CLOSURE OR JUST IN GENERAL?
MR. FINCH: WELL, I THINK IN ANTICIPATION OF CLOSURE.
I WAS WONDERING IF THAT HAPPENED.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT HASN'T HAPPENED BECAUSE THEY
--
MR. FINCH: TO CHANGE THE CENSUS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT, NO, I UNDERSTAND BUT I -- I
THINK THAT -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAUGHT WHAT I SAID EARLIER THAT THEY
HAVEN'T CLOSED MAXIMUM FACILITIES, ONLY MEDIUM FACILITIES. SO THERE
WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A RECLASSIFICATION FROM A MAX TO A MEDIUM FOR THE
242
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PURPOSE OF A -- AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED CLOSURE BECAUSE THAT ISN'T --
THOSE AREN'T THE FACILITIES THAT ARE CLOSING, THE MAX ARE.
MR. FINCH: ARE ANY OF THOSE NUMBERS AVAILABLE,
OR...
MS. WEINSTEIN: NOT WHILE WE STAND HERE TODAY,
BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE IF THERE IS A REAL INT -- YOU KNOW, IF YOU
EXPRESSED A REAL INTEREST, THEN WE'LL MAKE SURE WE GET YOU THOSE
NUMBERS AFTER TODAY.
MR. FINCH: HOW MUCH OF A SAVING ARE WE GOING TO
ENJOY BY CLOSING SOME OF THESE FACILITIES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: LIKE $21.5 MILLION IN THIS BUDGET
-- THIS BUDGET YEAR AND THEN $35 MILLION IN THE OUT YEAR.
MR. FINCH: I THINK WE'D ALL AGREE ON AT LEAST ONE
THING: THAT PRISONS ARE DANGEROUS PLACES TO BE IN, WHETHER YOU'RE A
CONVICT OR A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OR YOU'RE A CORRECTION OFFICER. AND MY
CONCERN IS SAFETY. I MEAN, WE JAM -- OVERCROWD THESE PRISONS WITH
DOUBLE-BUNKING. WE -- WE RECLASSIFY PRISONERS AND TAKE SOMETIMES
DANGEROUS CRIMINALS, MOVE THEM TO A MEDIUM SECURITY, CREATING A
SECURITY PROBLEM THERE. THAT'S AN ISSUE AS WELL. WOULD YOU --
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE
ON THAT. NEW YORK STATE HAS ONE OF THE LOWER RATIOS OF CORRECTIONS
OFFICERS TO PRISONERS, THREE TO ONE, SO WE'RE AT A MUCH, MUCH LOWER
RATIO THAN SOME OTHER STATES. AND AS I MENTIONED, THERE AREN'T
OVERCROWDING ISSUES, SINCE WE HAVE 10,000 EMPTY BEDS IN OUR SYSTEM
TODAY. SO I -- I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM BUT, YOU KNOW, I
243
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSAL --
MR. FINCH: ARE YOU AWARE -- ARE YOU AWARE THAT
AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY IS IN A SHUT-DOWN POSITION RIGHT NOW
BECAUSE OF ASSAULTS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LIKE A
TEMPORARY LOCKDOWN THAT WOULD HAPPEN BECAUSE OF AN INCIDENT?
MR. FINCH: I THINK MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE INCIDENTS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT, BUT YOU'RE SAYING -- YOU'RE
NOT SAYING A CLOSURE. YOU'RE SAYING LIKE A TEMPORARY --
MR. FINCH: SHUT DOWN. NOT -- NO. NO, AUBURN
HASN'T BEEN CLOSED --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. NO, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
--
MR. FINCH: -- BUT THERE'S A SHUTDOWN ON THE FACILITY
RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF MULTIPLE ASSAULTS. LOCKDOWN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I'M, NOT AWARE
THAT THAT'S HAPPENING --
MR. FINCH: I HAVEN'T GOT ALL THE TERMINOLOGY DOWN,
BUT A LOCKDOWN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. RIGHT. I'M NOT AWARE --
I'M NOT AWARE THAT THAT'S HAPPENING CURRENTLY --
MR. FINCH: THAT'S HAPPENED --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- AT AUBURN.
MR. FINCH: AND -- AND THE MORALE WITHIN THE
SYSTEM RIGHT NOW IS PROBABLY AT AN ALL-TIME LOW, FROM WHAT WE HEAR.
244
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AND I GET PHONE CALLS FROM COS AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AS WELL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: HOPEFULLY THE PAY BILL THAT WE --
THAT WE ADOPTED EARLIER WILL HELP WITH THE MORALE ISSUES.
MR. FINCH: YOU THINK SO. THANKS.
ON THE BILL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. FINCH: THE PRISON SYSTEM IS -- IS NOT A PLACE
WHERE WE CONCERN OURSELVES ABOUT FINDING A PLACE TO WORK. WHAT WE
CONCERN OURSELVES WITH IS THE SAFETY OF THE INMATES AND THE EMPLOYEES
WHO WORK THERE. THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND ONE THING WE NEED TO AVOID IS
TO OVERCROWD THESE FACILITIES TO THE POINT WHERE WE DRIVE PEOPLE THAT
WORK WITHIN THEM, THE CRIM -- AND ALSO THE PRISONERS FOR AN
INSURRECTION. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THAT IN THE PAST. AUBURN HAS
EXPERIENCED AN INSURRECTION. ATTICA. WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AGAIN IN
THE INTEREST OF SAVING A FEW MILLION DOLLARS IN A BUDGET OF A $175-PLUS
BILLION. THESE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT. WE HAVE EMPLOYEES TO PROTECT,
AND WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PRISONERS WE PROTECT AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. FRIEND.
MR. FRIEND: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CHAIR YIELDS.
245
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. FRIEND: ALL RIGHT. ON THE ASSET FORFEITURE. I
DON'T KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT THIS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO ASK FOR SOME
CLARIFICATION. IT SAYS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ESCROW ACCOUNT CREATED
FOR THESE ASSETS THAT ARE FORFEITED, AND IT'S GOING TO BE MANAGED BY
FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS. WHO ARE THESE PROFESSIONALS GOING TO BE? ARE
THEY GOING TO BE STATE EMPLOYEES OR PRIVATE? DID WE THINK ABOUT USING
THE STATE COMPTROLLER FOR THAT PROCESS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE -- THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF THE LOCALITY.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE OTHER
RECORDS THAT HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED. IT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP
RECORDS OF THEIR -- THE DEFENDANT'S DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SUCH AS
RACE, ETHNICITY, AGE, GENDER, TO ENSURE THAT THE SEIZURE OF ASSETS IS BEING
CARRIED OUT FAIRLY AND CONSISTENTLY. HOW DO WE DETERMINE "FAIRLY AND
CONSISTENTLY?" IS IT A NUMBER OF ARRESTS AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE
SEIZURES, OR THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SEIZURES MADE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I THINK IT WOULD LOOK AT THE --
THE -- THE SEIZURES -- SEIZURES -- SEIZURES MADE. IT -- IT'S REALLY FOR US TO
BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURES IS USED IN THE -- USED IN
THE STATE, THEN WE COULD -- ONCE WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION WE'LL BE IN A
BETTER POSITION TO EVALUATE OUR FORFEITURE SYSTEM, MAKE APPROPRIATE
CHANGES THAT MIGHT BE IDENTIFIED. THERE WAS A HEARING, A JOINT HEARING
BETWEEN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND CODES COMMITTEE IN 2014, AND
A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH OUR CIVIL FORFEITURE STATUTE WERE IDENTIFIED. THIS
LEGISLATION ADDRESSES MANY OF THEM.
246
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. SO THE -- THE LEGISLATURE
WOULD BE REVIEWING IT, THEN, TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS LATER ON. IS
THAT THE CASE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. FRIEND: YES. OKAY.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE PRISON CLOSURES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
MR. FRIEND: AS YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED, WE
HAVE A NUMBER OF EMPTY BEDS THAT YOU'RE CLAIMING AT THE MEDIUM
SECURITY PRISONS, IN WHICH CASE YOU'RE GIVING A REASON TO HAVE THESE
CLOSURES TAKE PLACE, BUT WHY ARE WE GIVING THE AUTHORITY TO THE
GOVERNOR TO REDUCE FROM ONE YEAR TO 90 DAYS? OBVIOUSLY, YOU
PROBABLY HAVE IN SOME OF THESE PRISONS THAT YOU WANT TO CLOSE DOWN,
INMATES IN THOSE FACILITIES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE RELOCATED, IN ADDITION
TO THE STAFF THAT NEED TO BE RELOCATED. AND JUST TO MAKE SURE
EVERYTHING'S DONE ON A TIMELY, SMOOTH SCALE TO PROTECT BOTH THE INMATES
AND THE STAFF, WHY ARE -- WHY ARE WE REDUCING THIS TIMEFRAME SO
DRASTICALLY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: TO PRODUCE SAVINGS THIS YEAR.
MR. FRIEND: BUT THESE ARE SAVINGS AT THE COST OF
NOT ONLY THE INMATES, THE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, BUT ALSO THE CITIZENS OF
NEW YORK STATE. THAT'S JUST NOT -- THAT'S NOT A SANE MEASURE TO GO
AHEAD AND DO, I DON'T THINK. BUT I'LL -- I'LL LEAVE THAT. BY DOING THESE
CLOSURES, DO YOU THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR NEW
YORK STATE, FOR OUR INMATES THAT ARE IN THOSE PRISONS, OR FOR THE
247
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS THAT ARE TRYING TO TAKE CARE AND REHABILITATE THESE
INMATES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE'RE NOT MAKING CHANGES TO
PROGRAMS THAT ARE OFFERED WITHIN THE FACILITIES, SO I -- I DON'T THINK THAT
IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
MR. FRIEND: I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT MAKING CHANGES TO
THE PROGRAMS OFFERED, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO -- YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE
THE POPULATION DENSITY AT -- AT THE PRISONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE
REMAINING. AND BY DOING THAT INCREASE IN POPULATION DENSITY, YOU'RE --
YOU'RE INCREASING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR VIOLENCE OR FOR ALTERCATIONS TO
OCCUR WITHIN THOSE FACILITIES. THAT'S A VERY TENSE ENVIRONMENT THAT
THEY'RE ALL IN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: AS I MENTIONED BEFORE -- OR
EARLIER, WE HAVE 10,000 EMPTY BEDS IN OUR SYSTEM BECAUSE OUR
POPULATION -- TOTAL STATE POPULATION -- PRISON POPULATION HAS GONE FROM
73,000 IN 20 YEARS TO 47,000 INMATES. WE HAVE ALMOST 4,400
MINIMUM -- I MEAN, MEDIUM FACILITY EMPTY BEDS. SO WE THINK THAT
THERE IS THE CAP -- EXISTING CAPACITY AFTER TWO PRISONS ARE SHUT, TO
ABSORB THESE ADDITIONAL -- ADDITIONAL PRISONERS WITHOUT CAUSING ANY
DISRUPTION IN -- IN THE -- ANY LONG-TERM DISRUPTION, I WOULD SAY, IN THE
SYSTEM.
MR. FRIEND: THE RUMOR IS THAT IN THE BIG UGLY
WE'RE GOING TO SEE A THIRD PRISON ADDED TO THIS LIST. BUT EVEN SO, TWO
PRISONS OR THREE PRISONS -- SO IT'S GOING -- IT'S YOUR IDEA THAT WE'RE STILL
GOING TO HAVE ROOM WITHIN THE PRISONS, THAT THERE WON'T BE
248
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OVERCROWDING GOING ON.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THERE
WILL BE OVERCROWDING AS A RESULT OF THE -- OF TWO PRISONS CLOSING.
MR. FRIEND: NOW, WHEN -- WHEN WILL THIS 90 DAYS
TAKE EFFECT? I MEAN, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT THE GOVERNOR COULD
POSSIBLY WAIT --
(PAUSE)
COULD WE BE WAITING THE 270 DAYS AND THEN HE
ANNOUNCES IN THE LAST PART OF THE YEAR THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS
CLOSURE AND KIND OF GIVE EVERYBODY A TIMEFRAME TO WORK THIS UP?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT SEPTEMBER 1
-- THAT SEPTEMBER 1 WILL BE THE DATE OF CLOSURE, SO IF YOU GO BACK -- IF
YOU WENT BACK THE THREE MONTHS FROM THAT, IT WOULD BE EARLY JUNE.
MR. FRIEND: JUNE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT THE FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT, I
WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT WE PROBABLY WOULD KNOW IN ADVANCE OF THAT.
BUT THE 90 DAYS IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED NOTICE FOR THE GOVERNOR.
(PAUSE)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES,
WHY DO YOU RISE?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, I WANT TO
INTERRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A MINUTE SO THAT I MIGHT LAY THIS ASIDE
TEMPORARILY SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A CONFERENCE IN THE SPEAKER'S
CONFERENCE ROOM IMMEDIATELY --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE BILL IS LAID ASIDE
249
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TEMPORARILY.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: WHEN WE RETURN -- WHEN
WE RETURN TO MR. FRIEND'S NINE MINUTES, RIGHT WHERE WE LEFT OFF, WE WILL
RETURN IN JUST A MOMENT, MR. SPEAKER. SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
RIGHT AWAY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CONFERENCE IN THE
SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.
THE HOUSE WILL STAND AT EASE.
(WHEREUPON, THE HOUSE STOOD AT EASE.)
*****
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, WOULD YOU
PLEASE CALL THE HOUSE BACK TO ORDER?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL COME
TO ORDER.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD
RECOGNIZE MR. FRIEND --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. --
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: -- SO HE MIGHT COMPLETE
HIS QUESTIONS.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY.
MR. FRIEND.
AND YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES AND EIGHT SECONDS.
MR. FRIEND: WILL MADAM CHAIR YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
250
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CHAIR YIELDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, I'D BE HAPPY TO.
MR. FRIEND: ALL RIGHT. SO, IF WE COULD CONTINUE ON
THE PRISON CLOSURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. FRIEND: SO I WAS JUST WONDERING -- AGAIN,
LOOKING AT BETTER OUTCOMES. DO WE HAVE A STATEMENT FROM
NYSCOPBA OR POSSIBLY EVEN PEF ON THESE CLOSURES AND WHAT THEIR
COMMENTS ARE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'M --
(PAUSE)
I -- I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING. IT'S POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW,
MAYBE YOU HAVE, BUT I HAVE NOT.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. AND THEN FOR THE -- OUTSIDE THE
PRISON CLOSURE, AGAIN, JUST LOOKING AT -- FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE
PRISONS, HAVE WE DONE ANYTHING TO PUT MONEY IN THE BUDGET FOR MORE
DRUG DOGS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. FRIEND: OR THINK ABOUT RETURNING BACK TO THE
CENTRAL RECEIVING TO SEARCH CONTRABAND SO THAT DOESN'T GET INTO THE
PRISONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. I JUST WANT TO READ A COMMENT
FROM ONE OF THE CORRECTION OFFICERS BACK IN JANUARY, AT THE END OF
JANUARY, AT THE ELMIRA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. SO I'LL -- I'LL GO ON THE BILL
251
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FOR JUST A MOMENT.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. FRIEND: SO AT THE END OF JANUARY, AN ELMIRA
CORRECTION OFFICER WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL AFTER AN INMATE ATTACK.
AND I JUST WANT TO READ A STATEMENT FROM ONE OF THE COS, BECAUSE
WE'RE LOOKING AT CLOSING THESE PRISONS -- EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A
POPULATION REDUCTION WITHIN THE PRISONS, WE STILL HAVE ISSUES WITH
INDIVIDUALS IN THOSE PRISONS POSSIBLY BECAUSE OF THEIR PAST INTERACTIONS
WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS OR WHERE THEY COME FROM IN THE STATE, THE
CRIMES THAT THEY MAY HAVE COMMITTED, GANGS THAT THEY MAY BELONG TO
OR OTHER AFFILIATIONS, THEY MAY CLASH WITH EACH -- WITH ONE ANOTHER
WHEN WE BRING THEM BACK INTO CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER. AND THIS
STATEMENT SAYS, STAFF ATTACKS CONTINUE TO BE ONE OF THE MOST TROUBLING
ISSUES WE DEAL WITH INSIDE OUR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES. A NYSCOPBA
SPOKESPERSON SAID IN A STATEMENT, WITH CHANGES IN THE DISCIPLINARY
SYSTEM, THERE IS NO REAL DIFFERENCE -- NO REAL DETERRENT FOR INMATES NOT
TO BRAZENLY ATTACK STAFF. IN 2018, ATTACKS ON STAFF ONCE AGAIN REACHED
RECORD LEVELS. OUR MEMBERS WILL CONTINUE TO PUT -- BE PUT IN HARM'S
WAY UNLESS THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT REPERCUSSIONS FOR INMATES WHO
CONTINUE THESE UNPROVOKED ATTACKS.
I JUST RECENTLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TOUR A SOUTHPORT
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY TO LOOK AT THE CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING ON TO
CONVERT THAT FROM A SHU TO THIS GENERAL POPULATION PRISON, AND AGAIN,
THE STORIES THAT I HEAR JUST -- AGAIN, THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT I'VE EVER
GREW UP WITH WHERE INMATES WILL TAKE FECES IN THEIR MOUTH WHEN THEY
252
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
GO INTO THESE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS, AND THEY'LL REACH UP OVER THE
BARRIER AND SHOOT AT EACH OTHER BECAUSE IT'S ONE WAY TO GET BACK AT EACH
OTHER. AGAIN, IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT I NEVER WOULD HAVE CONCEIVED OF
DOING. BUT THESE ARE THINGS THAT THE INMATES HAVE TO DEAL WITH AND THE
CORRECTION OFFICERS HAVE TO DEAL WITH ON A DAILY BASIS. AND AGAIN, WE
NEED TO BE LOOKING OUT FOR THE WELFARE OF EVERYBODY IN THAT SITUATION,
WHETHER IT'S THE INMATES OR THE CORRECTION OFFICERS, WE WANT TO GET
EVERYBODY BACK TO -- BACK TO THEIR FAMILIES. AND IN THE CASE OF THE
INMATES, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE REHABILITATED AND BACK AND
BEING A PRODUCTIVE CITIZEN WITHIN OUR -- OUR COMMUNITIES.
SO, IF THE MADAM CHAIRPERSON WILL YIELD AGAIN?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. SORRY, YES.
MR. FRIEND: SO I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER TO THE
SHOCK INCARCERATION PORTION OF THE BILL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. FRIEND: AND I -- I WANT TO COMMEND YOU ON
OPENING THIS PROGRAM BACK UP. SO THIS -- WHAT I READ IS THAT IT'S GOING
TO ALLOW JUDGES TO DIVERT INDIVIDUAL SENTENCE TO BURGLARY IN THE SECOND
DEGREE AND ROBBERY IN THE SECOND DEGREE. AT THE PARTICIPATING SHOCK
INCARCERATION PROGRAM, ELIGIBLE INMATES WOULD HAVE TO BE SENTENCED TO
AN INDETERMINATE TERM AND BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE IN LESS THAN THREE
YEARS, AND TO HAVE NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT FELONY.
HOW MANY CURRENT OPENINGS DO WE HAVE FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THIS
253
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PROGRAM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I DO NOT KNOW.
MR. FRIEND: OKAY. AGAIN, I -- I JUST WANT TO
COMMEND YOU. THIS -- THIS IS A VERY PRODUCTIVE PROGRAM -- AND I'M
GOING TO GO ON THE BILL AT THIS POINT.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. FRIEND: WHEN I WAS FIRST ELECTED, BEFORE
REDISTRICTING I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT SCHUYLER COUNTY.
SCHUYLER COUNTY AT THAT TIME HAD A PROGRAM CALLED MONTEREY SHOCK.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE BY GOVERNOR MARIO
CUOMO. AND THAT PROGRAM WAS FOR INMATES WHO WERE CONVICTED OF
DRUG CRIMES AND LESSER CRIMES. BUT IN ITS 30 YEARS, IN MORE THAN 30
YEARS THAT IT OPERATED, IT HAD A GREATER THAN 93 PERCENT SUCCESS RATE.
AND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT FOR SUCCESS -- SUCCESS RATE? WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD NO ROLE MODELS, WHO WERE CAUGHT UP IN
VARIOUS GANGS -- AND I USE THAT TERM JUST TO REFER COLLOQUIALLY AS
INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE NOT FOCUSED AND WERE NOT PRODUCTIVE WITHIN THEIR
COMMUNITIES AND WERE ACTUALLY TEARING DOWN THEIR COMMUNITIES. AND
THAT'S ALL THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS HAD WHEN THEY WERE GROWING UP. WHEN
THEY WENT INTO MONTEREY SHOCK, THEY SAW AN ENTIRELY NEW WAY OF LIFE.
THEY WERE PROVIDED WITH A PRODUCTIVE FORMAT OF LIFESTYLE. MOST OF
THESE INDIVIDUALS DID NOT HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR A GED. THE
MAJORITY OF THEM HAD DRUG ADDICTIONS AND DRUG PROBLEMS, WHICH IS
VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE FACING IN OUR COMMUNITY AND ACROSS OUR
ENTIRE STATE AND COUNTRY AT THIS TIME PERIOD. AND IN THIS SIX- MONTH
254
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PROGRAM, 93 PERCENT OF THESE INDIVIDUALS GOT THEIR HIGH SCHOOL
DIPLOMA, GOT OFF OF THEIR DRUG PROBLEM, AND DID NOT RECOMMIT CRIMES OR
BE RECOMMITTED TO THE -- TO INCARCERATION. TO ME, THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN
OVERWHELMING SUCCESS, AND WHY THE GOVERNOR EVER SHUT IT DOWN IS
BEYOND ME. BUT TO SEE THAT WE'RE OPENING THIS PROGRAM BACK UP FOR
ANOTHER CLASS OF INDIVIDUALS, I HAVE TO THANK THE GOVERNOR FOR DOING
THAT AND THANK THE LEGISLATURE FOR DOING THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS DEFINITELY
A VERY GOOD PROGRAM TO GET PEOPLE BACK INTO A REPRODUCT -- INTO A
PRODUCTIVE LIFESTYLE, WHICH IS WHAT PRISON IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT;
REHABILITATION, NOT PERMANENT INCARCERATION. UNFORTUNATELY, THOUGH,
JUST TO POINT OUT PAST HISTORY - AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS REPEAT ITSELF -
MONTEREY SHOCK, WHEN IT WAS CLOSED DOWN, STILL HAD INMATES IN THAT --
IN THAT POPULATION. THEY WERE MINIMUM SECURITY INMATES, AND WHAT
THAT ALLOWED FOR IS THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO OUTDOOR CHORES, THEY
WERE ALLOWED TO MOVE AROUND THROUGH THE PRISON. AND AT THAT POINT,
THEY WERE DOING WORK FOR DOCS AT SOME OTHER MAXIMUM SECURITY
PRISONS. WELL, WHEN THEY CLOSED MONTEREY SHOCK DOWN, THESE INMATES
WERE BROUGHT TO THE MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISONS AND PUT IN A CONFINED
AREA, BUT THEY STILL END UP HAVING INTERACTION WITH THOSE MAXIMUM
SECURITY PRISONERS. WHAT DID THAT MEAN? IT MEANT THAT THOSE MAXIMUM
SECURITY PRISONERS WOULD THEN COHORT THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE
MINIMUM SECURITY PRISONERS TO BRING CONTRABAND INTO THEM, AND IN
MANY CASES WOULD THREATEN THEIR FAMILIES OR OTHER LOVED ONES BACK
HOME IF THOSE MINIMUM SECURITY PRISONERS DID NOT COOPERATE. I DO NOT
WANT TO SEE THAT SAME TYPE OF THING HAPPEN WITH THIS PROGRAM AS WE'RE
255
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
GOING FORWARD, AND I HOPE THAT WE DO NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. I HOPE
IT'S AS SUCCESSFUL AS MONTEREY SHOCK WAS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
MONTEREY SHOCK OPENED BACK UP INSTEAD OF THE IDEA OF ANY KIND OF
BUSINESS PARK BECAUSE IT'S OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE IN THE TOWN OF
ORANGE, AND IT WOULD BE A GREAT PROGRAM TO FALL RIGHT BACK IN PLACE.
I THANK THE LEGISLATURE FOR WORKING ON THAT. I THANK
THE MADAM CHAIRWOMAN FOR HER TIME, AND THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. LIPETRI.
MR. LIPETRI: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THAT'S
LIPETRI. IT'S THE ITALIAN, YOU KNOW, THAT MAKES IT TOUGH. BUT THANK YOU,
MR. SPEAKER, I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S LIPETRI, IT'S THE ITALIAN. IT'S DIFFICULT.
NO PROBLEMS AT ALL.
WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. LIPETRI: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. A FEW
QUESTIONS I HAVE. FIRST OFF, THE DCJS WILL DETERMINE THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS, CORRECT, FOR --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. LIPETRI: -- PART RR OF THE USE OF FORCE. IS
THAT RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. LIPETRI: ALL RIGHT. AND THE PURPOSE IS TO
REPORT -- THIS REPORTING REQUIREMENT, THE PURPOSE IS TO REPORT TO THE
PUBLIC WHAT USE OF FORCE IS DONE WHERE, CORRECT?
256
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, IT'S -- IT'S NOT ALL -- THE
PURPOSE IS NOT ONLY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE, BUT THE PURPOSE IS ALSO TO --
FOR -- TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THIS DATA TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THERE -- IF
THERE ARE PATTERNS THAT ARE HAPPENING, IF THERE'S SOME ACTION THAT NEEDS
TO BE TAKEN.
MR. LIPETRI: CORRECT. IN CERTAIN -- IN CERTAIN
GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OR PRECINCTS; IS THAT RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. LIPETRI: YES. OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IF CERTAIN COMMUNITIES ARE
IMPACTED DISPROPORTIONATELY, YES.
MR. LIPETRI: ABSOLUTELY. AND THIS ULTIMATELY
BECAUSE WE WANT TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITIES SAFE; IS THAT RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: OF COURSE, YES.
MR. LIPETRI: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. LIPETRI: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS BILL,
PART RR, REQUIRING THE USE OF FORCE ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
DOES QUITE THE OPPOSITE. WHAT WE'RE, IN FACT, DOING IS MISLEADING THE
PUBLIC AND, UNFORTUNATELY, BURDENING OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO WHAT
DO I MEAN BY THAT? WELL, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE -- SPECIFICALLY, I REPRESENT
PORTIONS OF NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTY, AND RIGHT NOW APPROXIMATELY
370 TO 400 OFFICERS PATROL ON ANY GIVEN DAY THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA. NOW,
RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS, THEY HAVE THE USE OF FORCE -- USE OF FORCE
257
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. AND IN PART RR, IT NOW SEEKS TO EXPAND
BEYOND THE SCOPE OF USE OF FORCE AND NOW ALSO ADDS IN BRANDISHING OR
DISPLAYING OF EITHER CERTAIN WEAPONS, TASERS, HANDGUNS, ET CETERA. FOR
ME, THAT'S PROBLEMATIC. WHY? BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WHAT WE WANT TO DO
IS KEEP OUR COMMUNITIES SAFE. AND WE HAVE EXPANSIVE, BROAD
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL NOW TAKE OUR OFFICERS OFF THE STREETS
AND BEHIND THE DESKS TO NOW, AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, ANY POINT THAT THEY
BRANDISH A HANDGUN, THAT THEY BRANDISH A BATON, THAT THEY DISPLAY A
PEPPER SPRAY OR PERHAPS EVEN BRANDISH A TASER, THEY NOW HAVE TO
REPORT ON THIS. WHAT IS THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS? THAT'S A
DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS, THE AGE, THE SEX, THE RACE OF ALL PERSONS ENGAGED
IN THIS CONDUCT, AND NOW THESE OFFICERS NOW HAVE TO FIND OUT AND SCOUT
THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO MEET THESE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. FOR ME, THAT'S
JUST NONSENSE. WHAT WE NEED IS OUR OFFICERS OUT THERE DEFENDING OUR
COMMUNITIES, DEFENDING OUR FAMILIES, DEFENDING OUR CHILDREN. THAT'S
WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME, AND THAT'S WHAT I CARE ABOUT; ENSURING THAT
LONG ISLAND STILL HAS THAT. AND ULTIMATELY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IF
DCJS IS THE ONES THAT ARE ACTUALLY DETERMINING THESE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS, THEN WHY EVEN CODIFY THIS LANGUAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
FOOD FOR THOUGHT IN THAT RESPECT. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE BALKING AT OUR
RESPONSIBILITY AS LEGISLATORS TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LANGUAGE, THEN WHY
ARE WE PASSING THE BATON OFF TO DCJS TO DO? MEANWHILE, OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT SITS IN LIMBO, LOOKING AT THIS BILL, THIS LANGUAGE,
QUESTIONING, WHAT IS THIS GOING TO MEAN FOR US? WHAT WILL THAT MEAN
FOR OUR DAY-IN AND DAY-OUT, THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT PROTECT OUR
258
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
COMMUNITIES, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO? NOW FOR ME, I WANT TO
BE A REPRESENTATIVE THAT ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THESE OFFICERS ARE
GOING THROUGH. AND THAT'S WHY JUST SEVERAL WEEKS AGO I DECIDED ON A
WEEKEND TO ACTUALLY GO AND BE ENGAGED IN A RIDE-ALONG TO SEE WHAT THE
OFFICERS ACTUALLY GO THROUGH. AND AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT -- FLASHBACK
WITH ME, IF YOU WILL, TO A SATURDAY NIGHT, IT'S COLD, IT'S DARK IN
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE QUESTIONABLE. BUT THE MEN AND WOMEN, THEY GO
OUT THERE. AND I WAS RIGHT ALONGSIDE WITH THEM TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT
THEY WERE GOING THROUGH. AND AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, ANY GIVEN
MOMENT, THAT COULD BE THEIR LAST. SO THEY HAVE TO GO UP TO ANY
SITUATION WITH THE CAUTION OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO THEM. AND THAT
MEANS HAVING A WEAPON PREPARED JUST IN CASE THEY ENCOUNTER A
SITUATION THAT MAY ULTIMATELY BE EITHER HARMFUL OR, GOD WILLING, FATAL.
WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. SO NOW, AT THOSE MOMENTS, WHERE OFFICERS, SAY,
APPROACH A HOME OR APPROACH A SCENE AND THEY HAVE THEIR BATON OR THEY
HAVE THEIR WEAPON OR EVEN A TASER -- WHICH, MIND YOU, IN CERTAIN
SITUATIONS CAN CARRY A FLASHLIGHT ALONGSIDE OF IT AND THEY SIMPLY HAVE
FOR VISUAL AIDS -- AND NOW THAT MOMENT THEY HAD THOSE TASERS OUT, NOW
IT'S A REPORTING REQUIREMENT THEY HAVE, THEREAFTER THAT SITUATION. BUT
THEY GO UP AND APPROACH THE SITUATIONS NOT KNOWING. SO THOSE
MOMENTS WHEN THEY BRANDISH OR DISPLAY THESE ITEMS, RIGHT THERE YOU
JUST TRIGGERED THIS REPORTING REQUIREMENT. FOR ME, THAT'S NONSENSICAL. I
WANT TO PUSH FORWARD COMMONSENSE LEGISLATION THAT ULTIMATELY
PROVIDES FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITIES WHILE ACHIEVING THE VERY
PURPOSE, THE VERY PURPOSE OF SAFETY. THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT DO THAT.
259
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE AND I'LL BE
DOING SUCH. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. GARBARINO.
MR. GARBARINO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
SPEAKER. WILL THE CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, BE HAPPY TO.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CHAIRWOMAN
YIELDS.
MR. GARBARINO: I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT PART
SS OF THIS -- THIS BILL. IT DEALS WITH THE -- ADDING THE SUFFOLK COUNTY
TAX MAP VERIFICATION FEE THE COUNTY CLERKS HAVE TO CHARGE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GARBARINO: HOW ABOUT YOU SWITCH OUT THE
STAFF?
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY. WELL, WHEN YOU ASK A
QUESTION.
MR. GARBARINO: WHAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND
ADDING THIS -- THIS IN STATUTE?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, THIS WAS REQUESTED BY THE
COUNTY. THEY ALREADY ARE -- ARE CHARGING A FEE, AND THIS WOULD JUST
AUTHORIZE THE FEE AND TO MAKE THEM COMPARABLE TO THE NEIGHBORING
COUNTY; OBVIOUSLY, NASSAU COUNTY.
MR. GARBARINO: SO, DID THE COUNTY SEND A
260
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HOME RULE REQUEST FOR THIS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THEY -- NO, THEY DID NOT, AND IT'S
NOT NEEDED IN THIS CASE SINCE IT'S STATEWIDE.
MR. GARBARINO: I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT NEEDED IN
-- IN -- IN THE CASE BECAUSE IT'S STATE LAW, BUT ISN'T THIS SOMETHING --
WHO DID THE REQUEST COME FROM? ISN'T THIS SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT A
HOME RULE ON?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
COUNTY, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THEY WANTED.
MR. GARBARINO: THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE, THE
COUNTY EXECUTIVE? I MEAN, I JUST WAS WONDERING WHO PUT THE REQUEST
IN. I SPOKE TO A COUPLE COUNTY LEGISLATORS WHO HAD NO CLUE THAT THIS
WAS GOING TO BE IN THE BUDGET, SO I -- I DON'T BELIEVE THE COUNTY
LEGISLATURE ASKED FOR A HOME RULE. I WAS WONDERING IF MAYBE IT WAS
THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I BELIEVE THE -- THE COUNTY
EXECUTIVE, WHO MADE THE ROUNDS AND MADE THIS REQUEST.
MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORY
OF THIS FEE AND HOW IT'S GONE UP?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I MEAN, OTHER THAN -- I DON'T KNOW
IF THERE'S SOME BACKSTORY THAT WE DON'T KNOW, BUT THIS FEE HAS GONE UP
AND OTHER FEES HAVE GONE UP COMPARABLY, ALSO.
MR. GARBARINO: WELL, BACK IN 2015 -- PRIOR TO
2015, THERE WAS A TAX VERIFICATION FEE OF $60 A DOCUMENT. I THINK IT
COVERS ABOUT 38 DOCUMENTS THAT ARE RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY. AND
261
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THEN IN 2015 IT WAS INCREASED TO $200 FOR DOCUMENTS DEALING WITH LAND
TITLE, $300 FOR DOCUMENTS INCLUDING MORTGAGES. SO -- AND THIS IS JUST
FOR THE TAX MAP VERIFICATION, NOT -- NOT THE RECORDING OF THE DEED. SO,
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU RECORD A DEED, IT COULD BE UP TO $550 JUST TO
RECORD THE DEED, $600 FOR THE MORTGAGE. SO ISN'T IT -- DOESN'T STATE LAW
SAY THAT FEES FOR ITEMS LIKE THESE COULD BE CHARGED ONLY IF THEY'RE
CONNECTED WITH THE COST OF THE SERVICE PROVIDED? THEY'RE ONLY
SUPPOSED TO CHARGE ENOUGH TO COVER THE COST.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THIS SIMPLY ALLOWS THEM TO SET
THE FEE.
MR. GARBARINO: HIGHER.
MS. WEINSTEIN: HIGHER.
MR. GARBARINO: NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THE
REASON -- THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE CURRENTLY THE
DEPARTMENT -- THE SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX VERIFICATION DEPARTMENT, THEIR
BUDGET SINCE THE FEES WENT UP THREE YEARS AGO -- IN 2015, THEIR
OPERATING BUDGET WAS $1.3 MILLION. IN 2016 THEIR OPERATING BUDGET
WAS $1.2 MILLION, AND NOW IN 2017 THEIR OPERATING BUDGET WAS JUST
UNDER $1.2 MILLION. BUT, HOWEVER, THEY -- THEY INCREASED -- THEY
STARTED COLLECTING THROUGH THIS NEW FEE $35 MILLION IN REVENUE. AND
CURRENTLY, THERE IS A LAWSUIT GOING ON CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THIS
FEE SAYING THAT IT WAS A -- IT WAS A BACKDOOR TAX. DID THE LEGISLATURE
HAPPEN TO KNOW THIS BEFORE IT WAS NEGOTIATED INTO THE BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: STAFF WAS AWARE OF THIS, YES.
MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
262
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ON THE BILL.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. GARBARINO: THIS VERIFICATION FEE WAS A, LIKE
I SAID, A BACKDOOR TAX ON SUFFOLK COUNTY HOMEOWNERS. IT'S -- THERE
WAS -- THERE'S A LEGAL CHALLENGE CURRENTLY ONGOING TO SAY THAT THESE FEES
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, UNDER CASE LAW
ONLY NEW YORK STATE CAN ALLOW LOCALITIES TO PUT IN NEW TAXES. THERE
WAS NO REQUEST HERE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE HAS
ASKED THE GOVERNOR TO DO. SO MORE AND MORE HOMEOWNERS HAVE TO
PAY EXTRA FEES EVERY TIME THEY BUY A HOUSE, THEY SELL A HOUSE, THEY
REFINANCE. IT ADDS UP TO THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT HIT --
THAT HIT LOW-INCOME AND MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES. THIS DOESN'T -- THIS
DOESN'T HIT RICH PEOPLE. RICH PEOPLE, WHEN THEY BUY PROPERTY, A LOT OF
THE TIMES THEY BUY CASH, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE NOT PAYING THE MORTGAGE
FEE. THEY'RE NOT PAYING -- THEY'RE NOT FILING A MORTGAGE, THEY'RE NOT
FILING A SATISFACTION. SO THIS -- THIS IS A FEE THAT IS HITTING LOW- AND
MIDDLE-INCOME HOMEOWNERS, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT,
ESPECIALLY WITH THE CURRENT LAWSUIT GOING ON.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BACKDOOR TAX ON SUFFOLK COUNTY
RESIDENTS AND NOTHING ELSE. SO, I -- I'M GOING TO ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD,
263
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PLEASE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. I'VE GOT TO FIND ALL MY NOTES
UNDER ALL --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: TRYING TO FIND MY NOTES. HERE
WE GO.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: SURE. MY QUESTIONS ARE IN
REGARD TO PART OO OF THIS BUDGET, THE REDUCING CERTAIN -- CERTAIN
MISDEMEANOR SENTENCES FROM 365 DAYS TO 364 DAYS, AND I WANTED TO
ASK, WHAT WAS THE REASONING BEHIND THIS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS
EARLIER, SO LET ME -- YOU KNOW, AS WE SAID -- SO AS WE -- AS I SAID
EARLIER, THE -- FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S A MINIMAL FISCAL IMPACT OVERALL, THOUGH
IT MAY RESULT IN SMALL SAVINGS GOING FORWARD. BUT THE PURPOSE OF THE
BILL IS TO REDUCE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES, IN SOME INSTANCES STEMMING
FROM A SENTENCE OF ONE YEAR OR MORE.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: AND WHAT WOULD THAT UNIN --
CONSEQUENCE BE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO AS I STATED EARLIER, THERE -- I'M
AWARE OF THREE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES. SOME -- SOME STATES, A FEW
STATES RESTRICT OR DENY VOTING RIGHTS BASED ON CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE
WITH A SENTENCE OF ONE YEAR OR MORE.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: BUT WE DON'T DO THAT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, BUT -- WE DON'T, BUT IT COULD
BE A RESIDENT OF A -- A DIFFERENT STATE, OR SOMEONE COULD MOVE FROM THIS
264
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
STATE AND BE IMPACTED. A -- A FEW STATES EXPRESSLY DENY EMPLOYMENT
OR LICENSURE IN SOME PROFESSIONS BASED ON CONVICTION. AND AS WE -- AS
WE DISCUSSED, RIGHT NOW THERE ARE ACTUALLY 50 GROUNDS FOR DEPORT -- FOR
DEPORTATION, AND WHILE THIS BILL DOESN'T ELIMINATE ANY OF THESE GROUNDS,
IT DOES PROTECT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
INCLUDING -- WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE WHO MAY BE SENTENCED -- MAY NOT
EVEN BE SENTENCED TO A SINGLE DAY OF JAIL TIME, FROM BEING
AUTOMATICALLY DEPORTABLE WITHOUT HAVING A HEARING. AND ACTUALLY, JUST
AS A POINT OF REFERENCE ONLY, FOUR PERCENT OF THOSE CONVICTED OF A CLASS
A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE ARE ACTUALLY SENTENCED TO 365 DAYS OF JAIL TIME.
SO IT DOESN'T REALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT -- IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE AMOUNT
OF TIME THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE IN JAIL, BUT IT DOES REMOVE THE POTENTIAL
OF A COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE TO THEM.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: AND WHAT -- WHAT TYPE OF
CRIMES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: PETTY LARCENY, TURNSTILE JUMPING IS
ONE THAT COMES TO MIND.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: AND COULD WE BE TALKING
ABOUT FORCIBLE TOUCHING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD
APPLY, BUT MISDEMEANOR SEX CRIME CONVICTIONS.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: WELL, FORCIBLE TOUCHING -- IS IT
ALL -- IS IT ALL CLASS A MISDEMEANORS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT, IN TERMS OF THE CHANGING
TO THE 364. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO JUST FOCUS ON -- OR I THINK WHERE
265
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YOU'RE GOING IS TO WANT TO FOCUS ON THE POTENTIAL DEPORT -- SOMEBODY --
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: WELL, I MEAN, MY QUESTION IS,
YOU KNOW, SO A MISDEMEANOR, CLASS A MISDEMEANORS, I MEAN, THAT
WOULD INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, IT WOULD INCLUDE
AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT. CERTAIN DEGREES OF IT. NOT ALL DEGREES, BUT
CERTAIN DEGREES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: BUT FORCIBLE TOUCHING,
AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT, SEX ABUSE, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN
PROPERTY OR WEAPON, INSURANCE FRAUD, WELFARE FRAUD, ID THEFT, ASSAULT IN
THE THIRD DEGREE, STALKING. I MEAN, SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHY ARE
WE GOING SO -- TO SUCH EXTREMES AS THE LEGISLATURE TO PROTECT
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT ONLY HERE UNLAWFULLY, BUT ARE COMMITTING THESE
TYPES OF CRIMES ON TOP OF IT, PARTICULARLY --
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S -- IT'S NOT JUST PEOPLE WHO ARE
HERE LAWFULLY. WE DON'T CHANGE -- IT'S STILL --
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: BUT THAT WAS REALLY THE
IMPETUS BEHIND THIS, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT IS -- IT IS STILL A CLASS A
MISDEMEANOR.
I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, FIRST, THAT WE'RE JUST --
WE'RE STILL KEEPING IT AS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR, AND IT ONLY RELATES TO
PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE LEGALLY -- BECAUSE I KNOW YOU MENTIONED -- YOU
SAID WHY WOULD WE BE HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE --
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: OKAY, SO IT HAS -- IT WILL NOT
266
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HAVE AN IMPACT ON DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS. IF SOMEONE WHO IS IN THE
COUNTRY UNLAWFULLY COMMITS ONE OF THESE CRIMES, WILL IT OR WILL IT NOT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, BECAUSE THEY'RE DEPORTABLE
UNDER OTHER GROUNDS. THIS -- THIS RELATES TO THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
ONE YEAR -- CONVICTION OF ONE YEAR THAT -- THAT -- FOR A CRIME THAT COULD
BE UP TO -- THAT IS ONE YEAR'S --
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: YES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- UP TO ONE YEAR -- I'M SORRY, IT'S
AT ONE YEAR BEING ONE OF THE FACTORS AS A GROUND FOR DEPORT --
DEPORTATION. BUT AS I MENTIONED, THERE -- THERE ARE MORE THAN 50
GROUNDS THAT EXIST. THOSE UNDERLYING CRIMES, EVEN IF THE SENTENCE IS
REDUCED TO 364 DAYS, IT JUST REMOVES THAT AUTOMATIC PORTION OF THIS
BEING, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING THAT
MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION. BUT IT STILL -- IT DOESN'T PREVENT THOSE
UNDERLYING CRIMES IF THERE'S A CONVICTION BEING LOOKED AT AS A BASIS FOR
DEPORTATION. IT JUST REMOVES THE AUTOMATIC ONE-YEAR PENALTY AS BEING
USED.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: OKAY. THANK YOU.
ON -- ON THE BILL, PLEASE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: MR. SPEAKER, I FIND IT
EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO SUCH GREAT
EXTENTS IN THIS LEGISLATURE TO -- TO MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR THOSE WHO ARE
COMMITTING CRIMES. NOW, WHETHER IT BE THE BILL THAT WE DEBATED EARLIER
WHICH WOULD PREVENT OR PROHIBIT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A FELONY DRUG
267
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OFFENDER TO HAVE THEIR LICENSE, DRIVER'S LICENSE, SUSPENDED; WHETHER IT
BE THIS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD NOW REDUCE THE SENTENCING OF
MISDEMEANORS OF CLASS A FROM 365 TO 364 JUST SO IT DOESN'T TRIGGER
DEPORTATION. I MEAN, THESE -- LOOK AT THESE CRIMES: FORCIBLE TOUCHING
AND SEX ABUSE? I MEAN, WHY ARE WE GOING TO SUCH LENGTHS TO PROTECT
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE IN THIS COUNTRY UNLAWFULLY AND COMMITTING CRIMES
- AGAIN, TO EITHER OTHER IMMIGRANTS OR OUR CITIZENRY - I THINK THAT IS
REALLY WRONG. AND PARTICULARLY A CRIME LIKE SEX ABUSE AND FORCIBLE
TOUCHING, AMONG THE OTHER ONES: AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT, CRIMINAL
POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON,
INSURANCE FRAUD, WELFARE FRAUD, ID THEFT, ASSAULT, STALKING. NEXT WE'RE
GOING TO BE TAKING UP A BILL THAT GETS RID OF BAIL IN OUR STATE FOR 90
PERCENT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CHARGED, AND NOT EVEN PUTTING IN A
PROVISION THAT WOULD CONSIDER AN INDIVIDUAL'S THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY. I
MEAN, ARE WE HERE TO PROTECT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS OR ARE WE HERE TO
HELP PROTECT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE COMMITTING CRIMES? I MEAN, SO FAR IN
THIS BUDGET I'VE SEEN THAT THE WINNERS ARE CRIMINALS, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS,
AND GUESS WHAT? U-HAUL. THOSE ARE THE WINNERS IN THIS BUDGET, OKAY?
THE LOSERS ARE THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WHO PAY US TAXES TO ACTUALLY
PUT FORTH A FISCAL DOCUMENT THAT PROVIDES THE BASIC THINGS THAT
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE PROVIDING ITS CITIZENRY.
AND THE SECOND THING IS, THIS SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN THE
BUDGET. IT HAS NO FISCAL RAMIFICATIONS, AS -- AS THE SPONSOR SAID. SO THE
IDEA THAT WERE TAKING UP THIS CONTROVERSIAL POLICY AND SNEAKING IT IN THE
BUDGET IS, I THINK, WRONG AND IT'S NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF PROTECTING
268
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE PUBLIC WHO ELECTED US TO BE HERE.
SO I'LL BE VOTING NO AGAINST THIS BILL AS WELL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. NORRIS FOR A
SECOND TIME.
MR. NORRIS: THANK -- THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
WOULD THE MADAM CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CHAIRPERSON
YIELDS.
MR. NORRIS: I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO THE VOTING
SECTION OF THIS BILL AND ASK A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. IN TERMS OF EARLY
VOTING, WHICH WE'VE PASSED EARLIER ON THE -- IN THE YEAR, HAS THERE BEEN
ANY FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE STATE TO OUR COUNTIES TO FUND EARLY VOTING
IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT WILL BE IN THE APPROP BILL, BUT IT
IS $10 MILLION.
MR. NORRIS: TEN -- $10 MILLION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. NORRIS: NOW, BEFORE, IT WAS MY
UNDERSTANDING THE ESTIMATES WERE UP TO $27 MILLION. DID THAT INCLUDE A
PORTION OF THE ELECTRONIC POLL BOOKS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, THERE'S $10 MILLION FOR THE
OPERATIONS AND THEN THERE'S $14.7 MILLION FOR THE POLL BOOKS AND THE --
TO SUPPORT THE OPERATIONS OF -- OF THAT, SO...
MR. NORRIS: DO -- DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S SUFFICIENT
TO COVER THE COST OF THE EARLY VOTING THIS YEAR ON THE MUNICIPALITIES?
269
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE -- WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE
MINIMUM AMOUNT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO -- TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT
EARLY VOTING FOR THIS YEAR.
MR. NORRIS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. IN
TERMS OF THE EXTENDING THE PRIMARY HOURS FOR THE UPSTATE COUNTIES, IS
THERE ANY MONEY ALLOCATED IN THIS BUDGET FOR THAT PURPOSE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, NO, THE $10 MILLION IS FOR THE
EARLY VOTING, NOT FOR THE ADDITIONAL TIMES.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. SO, THE -- THOUGH WE'RE
MANDATING THE UPSTATE COUNTIES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOURS, THERE IS NO
FUNDING IN THIS BUDGET TO HELP THEM WITH THIS UNFUNDED MANDATE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: NOT TIED DIRECTLY TO THE EARLY
VOTING, BUT AS WE'LL DISCUSS LATER ON THIS EVENING, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
SALES TAX REVENUES COMING TO THE COUNTIES, SO WE THINK THAT THERE'LL BE
SUFFICIENT NEW REVENUES TO COVER ANY INCREASED COSTS.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. VERY GOOD. IF I COULD JUST
TURN TO THE VOTER -- IN TERMS OF THE ONLINE VOTING REGISTRATION SYSTEM. IS
THERE SUFFICIENT FUNDS ALLOCATED TO THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS BUDGET
TO OPERATE THIS PLATFORM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. WE DID -- DO RE-APPROP
THE $5 MILLION FROM LAST YEAR TO -- FOR THE STAFFING AT THE STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS RELATED TO THIS.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. AND IN TERMS OF IF YOU WANT TO
REGISTER ONLINE, DO YOU DO IT THROUGH ONE PLATFORM, THE STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS, OR COULD YOU DO THAT THROUGH MULTIPLE PLATFORMS, LIKE
270
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THERE IS A TWO-YEAR
IMPLEMENTATION TIME BEFORE IT'S EFFECTIVE, SO I THINK SOME OF THOSE
ISSUES WILL BE RESOLVED AS THE STATE BOARD MOVES TOWARDS --
MR. NORRIS: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- DEVELOPING THE SYSTEM.
MR. NORRIS: ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO TURN BACK TO THAT
THREE HOURS OF VOTING NOW, IF YOU WOULD NOT MIND.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. NORRIS: IS IT YOUR -- FROM DISCUSSING THIS
EARLIER WITH YOU, YOU -- YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE JUST EXTENDING IT FROM
A TWO- TO A THREE-HOUR PERIOD; IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. THAT'S THE ALLOWABLE TIME,
BUT IT'S UP TO -- IT'S UP TO THE THREE HOURS. IT'S NOT THAT YOU GET A
THREE-HOUR WINDOW. IF THE POLLING SITE IS AROUND THE CORNER, OR DOWN
THE -- YOU KNOW, A FEW BLOCKS AWAY, YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T NEED THE
THREE HOURS UNLESS THERE ARE LONG LINES. SO, IT'S -- THAT'S THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT IT SHOULD BE THE AMOUNT OF TIME ACTUALLY NEEDED TO
VOTE.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT -- MAKE
IT CLEAR. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING - AND YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF INFORMATION,
YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB TODAY BY ANSWERING ALL THESE QUESTIONS, THERE'S
BEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION - BUT IS EVERYONE ALLOWED A
TWO-HOUR PERIOD RIGHT NOW UNDER CURRENT LAW?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THE -- THE LANGUAGE THAT WE
271
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DON'T CHANGE, WE -- WE ELIMINATE TWO -- WE SAY THREE HOURS, AND THEN
WE SAY TAKE -- IN THE CURRENT LAW, TAKE OFF -- SO THREE HOURS, TAKE OFF AS
MUCH -- SO MUCH WORKING TIME AS WILL ENABLE HIM OR HER TO VOTE IN THE
ELECTION. SO, IT'S NOT THAT YOU GET A -- YOU GET THIS WINDOW. BUT WE DO
REMOVE, AS IT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER, WE DO REMOVE THE CURRENT SECTION
OF LAW THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU DO HAVE -- THAT IF YOU HAVE FOUR CONSECUTIVE
HOURS OF -- OF -- OF NOT BEING AT WORK, THAT YOU DON'T GET THE BENEFIT OF
THAT TWO-HOUR TIMEFRAME.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. THAT -- THANK YOU VERY --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. NORRIS: -- MUCH, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, FOR
THAT POINT, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, HOW I INTERPRET THE CURRENT LAW IS IF YOU
HAVE FOUR HOURS BEFORE YOUR SHIFT OR FOUR HOURS AFTER YOUR SHIFT BEFORE,
YOU KNOW, THE POLLS OPEN OR CLOSE, YOU DON'T -- YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO
THAT TWO HOURS RIGHT NOW. WOULD THAT BE YOUR UNDERSTANDING UNDER
CURRENT LAW?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YES.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. NOW, UNDER THE REVISED LAW,
WOULD IT BE YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERY EMPLOYEE, REGARDLESS OF --
OF THAT TIME PERIOD THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THREE
HOURS OF PAID TIME BY THEIR EMPLOYER TO VOTE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: UP TO THREE HOURS AT THE
BEGINNING OF THEIR -- THEIR WORKDAY, OR AT THE END OF THEIR WORKDAY.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. SO, IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
BECAUSE IF SOMEONE IS WORKING, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00
272
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AND 4:00, THEY STILL HAVE FIVE HOURS AT THEIR END OF THE SHIFT TO GO VOTE,
AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE TWO HOURS OR THE THREE HOURS TO HAVE
DONE THAT UNDER THE CURRENT LAW.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, BUT AS -- AS WE ALSO
DISCUSSED, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WORK MULTIPLE JOBS, THERE ARE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES, MAY PEOPLE -- MAYBE PEOPLE WORK
FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THEIR HOURS CHANGE ON CERTAIN DAYS.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT
THAT. SO, WHO MAKES THE DETERMINATION ABOUT THE SHIFT BEFORE OR AFTER,
IS THAT THE EMPLOYER OR THE EMPLOYEE, TO WHEN THEY CAN GO OUT AND
VOTE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE --
MR. NORRIS: -- DURING THIS THREE-HOUR PERIOD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE EMPLOYEE'S REQUIRED TO GIVE
TWO HOURS NOTICE, SO I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT
COULD BE --
(SIDEBAR)
TWO DAYS NOTICE. RIGHT.
THE EMPLOYEE NOTIFIES THE EMPLOYER NOT LESS THAN TWO
WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE DAY OF THE ELECTION THAT THEY REQUIRE THE TIME
OFF, UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED. ONLY THE BEGINNING OR THE END
OF THEIR SHIFT, BUT THERE CAN BE SOME DISCUSSION AND SOME AGREEMENT TO
WORK THAT OUT.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. SO, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT
UNDER THE PROPOSED LAW EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO, IF THEY ELECT SO, THEY
273
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HAVE THREE HOURS OF PAID TIME OFF AT THE BEGINNING OR THE END OF THEIR
SHIFT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: UP -- UP TO --
MR. NORRIS: UP TO.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- WHAT'S NEEDED TO VOTE.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY. I'M SURE MANY PEOPLE WOULD
TAKE THE FULL THREE HOURS TO DO THAT, BUT IT'S "UP TO". SO, IF YOU'RE
OPERATING A MANUFACTURING COMPANY WITH A SHIFT OF, LET'S SAY, 100
PEOPLE, THEORETICALLY YOU COULD HAVE 50 PEOPLE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
SHIFT AND 50 PEOPLE AT THE END OF THE SHIFT OFF, PAID BY THE EMPLOYER TO
GO OUT AND VOTE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I MUST TELL YOU THAT I -- WE
HAVE NOT HEARD OF PROBLEMS WITH THE EXISTING LAW, ALBEIT, AND I'LL
CONCEDE THAT THERE IS THAT FOUR-HOUR WINDOW THAT YOU COULDN'T (SIC) TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF, BUT WE HAVE NOT HEARD OF PROBLEMS. WE DON'T THINK THAT
THIS CHANGE WILL HAVE SUCH A DRAMATIC IMPACT AS -- AS HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED BY MANY OF THE MEMBERS.
MR. NORRIS: AND I GUESS I WOULD JUST SUBMIT TO
YOU, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, IS THAT BECAUSE OF HOW THE EXISTING LAW IS
WRITTEN, FOR MOST SHIFTS, THAT WOULD WORK OUT WHERE THEY HAVE A
FOUR-HOUR PERIOD ON EITHER SIDE TO MAKE THAT ACCOMMODATION.
NOW IF YOU, ON YOUR OWN TIME, GO OUT AND DO EARLY
VOTING, AND THEN YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND, YOU WANT TO GO TO THE POLLING
SITE ON ELECTION DAY, DO THEY GET THAT THREE PAID HOURS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW, AS -- AS WE
274
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
JOKED ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, OFTEN SOMEONE WILL SAY VOTE -- VOTE EARLY
AND OFTEN, BUT YOU CAN ONLY VOTE ONCE IN NEW YORK STATE.
MR. NORRIS: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, IF YOU VOTED EARLY VOTING,
YOU'RE -- YOU'RE -- CAN'T THEN GO AND VOTE ON ELECTION DAY.
MR. NORRIS: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR
YOU. NOW WITH EARLY VOTING, WHICH IS EIGHT OR NINE DAYS, WITH THE
STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT WITHIN TWO MORE YEARS WE'LL HAVE NO-EXCUSE
ABSENTEE VOTING, WHY DO WE NEED TO HAVE THREE HOURS OF PAID TIME BY
EMPLOYERS TO THE EMPLOYEES TO VOTE WHEN WE HAVE THESE OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO VOTE? WHY
DO WE NEED TO DO THIS? WE HAVE TWO OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT IS WIDE
OPEN FOR THEM TO GO VOTE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, WE
DON'T HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SORT OF NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING YET,
SO, OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT REGARD. PEOPLE -- WE'RE
NOT SAYING THAT IF PEOPLE WANT TO GO VOTE IN PERSON, THEY SHOULD BE
ENTITLED TO DO THAT, EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE WITHOUT
BEING FORCED TO HAVE TO -- ONCE IT BECOMES -- BECOMES LAW, VOTE BY
ABSENTEE. AND, AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOTS OF
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT PREVENT THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO EITHER DO THEIR
EARLY VOTING OR VOTE AT -- VOTE AT THEIR -- ON A DAY THEY WOULD OTHERWISE
BE WORKING. YOU KNOW, I THINK MOST -- MOST WORKERS IN OUR STATE ARE
VERY CONSCIENTIOUS AND ARE NOT -- ARE NOT LOOKING JUST FOR TIME OFF,
THEY'RE LOOKING TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE. AND THERE HAVE BEEN
275
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PROBLEMS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT, EITHER BECAUSE OF
THEIR LONG COMMUTES OR THEIR MULTIPLE JOBS, THEIR FAMILY
RESPONSIBILITIES, PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, CARE OF -- CARE OF RELATIVES.
SO, WE JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT ALL CITIZENS WHO WANT TO VOTE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE.
MR. NORRIS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ANSWERING
MY QUESTIONS.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. NORRIS: IN TERMS OF THE THREE-HOUR PAID
VOTING, WHICH IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE FROM THE CURRENT LAW, AS WE
DISCUSSED EARLIER WITH THE FOUR HOURS ON EITHER SIDE WHERE YOU'RE NOT
ALLOWED THE TWO-HOUR VOTING, THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL MANDATE ON ALL
BUSINESSES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL MANDATE ON
ALL OF THE MUNICIPALITIES WHO HAVE WORKERS WORKING ON ELECTION DAY.
AND THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. WE HAVE EARLY VOTING, WHICH IS IN STATUTE,
STARTING THIS NOVEMBER FOR EIGHT DAYS PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY. IT'S THERE.
I AM HOPEFUL THAT WE WILL HAVE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING. I WAS VERY
PROUD TO SUPPORT THAT FIRST PASSAGE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
AND I HOPE BEFORE 2000 -- THE END OF 2001 -- 2021, THAT WILL BE LAW.
SO, I JUST BELIEVE THAT THIS IS UNNECESSARY WITH THE
AVENUES AND THE OPPORTUNITIES RIGHT NOW FOR US TO EXERCISE, AND
PROUDLY EXERCISE OUR RIGHT TO VOTE. AND, THEREFORE, I WILL BE VOTING
AGAINST THIS BUDGET BILL. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, APPRECIATE THE TIME.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
276
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. REILLY.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE --
MADAM CHAIR YIELD FOR ONE LAST QUESTION?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: -- HE PROMISES THERE'S
ONLY ONE.
MR. REILLY: ONLY ONE. I PROMISE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I HOPE IT'S NOT LIKE ONE OF MR.
GOODELL'S ONLY ONE QUESTIONS.
(LAUGHTER)
MR. REILLY: SO, THE -- THE ONE LAST QUESTION I HAVE
IS, WITH THIS LEGISLATION AND THE FORESEEN 50-A RULING ABOUT POLICE
RECORDS BEING RELEASED, IF WE, AS A STATE AND WITH THE DIVISION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WITHIN A YEAR DURING THE
PROCEEDINGS, WILL THIS IMPACT POTENTIALLY PROVIDING DETAILS OF INCIDENTS
THAT HAPPENED WITH OFFICERS WHILE THEY WERE DEALING WITH ISSUES
REGARDING CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AND PERSONNEL ISSUES LIKE CIVILIAN
COMPLAINT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I THINK THIS IS ABOUT DATA
COLLECTION. THE BODY CAMERA ISSUE IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. IS IT -- ARE YOU
TALKING ABOUT BODY CAMERAS --
MR. REILLY: NO, NO --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
277
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CIVILIAN COMPLAINTS?
MR. REILLY: I'M DEALING WITH RELEASING POLICE
OFFICERS' PERSONNEL ISSUES --
MS. WEINSTEIN: OH.
MR. REILLY: -- AND IF YOU RELEASE THIS INCIDENT, LIKE
THE USE OF FORCE, YOU ARE, POTENTIALLY, DURING AN INVESTIGATION,
PROVIDING THE DETAILS OF AN INCIDENT IN A LOCATION IN A COUNTY, MAYBE
NOT IDENTIFYING THE OFFICER BY NAME OR THE -- THE INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTED TO
WHATEVER HAPPENS IN THAT INCIDENT BY NAME, BUT IF IT IS A NEWSWORTHY
INCIDENT, YOU WOULD BE IDENTIFYING THE OFFICER AND THE INCIDENT BY
PUTTING IT ON THE WEBSITE. SO, I THINK THIS MAY BROADEN THE HORIZON OF
50-A WITHOUT US PASSING THAT LEGISLATION; DO YOU AGREE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I DON'T, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK TO THE PERSONAL INFORMATION ISN'T -- ISN'T THERE, IT'S
DATA REPORTING. IF YOU SAY IT'S A PUBLIC EVENT -- PUBLICIZED EVENT, THE
INFORMATION IS ALREADY OUT THERE WITHOUT THE POLICE REPORTING.
MR. REILLY: WELL -- AND I'M SORRY, I DID SAY ONE
QUESTION, BUT I DO HAVE A FOLLOW-UP WITH THAT, AND I APOLOGIZE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
MR. REILLY: WHEN YOU HAVE A -- A HIGHLY-PROFILED
INCIDENT AND IT IDENTIFIES THE SPECIFIC OFFICER OR SUBJECT OF THE INCIDENT,
WHETHER IT'S THE OFFICER OR THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME, I THINK WE ARE
PROVIDING MORE INFORMATION THAN SHOULD BE LEGALLY PROVIDED IF WE
HAVE IT ON A WEBSITE WITHIN A YEAR OF THE INCIDENT. SO, DO YOU BELIEVE
THAT THAT MAY HINDER SOME OF OUR MUNICIPALITIES ACTUALLY DEFENDING
278
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OFFICERS, LIKE THE NEW YORK CITY CORPORATION COUNSEL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.
MR. REILLY: OKAY. THANK YOU.
ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. REILLY: SO, I THINK THE INTENT OF IDENTIFYING
USE OF FORCE IS A VALIANT EFFORT IN MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE TRANSPARENT
AND THAT WE HOLD OUR OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE, BECAUSE I WILL TELL YOU AS A
MEMBER WEARING THAT UNIFORM AND HOLDING THAT SHIELD ON MY CHEST,
ACCOUNTABILITY IS VERY IMPORTANT AND I SHOULD BE SUBJECT. AND WHEN I
WAS WEARING THAT UNIFORM, I WAS SUBJECTED TO THAT ACCOUNTABILITY. I
WILL SAY THAT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED WITH THIS LEGISLATION, I
DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS. I THINK THAT IT SUBJECTS US TO MANDATING THAT
THINGS ARE REPORTED WITHIN A YEAR WHEN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AREN'T
COMPLETED. SO, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD REALLY HOLD BACK AND ENSURE THAT
WE'RE NOT SUBJECTING BOTH THE DEFENDANT AND OUR MUNICIPALITIES TO
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS WHEN THEY CAN JEOPARDIZE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS. SO, I THINK THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF US PUTTING THE CART
BEFORE THE HORSE AND I URGE ALL MY COLLEAGUES TO PLEASE VOTE IN THE
NEGATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HOPEFULLY WRAP UP QUESTIONS ON THIS BILL.
WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD?
279
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: MENTIONING YOUR NAME DIDN'T
MEAN YOU HAD TO STAND UP AND ASK.
MR. GOODELL: OH. I MISUNDERSTOOD.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
(LAUGHTER)
SURE, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
MR. GOODELL: YOU KNOW, I'M INTRIGUED ABOUT THIS
ELECTION LAW THREE HOURS OFF, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON IT
TONIGHT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. GOODELL: IS THERE ANY OTHER SITUATION UNDER
STATE LAW WHERE WE REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO GIVE PEOPLE TIME OFF AT
EMPLOYER EXPENSE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE DO FOR MEDICAL-RELATED ISSUES;
VARIOUS CANCER SCREENINGS YOU'RE ALLOWED TIME OFF.
MR. GOODELL: YOU'RE ALLOWED TIME OFF, BUT THE
LAW DOESN'T MANDATE THAT THE EMPLOYER GIVE YOU TIME OFF AT A CERTAIN
TIME DURING THE DAY OR ON A PARTICULAR DAY, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. NO, WE -- I MEAN, WE --
WE DON'T IN THOSE INSTANCES BECAUSE THEY AREN'T DATE SPECIFIC, BUT, YOU
KNOW, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED TODAY, THIS IS -- WE'RE ADDING THE HOUR TO
THE -- THE DAY, SO THIS MANDATE ALREADY DOES EXIST, OF TWO HOURS AND TO
BE PAID -- YOU KNOW, TO NOT LOSE PAY. YOU CAN -- YOU'RE ALSO ALLOWED
TIME OFF FOR -- TO DO BLOOD DONATIONS, YOU KNOW, AS I MENTIONED, THE
280
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MEDICAL CANCER SCREENINGS.
MR. GOODELL: THIS -- THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY HAS
BEEN VERY CONCERNED, AS YOU KNOW, ON STAFFING LEVELS. WE'VE PASSED
THE SAFE STAFFING LEGISLATION SEVERAL TIMES THAT REQUIRES A CERTAIN LEVEL
OF NURSING STAFFING IN EMERGENCY ROOMS AND HOSPITALS, OR WE REQUIRE
THE EMERGENCY ROOM TO BE CLOSED, I MEAN, OR NOT ALLOW NEW PATIENTS TO
COME IN. THERE ARE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, NOT JUST NURSING HOMES AND
HOSPITALS, BUT OUR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE WE EXPECT
A CERTAIN MINIMUM NUMBER OF STAFFING. SO, TELL ME, IF THIS GOES INTO
EFFECT, HOW WOULD A HOSPITAL OR A NURSING HOME COMPLY WITH SAFE
STAFFING IF UP TO ONE-HALF OF THEIR STAFF COULD LEAVE AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE SHIFT OR AT THE END OF THE SHIFT, THE OTHER HALF AT THE END OF THE SHIFT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW, AS -- AS CURRENT
LAW, YOU HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE, YOU CAN HAVE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON
TIMES, THERE'S NOT THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE THE FULL AMOUNT OF -- OF
TIME. MANY PEOPLE CURRENTLY WOULD -- MAYBE COMING IN JUST A LITTLE BIT
LATE, BUT THERE CERTAINLY IS ENOUGH TIME TO -- FOR, YOU KNOW, A FACILITY TO
HAVE ADVANCED NOTICE OF SOMEONE'S -- OF -- OF STAFF ABSENCE TO BE ABLE
TO HAVE A PROPER SCHEDULING.
MR. GOODELL: MANY OF OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS, AS YOU KNOW, REQUIRE A MINIMUM NOTICE FOR OVERTIME OR
ADDITIONAL HOURS. AND SOME -- SOME OPERATIONS ACTUALLY, BY LAW, LIMIT
THE NUMBER OF HOURS AN EMPLOYEE CAN WORK, SUCH AS SEMI-TRUCK
DRIVERS, RIGHT? THEY'RE LIMITED TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOURS. WOULD
YOU ENVISION THAT THIS ELECTION LAW PROVISION WOULD SUPERCEDE THE
281
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS SO THAT A [SIC]
EMPLOYER SUCH AS A HOSPITAL COULD GIVE LESS NOTICE AND STILL REQUIRE
STAFF TO SHOW UP SO THAT THEY DON'T SHUT DOWN THEIR EMERGENCY ROOM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT
SOMETHING WOULD BE NEGOTIATED -- YOU KNOW, IN OUR -- LISTENING TO
SOME OF THE DISCUSSION, YOU'D THINK THAT EVERYBODY IN OUR STATE WAS
VOTING; ONLY IF THAT -- THAT WERE TRUE. THE IDEA IS TO TRY AND ENCOURAGE
MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO VOTE BECAUSE OF
BARRIERS OF HAVING TO GO TO WORK AND NOT HAVING ENOUGH TIMES.
MR. GOODELL: SO, ON A TYPICAL 9:00 TO 5:00, YOU
WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE THREE HOURS BEFORE YOUR SHIFT STARTED, FOUR HOURS
AFTER YOUR SHIFT, BUT YOU DON'T THINK SEVEN HOURS IS ENOUGH TIME TO VOTE
OUTSIDE OF YOUR NORMAL SHIFT, A 9:00 TO 5:00 SHIFT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. AND,
YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU WERE FOCUSING ON HOSPITALS, MANY OF --
YOU KNOW, I THINK THE COUPLE OF NURSES WE HAVE HERE WOULD ATTEST TO
THE SHIFTS DON'T NECESSARILY FOLLOW THIS 9:00 TO 5:00 SITUATION. SO,
SOMEONE'S -- SOMEONE'S SHIFT MAY TAKE THEM PAST VOTING HOURS, OR MAY
START AT THE VERY BEGINNING. THEY WON'T -- YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT IS NOT A
FULL THREE HOURS THAT SOMEONE'S -- THEY'RE ENTITLED UP TO THAT AMOUNT.
IT'S NOT A FULL THREE HOURS THAT SOMEONE'S GIVEN, IT RELATES TO WHERE THE
POLLING SITE IS, WHERE THEIR HOME IS, WHERE THEIR COMMUTE IS TO WORK.
MR. GOODELL: I'M GOING TO SHIFT A LITTLE BIT.
WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT REDUCING THE MAXIMUM CRIMINAL
SENTENCE --
282
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. GOODELL: -- FOR A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR FOR
ALL CRIMINALS IN THE STATE, BECAUSE IT ONLY APPLIES TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. IT ACTUALLY APPLIES TO
ANYBODY WHO'S CONVICTED OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR, REGARDLESS OF THE
AMOUNT OF TIME. I THINK, IF YOU RECALL, I SAID ONLY 4 PERCENT OF PEOPLE
CONVICTED OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR ACTUALLY ARE -- SERVE --
MR. GOODELL: A FULL YEAR.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- ARE SENTENCED TO SERVE THE FULL
365 DAYS. SO, IT'S A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT IT WOULD IMPACT IN
TERMS OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY SERVING TIME. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE
CONVICTED OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR WHO NEVER SERVE A DAY -- A DAY IN
COURT -- I MEAN, A DAY IN JAIL. SO, THE -- IT WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT
ON THE ACTUAL TIME THAT PEOPLE CONVICTED OF THE CRIME ACTUALLY SERVE,
BUT WILL HELP TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES THAT
PEOPLE ARE FACING.
MR. GOODELL: ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE COLLATERAL
CONSEQUENCES YOU MENTIONED IS THAT IF YOU ARE SENTENCED TO THE
MAXIMUM, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE 4 PERCENT, AND YOU'RE HERE
ILLEGALLY, IT HAS TO BE BOTH, YOU'RE SENTENCED TO THE MAXIMUM AND
YOU'RE HERE ILLEGALLY, IT TRIGGERS AUTOMATIC DEPORTATION. MY QUESTION IS,
WHY DO WE HAVE A PUBLIC --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CAN I JUST -- CAN I INTERRUPT TO
CORRECT SOME -- SOMETHING?
283
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. GOODELL: CERTAINLY. I'M --
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT'S NOT -- IT DOESN'T IMPACT
PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY, IT IS -- IT WOULD IMPACT IN TERMS OF -- IT
WOULD IMPACT SOMEBODY WHO WOULD BE DEPORTABLE. SO, THAT'S SOMEONE
WHO IS HERE LEGALLY.
MR. GOODELL: IT COULD AFFECT SOMEBODY WITH A
GREEN CARD.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. GOODELL: THAT'S YOUR POINT. YES. AND I
WOULD AGREE. SO, HERE'S MY QUESTION. WHY IS IT THAT WE WANT TO AMEND
THE PENAL CODE FOR EVERY CRIMINAL IN THE STATE SO THAT THOSE WHO ARE
HERE ON A TEMPORARY VISA, OR A GREEN CARD, CAN COMMIT A CRIME AGAINST
A NEW YORKER, BE SENTENCED TO THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE, WHICH OCCURS
RELATIVELY RARELY, WHY DO WE WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE SENTENCED TO THE
MAXIMUM SENTENCE TO HAVE THE MAXIMUM OPPORTUNITY TO STAY HERE? I
MEAN, HAVEN'T THEY KIND OF, LIKE, VIOLATED THEIR SOCIAL COMPACT IF
THEY'VE COMMITTED A CRIME AGAINST A NEW YORKER WHILE HERE ON A
TEMPORARY OR -- VISA, OR NON-PERMANENT VISA?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S -- WELL, IT -- IT'S NOT THE TIME
THEY ARE SENTENCED, IT'S -- THE CONVICTION IS THE A MISDEMEANOR. SO,
THERE ARE 50-SOME-ODD --
MR. GOODELL: NO, I UNDERSTAND, BUT THE -- THE
TRIGGERING THE AUTOMATIC DEPORTATION, THOUGH, IS BASED NOT JUST ON BEING
CONVICTED OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR, IT'S BEING SENTENCED TO THE
MAXIMUM. AND, BY THE WAY, THE REASON --
284
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I -- I THINK YOU'RE WRONG.
MR. GOODELL: WE CAN REVIEW THE FEDERAL LAW
LATER --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YEAH.
MR. GOODELL: -- BUT I DID IT PULL IT OUT AND REVIEW
IT EARLIER. AND THE REASON WHY --
MS. WEINSTEIN: I BELIEVE IT'S A CRIME THAT CARRIES A
-- A YEAR'S SENTENCE.
MR. GOODELL: THE REASON MOST PEOPLE DON'T GET
THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE IS BECAUSE USUALLY THEY RESERVE THE MAXIMUM
SENTENCE TO SOMEBODY WHO IS ARRESTED FOR A FELONY AND WAS ALLOWED TO
PLEA BARGAIN TO A MISDEMEANOR. SO WHAT THIS REALLY DOES IS PROTECT
THOSE WHO ARE ON A TEMPORARY VISA THAT WERE ARRESTED FOR A FELONY AND
PLEA BARGAINED TO A MISDEMEANOR. AND, AGAIN, I COME BACK TO THE
QUESTION, WHY IS IT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF NEW YORK STATE RESIDENTS THAT
WE MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ON A VISA, OR HERE ILLEGALLY,
EITHER ONE, IT DOESN'T MATTER, WHO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME AGAINST A
NEW YORKER? WHY DO WE WANT THOSE PEOPLE HERE IN NEW YORK?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S PEOPLE WHO MAY BE -- WHO
ARE EXPOSED TO POTENTIAL OF A YEAR IN JAIL, AND THERE ARE -- THIS WOULD BE
AN AUTOMATIC, RIGHT, THIS IS ONE OF THE AUTOMATIC DEPORTATION FACTORS.
THERE ARE MANY OTHER FACTORS, AND THE -- THE CRIME THAT THEY COMMITTED,
THAT THEY ARE CONVICTED OF, WOULD BE ONE OF THE FACTORS TO BE LOOKED AT
IN TERMS OF DEPORTATION.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH --
285
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. GOODELL: -- MS. WEINSTEIN.
ON THE BILL, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: ON THE BILL.
MR. GOODELL: IT'S AMAZING, WE'VE JUST SPENT
SEVERAL HOURS DEBATING A BUDGET BILL AND VIRTUALLY NONE OF THE DEBATE
RELATED TO THE BUDGET, DID IT? THERE'S VIRTUALLY NO DISCUSSION AT ALL
ABOUT APPROPRIATIONS IN THIS BILL. AND THIS IS A BUDGET BILL. WE'VE LOST
SIGHT THAT MAYBE WE OUGHT TO HAVE BUDGET ITEMS IN A BUDGET BILL AND, IF
SO, WE COULD HAVE, BY THE WAY, GONE HOME BY NOON. BUT INSTEAD, WE'RE
DEBATING OVER WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL LAW FOR
EVERYONE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK SO THAT WE CAN ALLOW PEOPLE WHO
ARE HERE ON A VISA TO STAY HERE AFTER THEY'VE COMITTED A SERIOUS CRIME
AGAINST ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES OR ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS, OR ONE OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS. THAT'S OUR PUBLIC POLICY THAT KEEPS AWAKE AT NIGHT, HOW
CAN WE KEEP CRIMINALS WHO ARE COMMITTING CRIMES WHO HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED, WHO HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO THE MAXIMUM, HERE. BECAUSE
WE WANT THEM HERE, APPARENTLY.
NOW, I LOVE HAVING IMMIGRANTS HERE; I THINK THEY
BRING A HUGE WEALTH OF INFORMATION AND BENEFIT TO OUR STATE. BUT IT
COMES WITH A CONCOMITANT, A CORRESPONDING COMMITMENT, THAT THEY
COMPLY WITH THE LAWS; THAT THEY DON'T COMMIT SOME SEX CRIME AGAINST
OUR CONSTITUENTS, THAT THEY DON'T ROB ONE OF OUR CONSTITUENTS, THEY DON'T
COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST US. I LOVE HAVING PEOPLE OVER TO MY HOUSE, BUT
YOU KNOW WHAT? IF THEY STEAL -- IF THEY STEAL THE SILVERWARE, I'M NOT
286
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INVITING THEM BACK. BUT HERE WE ARE, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO AMEND OUR
ENTIRE CRIMINAL LAW SO THAT IF SOMEONE STEALS YOUR SILVERWARE, WE
WON'T SEND THEM BACK. WE'LL MAKE SURE THEY GET TO STAY IN OUR
COMMUNITY. I DON'T THINK THAT IS A PUBLIC POLICY THAT JUSTIFIES BEING PUT
IN A BUDGET BILL THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUDGET THAT KEEPS US
HERE FOR HOURS.
AND WE SAY TO ALL OF OUR EMPLOYERS, WE'RE GOING TO LET
YOUR EMPLOYEES VOTE FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION, RIGHT,
EARLY VOTING, STARTING TEN DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, FOR EARLY VOTING AND
FOR THE FINAL VOTING, WE'LL GIVE YOU FROM 6:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M., 13
HOURS. BUT ANY ONE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES CAN COME IN AND SAY, HEY, I'D
LIKE TO TAKE UP THE THREE HOURS AT YOUR EXPENSE, THAT'S THE EMPLOYER'S
EXPENSE, TO VOTE ON ELECTION DAY. RIGHT? RIGHT. AND IF YOU'RE
RUNNING A HOSPITAL AND YOU COULD HAVE UP TO HALF YOUR STAFF TAKE OFF
TIME, WHAT? YOU SHUT DOWN THE EMERGENCY ROOM? CALL UP AND SAY,
YOU KNOW THAT -- THAT OPERATION YOU WERE PLANNING ON, HOW ABOUT WE
DON'T SCHEDULE IT ON ELECTION DAY BECAUSE WE MAY NOT HAVE THE STAFF TO
MAKE SURE YOU'RE PROPERLY CARED FOR. AND OUR JAILS, YOU SAY, HEY
GUYS, I HOPE YOU DON'T MIND, BUT WE'RE GOING ON LOCKDOWN FOR THE FIRST
THREE HOURS OF THE SHIFT AND WE'RE GOING ON LOCKDOWN ON THE LAST THREE
HOURS OF THE SHIFT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE HALF THE STAFF HERE.
BUT DON'T WORRY, WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING FOR LEGISLATORS WHO'LL REDUCE
YOUR SENTENCE BY A DAY SO YOU CAN STAY IN THE COMMUNITY RATHER THAN
BEING DEPORTED. I GUESS IT ALL MAKES SENSE.
I WOULD IMPLORE MY COLLEAGUES, AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO
287
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
NEXT YEAR, LET'S DO OUR BEST TO INTENTIONALLY OMIT ALL THOSE
NON-BUDGETARY ITEMS FROM THE BUDGET. AND MAY I REMIND MY
COLLEAGUES WHO ARE SO FORTUNATE TO BE IN THE MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES,
YOU NO LONGER NEED TO HAVE IT IN THE BUDGET, DO YOU? ALL YOU'VE GOT TO
DO IS AGREE WITH THE OTHER SIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, AND YOU CAN PASS A
STAND UP -- STANDALONE BILL. YOU NO LONGER NEED TO SHOVE IT INTO THE
BUDGET TO FORCE THE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE TO BACK IT BECAUSE THEY
MIGHT OTHERWISE LOSE SOME BUDGETARY ISSUE, THAT'S NO LONGER THERE.
SO GLAD TO SPEND ALL MY TIME WITH YOU TONIGHT.
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: MR. GOODELL, I
AM SORRY TO TELL YOU YOUR TIME IS UP.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: BUT YOU COULD
COME BACK.
MR. STECK.
MR. STECK: I WILL ADDRESS THIS WHEN I EXPLAIN MY
VOTE, THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: THANK YOU,
MR. STECK.
(APPLAUSE)
READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
288
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. PHILLIP STECK TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. STECK: VERY BRIEFLY, MR. SPEAKER. THE ISSUE
THAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED, AND WHILE I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE THAT WE
SHOULD NOT HAVE POLICY IN THE BUDGET, THE ISSUE THAT WAS BEING
DISCUSSED IS NOT ACCURATE. A [SIC] AUTOMATIC 365 DAY CRIME, EVEN IF THE
PERSON DOES NOT RECEIVE SUCH A LONG SENTENCE, WOULD MAKE THE PERSON
AUTOMATICALLY DEPORTED. A PERSON CAN STILL BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE
UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE CASE IF THE PERSON DID SOMETHING PARTICULARLY
HEINOUS, EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT AUTOMATICALLY DEPORTABLE. THE PURPOSE
OF THE LEGISLATION IS TO PREVENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED EXTREMELY
MINOR OFFENSES FROM BEING DEPORTED WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: MR. STECK IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. BLAKE TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. BLAKE: JUST BRIEFLY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. YOU
KNOW, FIRST, I WILL DEFINITELY BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, BUT I JUST
THINK, FOR THE RECORD THAT, COLLEAGUES, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD NOT
ALLOW RACE-BAITING TO CONTINUE IN THIS HOUSE. WE HEARD RHETORIC BEING
CONVEYED ABOUT PERPETRATORS AND WHAT WOULD OCCUR IF SOMEONE -- WHY
WOULD YOU WANT TO DISCLOSE THE RECORDS. WELL, MR. SPEAKER AND
COLLEAGUES, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE IN MY LIFE, I WAS A VICTIM OF POLICE
BRUTALITY; ONCE WHILE BEING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. AND THE ONLY REASON
WHY THEY LET ME GO OF ME IS BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED I WAS AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL. THE NONSENSE THAT'S BEING CONVEYED THAT FOR SOMEHOW IT'S
289
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PROBLEMATIC FOR INFORMATION TO BE SHARED AND THEN CONVEY AGAIN THE
LANGUAGE OF PERPETRATORS IS THE EPITOME OF RACE-BAITING.
EQUALLY, WHEN HAVING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHY
WOULD WE WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE? YES, WE SHOULD
BE MAKING IT EASIER FOR SOMEONE TO VOTE, TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR
RIGHTS. YOU'RE ASKING THE QUESTION ON WHY IS THIS RELEVANT TO THE
BUDGET. NOT ONLY SHOULD WE BE MAKING IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE
TO STAY HERE AND TO VOTE, BUT OBVIOUSLY IF YOU'RE SPENDING TIME AND
RESOURCES AND TRYING TO DEPORT PEOPLE RATHER THAN KEEP PEOPLE HERE,
THERE'S CLEAR SYNERGY ON WHY IT'S IMPACTING WITHIN THE BUDGET.
SO, NOT ONLY WILL I BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND I --
AND I WOULD ASK ALL OUR COLLEAGUES TO DO SO, BUT I THINK THE BROADER
CONCERN TO ME IS TO CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO INTENTIONALLY RACIST
DISCRIMINATORY RHETORIC THAT'S BEING CONVEYED. STOP THE NONSENSE OF
CONVEYING THAT IF SOMEONE HAS BEEN A VICTIM OF BRUTALITY OR ARREST, THAT
YOU'RE A PERPETRATOR, OR THAT YOU'RE A THUG. OR THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG
WITH YOU. I WILL NOT SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO THIS FOOLISHNESS ANY LONGER.
I'VE EXPERIENCED THIS AND SEEN THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND IT IS
UNACCEPTABLE.
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: MR. RAIA, WHY
DO YOU RISE?
MR. RAIA: I RISE BECAUSE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I
HAVE NOT HEARD ANYBODY MENTION RACE AT ALL. AND FOR THE PREVIOUS
SPEAKER TO SIT THERE AND TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT BY --
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: THAT'S NOT --
290
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. RAIA, I'M SORRY, THAT'S NOT A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
MR. BLAKE, CONTINUE.
MR. BLAKE: I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: MR. BLAKE IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. RAIA TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I'VE SAT
PATIENTLY THROUGH THIS WHOLE DEBATE. AND BY TALKING ABOUT PURE FACTS,
PARTICULARLY FROM AN INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS SERVED IN THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT FOR MANY YEARS AS A LIEUTENANT AND HE'S CITING FACTS, AS
POLICE OFFICERS HAVE TO DO THAT. THAT BEING SAID, I'M VOTING AGAINST THIS
BUDGET, BECAUSE, ONCE AGAIN, MR. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED IS LITTERED
THROUGHOUT THIS. AID, AID TO MUNICIPALITIES, NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. THE
TAX CAP -- MAKING THE TAX CAP PERMANENT, NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. THESE
ARE ALL THINGS THAT SHOULD BE IN THE BUDGET, IN THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET THAT
WE'RE VOTING ON. REVENGE PORN, NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THIS BUDGET.
ELIMINATING THE DEATH PENALTY, NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THINGS THAT SHOULD BE IN THIS VERY
BUDGET THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE VOTING ON RIGHT NOW ARE BEING PUT OFF
AND GROUPED TOGETHER IN ONE LARGE "BIG UGLY", AS IT'S CALLED, WHEN WE
DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT'S IN IT YET BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BRIEFED IT. I WILL
CONTINUE TO VOTE NO WHEN I SEE THINGS LIKE INTENTIONALLY OMITTED IN A
BUDGET BILL THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE VOTING ON. THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: MR. RAIA IN
291
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE NEGATIVE.
MR. CRESPO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. CRESPO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. YOU KNOW,
AS YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST WE HAVE DISCUSSED A STANDALONE BILL REGARDING
THE CHANGE IN THE MISDEMEANOR FROM 365 TO 364, IT'S A BILL THAT I HAD
INTRODUCED, AND I -- AND I'M GRATEFUL TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THE GOVERNOR,
OUR PARTNERS IN THE STATE SENATE AND THE LEADERSHIP HERE IN THIS HOUSE
FOR INCLUDING IT IN THIS BUDGET. TO BE CLEAR, AS ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES
STATED, THIS DOESN'T PREVENT AUTOMATIC DEPORTATIONS. WHAT IT DOES IS
GIVE OUR JUDGES MORE DISCRETION. THOSE THAT COMMIT CERTAIN CRIMES
WOULD STILL FACE THOSE CONSEQUENCES, IF MERITED, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW OUR
COURT SYSTEM -- AND -- AND TO THE POINT OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S RELEVANT TO
THE BUDGET, ALLOWING FOR MORE CASES THAT COME -- THAT ARE POTENTIAL
CHARGES OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE A PLEA
AGREEMENT, AS IS OFTEN THE CASE WITH THOSE TYPES OF CASES, WILL SAVE OUR
COURT SYSTEM SIGNIFICANT REVENUE, IT WILL SAVE SIGNIFICANT REVENUE FROM
OUR -- OUR FREE LEGAL -- LEGAL SERVICES. IT IS A -- IT HAS A DIRECT BUDGETARY
CONSEQUENCE WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME, GIVING OUR JUDGES MORE
DISCRETION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PREVENTING LOW-LEVEL CHARGES, FIRST
TIME OFFENSES FROM -- FROM THE POTENTIAL HARM OF SEPARATION OF FAMILIES.
SO, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY THAT IS
RELEVANT. AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE -- FOR OTHER PARTS OF THIS BUDGET,
TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WHO SERVE THE PUBLIC IN ANY CAPACITY, WHETHER
IT'S US ELECTED OFFICIALS, OR OUR HONORABLE AND -- AND -- AND POLICE
OFFICERS, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS ANYBODY WHO DOES SOMETHING THEY
292
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SHOULD NOT DO OR ABUSES THE POWERS OF THEIR -- OF THEIR CHARGE, OF THEIR
TITLE, IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW WHO IS SERVICING
THEM. AND AS OUR COMMUNITIES ARE DEMANDING MORE TRANSPARENCY
ABOUT WHO WE ARE AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, AS WE HAVE TO DECLARE AND MAKE
PUBLIC ALL RECORDS PERTAINING TO OUR WORK, SO, TOO, SHOULD THE POLICE
OFFICERS WHO SERVE. AND -- AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM DO SO WITH
GREAT HONOR. BUT FOR THOSE BAD APPLES, AS IN ANY OTHER INDUSTRY, OUR
COMMUNITY DESERVES TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY'VE DONE. I'LL
PROUDLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER DENDEKKER: MR. CRESPO IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. PALMESANO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO
BRIEFLY EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT MY COMMENTS TONIGHT TO
THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO WORK AT OUR STATE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES, OUR CORRECTIONS OFFICERS AND OTHER STAFFS. I'M SORRY, BECAUSE
THIS BUDGET FAILS YOU, BIG TIME. OUR BUDGET SHOULD BE ABOUT SAYING
SOMETHING AND SHOWING THAT WE HAVE YOUR BACK. UNFORTUNATELY,
INSTEAD, THIS BUDGET, WITH THESE CLOSURES, IS MORE LIKE A KNIFE IN YOUR
BACK. IT'S JUST PLAIN WRONG. I JUST WANT TO SAY TO ALL OF YOU CORRECTIONS
OFFICERS WHO ARE OUT THERE, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO FOR US TO KEEP US
SAFE. EACH AND EVERY DAY YOU GO INTO A DANGEROUS JOB AND YOU DON'T
KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT, OR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. AND I WANT YOU TO
KNOW, I BELIEVE THERE IS A NUMBER OF GOOD PEOPLE HERE IN STATE
GOVERNMENT THAT APPRECIATE YOU AND THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO FOR US.
293
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BUT UNFORTUNATELY AND OBVIOUSLY, WITH THIS BUDGET AND THESE PRISONER --
PRISON CLOSURES, I JUST DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH. FOR THAT REASON, I'M
VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PALMESANO IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MR. MIKULIN.
MR. MIKULIN: THANK YOU, SPEAKER. I RISE TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I HAVE TWO UNCLES THAT ARE RETIRED POLICE OFFICERS IN
NEW YORK CITY. AND LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, THESE MEN AND
WOMEN, THEY GIVE UP A LOT TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITIES. WE NEED TO BE
BEHIND THEM 100 PERCENT. THIS DOES NOT DO THAT. WHAT THIS DOES IS THIS
HAS THE POLICE OFFICERS QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THAT THEY HAVE TO
REPORT EVERY INTERACTION THAT THEY COME INTO. THE POLICE OFFICERS ARE
WELL TRAINED, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND FOR THAT REASON, I'M
GOING TO VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE AND I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE
SAME.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MIKULIN IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MS. BYRNES.
MS. BYRNES: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AS A
FORMER PROSECUTOR AND A FORMER JUDGE, I SHARE THE SENTIMENTS OF MR.
PALMESANO, AS WELL AS MY FELLOW REPUBLICANS. AND I ALSO STAND WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND I RECENTLY WENT ON A CORRECTIONS TOUR OF
LIVINGSTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. AND I SAW THE DOUBLE-BUNKING. I
SAW THE DANGERS THAT THEY DEAL WITH EVERY DAY. I KNOW THE NEED TO
294
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HAVE DOUBLE-BUNKING ELIMINATED, BY INSTEAD PUTTING THE PRISONERS WHO
ARE DOUBLE-BUNKED INTO PRISONS THAT ARE NOT OVERCROWDED SO THAT
EVERYONE CAN SURVIVE THAT ENVIRONMENT AND THE OFFICERS CAN GO HOME
SAFELY AND THE INMATES CAN ALSO, WHEN THEY'RE DONE WITH THEIR
SENTENCES, GO HOME SAFELY, ALSO. THANK YOU. I'M VOTING IN THE
NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. BYRNES IN THE
NEGATIVE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, COULD YOU
PLEASE CALL ON MR. CROUCH FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. CROUCH FOR THE
PURPOSES OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT.
MR. CROUCH: YES. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE IN THE PARLOR AT 9:00
SHARP.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: REPUBLICAN
CONFERENCE IN THE PARLOR, 9:00 P.M. SHARP.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: SO, MR. SPEAKER, IF WE
COULD CALL THE HOUSE TO RECESS AND BACK AT THE CALL OF THE SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL BE AT
295
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RECESS AT THE CALL OF THE SPEAKER.
(WHEREUPON, AT 8:32 P.M., THE HOUSE STOOD IN RECESS
UNTIL THE CALL OF THE SPEAKER.)
* * * * *
A F T E R T H E R E C E S S 11:45 P.M.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL COME
TO ORDER.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE TO
ADVANCE THE B-CALENDAR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON MRS. STOKES'
[SIC] MOTION, THE B-CALENDAR IS ADVANCED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, WE WILL BE
TAKING UP RULES REPORT NO. 48, A BUDGET BILL, STATE OPERATIONS, ON
DEBATE BY MS. WEINSTEIN.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02000-D, RULES
REPORT NO. 48, BUDGET BILL. AN ACT TO -- MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT, STATE OPERATIONS BUDGET.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE
IS AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: I HEREBY CERTIFY TO AN IMMEDIATE VOTE,
ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
296
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF WE
COULD NOW GO TO RULES REPORT NO. 50, WHICH IS ALSO ON PAGE 3 OF OUR
B-CALENDAR, AID TO LOCALITIES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02003-D, RULES
REPORT 50, BUDGET BILL. AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SUPPORT
OF GOVERNMENT, AID TO LOCALITIES BUDGET.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE
IS AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: I HEREBY CERTIFY TO AN IMMEDIATE VOTE,
ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MR. GOODELL: MR. SPEAKER, WOULD YOU LAY THIS
297
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BILL ASIDE?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE BILL IS LAID ASIDE.
(PAUSE)
THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02000-D [SIC]
(A02003-D) RULES REPORT NO. 50, BUDGET BILL. AN ACT MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT, AID TO LOCALITIES
BUDGET.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE
IS AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: I HEREBY CERTIFY TO AN IMMEDIATE VOTE,
ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF YOU
COULD ASK THE HOUSE TO STAND AT EASE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL STAND
AT EASE.
(WHEREUPON, THE HOUSE STOOD AT EASE.)
298
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
* * * * *
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL COME
TO ORDER.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT
WE ADVANCE THE C-CALENDAR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON MRS.
PEOPLES-STOKES' MOTION, THE C-CALENDAR IS ADVANCED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. IF WE CAN GO TO PAGE 8, RULES REPORT NO. 54, IT'S A BUDGET
BILL AND THERE -- I BELIEVE THERE ARE AMENDMENTS ON YOUR DESK.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02009-C, RULES
REPORT NO. 54, BUDGET BILL. AN ACT TO AMEND PART U OF CHAPTER 61 OF
THE LAWS OF 2011, AMENDING THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW AND OTHER
LAWS RELATING TO ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR ELECTRONIC TAX
ADMINISTRATION, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO
MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING OF TAX DOCUMENTS (PART A); TO AMEND THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LAW, IN RELATION TO THE EMPLOYEE TRAINING
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (PART B); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO INCLUDING
IN THE APPORTIONMENT FRACTION RECEIPTS CONSTITUTING NET GLOBAL
INTANGIBLE LOW-TAXED INCOME (PART C); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO THE
299
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ADJUSTED BASIS FOR PROPERTY USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A MANUFACTURER
IS A QUALIFIED NEW YORK MANUFACTURER (PART D); TO AMEND PART MM OF
CHAPTER 59 OF THE LAWS OF 2014 AMENDING THE LABOR LAW AND THE TAX
LAW RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES TAX
CREDIT PROGRAM, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF (PART
E); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW IN RELATION TO THE INCLUSION IN A DECEDENT'S
NEW YORK GROSS ESTATE ANY QUALIFIED TERMINABLE INTEREST PROPERTY FOR
WHICH A PRIOR DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED AND CERTAIN PRE-DEATH GIFTS (PART
F); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING MARKETPLACE
PROVIDERS TO COLLECT SALES TAX; AND TO AMEND THE STATE FINANCE LAW, IN
RELATION TO ESTABLISHING THE NEW YORK CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TRUST
FUND (PART G); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO ELIMINATING THE
REDUCED TAX RATES UNDER THE SALES AND USE TAX WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN GAS
AND ELECTRIC SERVICE; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE TAX LAW
AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK RELATED THERETO
(PART H); TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO THE
DETERMINATION AND USE OF STATE EQUALIZATION RATES (PART I); INTENTIONALLY
OMITTED (SUBPART A); TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, IN RELATION
TO AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT REVIEW SERVICES (SUBPART B);
TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO THE TRAINING OF
ASSESSORS AND COUNTY DIRECTORS OF REAL PROPERTY TAX SERVICES (SUBPART
C); TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO PROVIDING
CERTAIN NOTIFICATIONS ELECTRONICALLY (SUBPART D); TO AMEND THE REAL
PROPERTY TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO THE VALUATION AND TAXABLE STATUS DATES
OF SPECIAL FRANCHISE PROPERTY (SUBPART E); AND TO AMEND THE REAL
300
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PROPERTY TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF POWER
PLANTS (SUBPART F) (PART J); TO REPEAL SECTION 3-D OF THE GENERAL
MUNICIPAL LAW, RELATING TO CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH TAX LEVY
LIMIT (PART K); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO CREATING AN
EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CHILD CARE CREDIT (PART L); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW,
IN RELATION TO INCLUDING GAMBLING WINNINGS IN NEW YORK SOURCE
INCOME AND REQUIRING WITHHOLDING THEREON (PART M); TO AMEND THE TAX
LAW, IN RELATION TO THE FARM WORKFORCE RETENTION CREDIT (PART N); TO
AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO UPDATING TAX PREPARER PENALTIES; TO
AMEND PART N OF CHAPTER 61 OF THE LAWS OF 2005, AMENDING THE TAX
LAW RELATING TO CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS AND RELATED INFORMATION AND
RELATING TO THE VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE, IN RELATION TO THE
EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE TAX LAW,
RELATING TO TAX PREPARER PENALTIES (PART O); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN
RELATION TO EXTENDING THE TOP PERSONAL INCOME TAX RATE FOR FIVE YEARS
(PART P); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING FOR FIVE YEARS THE
LIMITATIONS ON ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH INCOMES OVER
ONE MILLION DOLLARS (PART Q); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO
EXTENDING THE CLEAN HEATING FUEL CREDIT FOR THREE YEARS (PART R); TO
AMEND SUBDIVISION (E) OF SECTION 23 OF PART U OF CHAPTER 61 OF THE
LAWS OF 2011 AMENDING THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW AND OTHER LAWS
RELATING TO ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR ELECTRONIC TAX ADMINISTRATION, IN
RELATION TO EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS THEREOF (PART S); TO AMEND THE
COOPERATIVE CORPORATIONS LAW AND THE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
301
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LAW, IN RELATION TO ELIMINATING CERTAIN LICENSE FEES (PART T); TO AMEND
THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO A CREDIT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES FOR STATE OWNED PROPERTY LEASED TO PRIVATE ENTITIES (PART U);
TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO EXEMPTING FROM SALES AND USE TAX
CERTAIN TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY OR SERVICES (PART V); TO AMEND THE
MENTAL HYGIENE LAW AND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO THE CREATION AND
ADMINISTRATION OF A TAX CREDIT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS IN
RECOVERY FROM A SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER (PART W); TO AMEND THE TAX
LAW AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION
TO EXCLUDING FROM ENTIRE NET INCOME CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CAPITAL
OF A CORPORATION (PART X); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART Y); TO AMEND THE
TAX LAW, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND
CHAPTER 369 OF THE LAWS OF 2018 AMENDING THE TAX LAW RELATING TO
UNRELATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME OF A TAXPAYER, IN RELATION TO MAKING
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS THERETO (PART Z); TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX
LAW, IN RELATION TO TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS (PART AA); TO
AMEND THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND BREEDING LAW, IN
RELATION TO PRE-EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR CERTAIN PROSPECTIVE
EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE GAMING COMMISSION (PART BB); INTENTIONALLY
OMITTED (PART CC); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (SUBPART A); TO AMEND THE
RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND BREEDING LAW, IN RELATION TO
APPOINTEES TO THE THOROUGHBRED BREEDING AND DEVELOPMENT FUND
(SUBPART B); TO AMEND THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND
BREEDING LAW, IN RELATION TO ACQUISITION OF FUNDS FOR THE HARRY M.
ZWEIG MEMORIAL FUND (SUBPART C); AND TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN
302
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RELATION TO THE PRIZE PAYMENT AMOUNTS AND REVENUE DISTRIBUTIONS OF
LOTTERY GAME SALES, AND USE OF UNCLAIMED PRIZE FUNDS (SUBPART D)(PART
DD); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO COMMISSIONS PAID TO THE
OPERATOR OF A VIDEO LOTTERY FACILITY; TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SUCH
LAW RELATING THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS
UPON EXPIRATION THEREOF (PART EE); TO AMEND THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL
WAGERING AND BREEDING LAW, IN RELATION TO THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF
PROMOTIONAL CREDITS (PART FF); TO AMEND THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL
WAGERING AND BREEDING LAW, IN RELATION TO THE OPERATIONS OF OFF-TRACK
BETTING CORPORATIONS (PART GG); TO AMEND THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL
WAGERING AND BREEDING LAW, IN RELATION TO LICENSES FOR SIMULCAST
FACILITIES, SUMS RELATING TO TRACK SIMULCAST, SIMULCAST OF OUT-OF-STATE
THOROUGHBRED RACES, SIMULCASTING OF RACES RUN BY OUT-OF-STATE HARNESS
TRACKS AND DISTRIBUTIONS OF WAGERS; TO AMEND CHAPTER 281 OF THE LAWS
OF 1994 AMENDING THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND BREEDING
LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO SIMULCASTING AND CHAPTER 346 OF THE
LAWS OF 1990 AMENDING THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND
BREEDING LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO SIMULCASTING AND THE
IMPOSITION OF CERTAIN TAXES, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS
THEREOF; AND TO AMEND THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND BREEDING
LAW, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS THEREOF (PART HH);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART II); TO AMEND PART EE OF CHAPTER 59 OF THE
LAWS OF 2018, AMENDING THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND
BREEDING LAW, RELATING TO ADJUSTING THE FRANCHISE PAYMENT ESTABLISHING
AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE STRUCTURE, OPERATIONS AND FUNDING
303
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OF EQUINE DRUG TESTING AND RESEARCH, IN RELATION TO THE DATE OF DELIVERY
FOR RECOMMENDATIONS; AND TO AMEND THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING
AND BREEDING LAW, IN RELATION TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EQUINE
DRUG TESTING, AND EQUINE LAB TESTING PROVIDER RESTRICTIONS REMOVAL (PART
JJ); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART KK); TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX
LAW AND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO THE DETERMINATION OF STAR TAX
SAVINGS (PART LL); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO COOPERATIVE
HOUSING CORPORATION INFORMATION RETURNS (PART MM); TO AMEND THE TAX
LAW, IN RELATION TO MAKING A TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO THE ENHANCED REAL
PROPERTY TAX CIRCUIT BREAKER CREDIT (PART NN); TO AMEND THE REAL
PROPERTY LAW AND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO MOBILE HOME REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS (PART OO); TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW AND THE
TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO ELIGIBILITY FOR STAR EXEMPTIONS AND CREDITS
(PART PP); TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW AND THE TAX LAW, IN
RELATION TO AUTHORIZING THE DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION TO
ASSESSORS (PART QQ); TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW AND THE TAX
LAW, IN RELATION TO THE INCOME LIMITS FOR STAR BENEFITS (PART RR); TO
AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO CLARIFYING CERTAIN
NOTICES ON SCHOOL TAX BILLS (PART SS); TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX
LAW AND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO MAKING THE STAR PROGRAM MORE
ACCESSIBLE TO TAXPAYERS (PART TT); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO
IMPOSING A SUPPLEMENTAL TAX ON VAPOR PRODUCTS; AND TO AMEND THE
STATE FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO ADDING REVENUES FROM THE
SUPPLEMENTAL TAX ON VAPOR PRODUCTS TO THE HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT
RESOURCE FUND (PART UU); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART VV); TO AMEND
304
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO IMPOSING A SPECIAL TAX ON PASSENGER CAR
RENTALS OUTSIDE OF THE METROPOLITAN COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
(PART WW); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO IMPOSING A TAX ON
OPIOIDS; AND TO AMEND PART NN OF CHAPTER 57 OF THE LAWS OF 2018,
AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND THE STATE FINANCE LAW, RELATING
TO ENACTING THE OPIOID STEWARDSHIP ACT, IN RELATION TO THE APPLICABILITY
THEREOF (PART XX); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO THE EMPLOYER
COMPENSATION EXPENSE TAX (PART YY); TO AMEND THE RACING,
PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND BREEDING LAW, IN RELATION TO THE NEW YORK
JOCKEY INJURY COMPENSATION FUND, INC. (PART ZZ); TO AMEND THE TAX
LAW, IN RELATION TO THE EMPIRE STATE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION CREDIT
(PART AAA); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO THE TAXATION OF ESTATES AND TRUSTS
(PART BBB); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO EXEMPTING ITEMS OF
FOOD AND DRINK WHEN SOLD FROM CERTAIN VENDING MACHINES FROM THE
SALES AND COMPENSATING USE TAX (PART CCC); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN
RELATION TO REQUIRED DISCLOSURE ON A BILL, MEMORANDUM, RECEIPT OR OTHER
STATEMENT OF PRICE (PART DDD); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO
THE ENFORCEMENT OF DELINQUENT TAX LIABILITIES BY MEANS OF THE
SUSPENSION OF LICENSES TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE (PART EEE); TO AMEND
THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO EXEMPTING TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT
BECOMES A COMPONENT PART OF A MONUMENT (PART FFF); TO AMEND
SUBPART K OF PART II OF A CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF 2019 AMENDING THE
PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW RELATING TO PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT BOOKING INFORMATION AND PHOTOGRAPHS, AS PROPOSED IN
305
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LEGISLATIVE BILL NUMBERS S.1505-C AND A.2005-C, IN RELATION TO
BOOKING PHOTOGRAPHS; AND TO AMEND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, IN
RELATION TO THE ARREST OR BOOKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF AN INDIVIDUAL (PART
GGG); TO AMEND PART TT OF A CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF 2019 RELATING TO
THE CLOSURE OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, AS PROPOSED IN LEGISLATIVE BILL
NUMBERS S.1505-C AND A.2005-C, IN RELATION TO INCREASING THE NUMBER
OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES WHICH MAY BE CLOSED (PART HHH); TO AMEND
THE TRANSPORTATION LAW, THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND THE
INSURANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO LIMOUSINE SAFETY (PART III); TO AMEND THE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, IN RELATION TO THE ISSUANCE OF SECURING ORDERS
AND IN RELATION TO MAKING CONFORMING CHANGES; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF SUCH LAW RELATING THERETO (PART JJJ); TO AMEND THE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, IN RELATION TO TIME LIMITS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL
(PART KKK); TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND THE PENAL
LAW, IN RELATION TO ESTABLISHING NEW CRIMINAL DISCOVERY RULES; AND TO
REPEAL ARTICLE 240 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW RELATING THERETO
(PART LLL); TO AMEND THE PENAL LAW, IN RELATION TO CERTAIN
RESENTENCING BY OPERATION OF LAW; AND TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE LAW, IN RELATION TO GROUNDS TO VACATE JUDGMENT (PART
MMM); TO AMEND CHAPTER 97 OF THE LAWS OF 2011, AMENDING THE
GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW AND THE EDUCATION LAW RELATING TO
ESTABLISHING LIMITS UPON SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAX
LEVIES, IN RELATION TO MAKING THE TAX CAP PERMANENT (PART NNN); TO
AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO AMENDING THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX
(PART OOO); TO AMEND THE STATE FINANCE LAW AND THE TAX LAW, IN
306
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RELATION TO BASE LEVEL GRANTS FOR PER CAPITA STATE AID FOR THE SUPPORT OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PART PPP); TO AMEND PART KK OF A CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF 2019 DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO CONDUCT A STUDY
RELATING TO STAFFING ENHANCEMENT AND PATIENT SAFETY, AS PROPOSED IN
LEGISLATIVE BILL NUMBERS S.1507-C AND A.2007-C, IN RELATION TO MAKING
A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT (PART QQQ); TO AMEND THE HIGHWAY LAW AND
THE TRANSPORTATION CORPORATIONS LAW, IN RELATION TO GRANTING THE
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS
WITH FIBER OPTIC UTILITIES FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY OF THE STATE RIGHT OF
WAY; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF SUCH PROVISIONS UPON EXPIRATION
THEREOF (PART RRR); TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE
EMPIRE STATE FILM PRODUCTION CREDIT AND EMPIRE STATE FILM POST
PRODUCTION CREDIT FOR TWO YEARS (PART SSS); TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS RELATED TO THE 2019-20
BUDGET, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PAYMENTS AND TRANSFERS; TO AMEND THE NEW
YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT, IN RELATION TO THE
ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BONDS OR NOTES; TO AMEND PART D OF CHAPTER 389 OF
THE LAWS OF 1997, RELATING TO THE FINANCING OF THE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT FUND AND THE YOUTH FACILITY IMPROVEMENT
FUND, IN RELATION TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BONDS OR NOTES; TO AMEND
THE PRIVATE HOUSING FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS
OR NOTES; TO AMEND CHAPTER 329 OF THE LAWS OF 1991, AMENDING THE
STATE FINANCE LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
DEDICATED HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE TRUST FUND, IN RELATION TO THE ISSUANCE
OF CERTAIN BONDS OR NOTES; TO AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, IN
307
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RELATION TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BONDS OR NOTES; TO AMEND PART Y OF
CHAPTER 61 OF THE LAWS OF 2005, RELATING TO PROVIDING FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS RELATED TO THE 2005-2006
BUDGET, IN RELATION TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BONDS OR NOTES; TO AMEND
PART X OF CHAPTER 59 OF THE LAWS OF 2004, AUTHORIZING THE NEW YORK
STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO ISSUE BONDS OR NOTES, IN RELATION TO THE
ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS OR NOTES; TO AMEND PART K OF CHAPTER 81 OF THE
LAWS OF 2002, RELATING TO PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN
FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS RELATED TO THE 2002-2003 BUDGET, IN RELATION TO THE
ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BONDS OR NOTES; TO AMEND PART D OF CHAPTER 389 OF
THE LAWS OF 1997 RELATING TO THE FINANCING OF THE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT FUND AND THE YOUTH FACILITY IMPROVEMENT
FUND, IN RELATION TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BONDS OR NOTES; TO AMEND
THE NEW YORK STATE MEDICAL CARE FACILITIES FINANCE AGENCY ACT, IN
RELATION TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BONDS OR NOTES; TO AMEND THE NEW
YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS ACT, IN RELATION TO THE
ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BONDS OR NOTES; TO AMEND THE FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT, IN RELATION TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE
FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT FUND INCOME ACCOUNT; AND TO AMEND THE STATE
FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FUND; AND
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS UPON EXPIRATION THEREOF
(PART TTT); TO AMEND PART II OF A CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF 2019
AMENDING CHAPTER 141 OF THE LAWS OF 1994 AMENDING THE LEGISLATIVE
LAW AND THE STATE FINANCE LAW RELATING TO THE OPERATION AND
308
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LEGISLATURE RELATING TO EXTENDING SUCH PROVISIONS,
AS PROPOSED IN LEGISLATIVE BILL NUMBERS S.1507-C AND A.2007-C, IN
RELATION TO THE FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE COMPENSATION
COMMITTEE (PART UUU); TO AMEND PART E OF CHAPTER 60 OF THE LAWS OF
2015, ESTABLISHING A COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL AND
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION, AND PROVIDING FOR THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF
THE COMMISSION AND FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION, IN RELATION
TO THE POWERS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION (PART VVV); TO
AMEND THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT ACT, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE
EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; AND TO AMEND THE TRANSFORMATIONAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND REVITALIZATION PROJECTS ACT, IN RELATION
TO EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF (PART WWW); CREATING A PUBLIC
CAMPAIGN FINANCING AND ELECTION COMMISSION (PART XXX); TO AMEND
THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO CONTRACTS FOR EXCELLENCE AND THE
APPORTIONMENT OF PUBLIC MONEYS; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN
RELATION TO A STATEMENT OF THE TOTAL FUNDING ALLOCATION; TO AMEND THE
EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO UNIVERSAL PRE-KINDERGARTEN AID; TO
AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO MONEYS APPORTIONED FOR
BOARDS OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES AIDABLE EXPENDITURES; TO
AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC EXCESS
COST AID; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO ACADEMIC
ENHANCEMENT AID; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO HIGH TAX
AID; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO THE STATEWIDE
UNIVERSAL FULL-DAY PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION
LAW, IN RELATION TO THE TEACHERS OF TOMORROW TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND
309
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RETENTION PROGRAM; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO CLASS
SIZES FOR SPECIAL CLASSES CONTAINING CERTAIN STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES; TO
AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO WAIVERS FROM DUTIES; TO
AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO ANNUAL TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL
EVALUATIONS; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO THE EDUCATION
OF HOMELESS CHILDREN; TO AMEND CHAPTER 56 OF THE LAWS OF 2014,
AMENDING THE EDUCATION LAW RELATING TO PROVIDING THAT STANDARDIZED
TEST SCORES SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED ON A STUDENT'S PERMANENT RECORD, IN
RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN
RELATION TO THE SUSPENSION OF PUPILS; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN
RELATION TO SCHOOL SAFETY PLANS; TO AMEND CHAPTER 756 OF THE LAWS OF
1992, RELATING TO FUNDING A PROGRAM FOR WORK FORCE EDUCATION
CONDUCTED BY THE CONSORTIUM FOR WORKER EDUCATION IN NEW YORK CITY,
IN RELATION TO REIMBURSEMENTS FOR THE 2019-2020 SCHOOL YEAR; TO AMEND
CHAPTER 756 OF THE LAWS OF 1992, RELATING TO FUNDING A PROGRAM FOR
WORK FORCE EDUCATION CONDUCTED BY THE CONSORTIUM FOR WORKER
EDUCATION IN NEW YORK CITY, IN RELATION TO WITHHOLDING A PORTION OF
EMPLOYMENT PREPARATION EDUCATION AID AND IN RELATION TO THE
EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO
EMPLOYMENT EDUCATION PREPARATION PROGRAMS; TO AMEND CHAPTER 82 OF
THE LAWS OF 1995, AMENDING THE EDUCATION LAW AND OTHER LAWS
RELATING TO STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
FOR THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF;
TO AMEND CHAPTER 147 OF THE LAWS OF 2001, AMENDING THE EDUCATION
LAW RELATING TO CONDITIONAL APPOINTMENT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT, CHARTER
310
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SCHOOL OR BOCES EMPLOYEES, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF;
TO AMEND CHAPTER 425 OF THE LAWS OF 2002, AMENDING THE EDUCATION
LAW RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES,
ATTENDANCE AT A SAFE PUBLIC SCHOOL AND THE SUSPENSION OF PUPILS WHO
BRING A FIREARM TO OR POSSESS A FIREARM AT A SCHOOL, IN RELATION TO THE
EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 101 OF THE LAWS OF 2003,
AMENDING THE EDUCATION LAW RELATING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NO
CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF;
TO AMEND CHAPTER 91 OF THE LAWS OF 2002, AMENDING THE EDUCATION
LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO REORGANIZATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY, BOARD OF EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY
BOARDS, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 345
OF THE LAWS OF 2009, AMENDING THE EDUCATION LAW AND OTHER LAWS
RELATING TO THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, CHANCELLOR,
COMMUNITY COUNCILS, AND COMMUNITY SUPERINTENDENTS, IN RELATION TO
THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO
PROVIDING COMMUNITY COUNCILS WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET
CANDIDATES FOR COMMUNITY SUPERINTENDENT, TO THE REMOVAL OF MEMBERS
OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, TO ESTABLISHING A
TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY DISTRICT EDUCATION COUNCILS, TO THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CHANCELLOR, AND TO PROPOSALS FOR SCHOOL CLOSINGS
OR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN UTILIZATION; TO AMEND CHAPTER 472 OF THE
LAWS OF 1998, AMENDING THE EDUCATION LAW RELATING TO THE LEASE OF
SCHOOL BUSES BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS
THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 552 OF THE LAWS OF 1995, AMENDING THE
311
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
EDUCATION LAW RELATING TO CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF SCHOOL
CHILDREN, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 97
OF THE LAWS OF 2011, AMENDING THE EDUCATION LAW RELATING TO CENSUS
REPORTING, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 89
OF THE LAWS OF 2016 RELATING TO SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDING FOR DEDICATED
PROGRAMS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THE EAST RAMAPO CENTRAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; IN RELATION TO
SCHOOL BUS DRIVER TRAINING; IN RELATION TO SPECIAL APPORTIONMENT FOR
SALARY EXPENSES AND PUBLIC PENSION ACCRUALS; IN RELATION TO THE CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER; IN RELATION TO TOTAL FOUNDATION
AID FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE OR EXPANSION OF
CERTAIN MAGNET SCHOOLS OR MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR THE 2019-2020
SCHOOL YEAR; IN RELATION TO THE SUPPORT OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES; TO AMEND
CHAPTER 121 OF THE LAWS OF 1996 RELATING TO AUTHORIZING THE ROOSEVELT
UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO FINANCE DEFICITS BY THE ISSUANCE OF SERIAL
BONDS, IN RELATION TO CERTAIN APPORTIONMENTS; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION
LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO CONDUCT BUILDING
SURVEYS EVERY FIVE YEARS; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO
ADDITIONAL APPORTIONMENT OF BUILDING AID FOR BUILDING CONDITION
SURVEYS OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION
TO BUILDING AID FOR TESTING AND FILTERING OF POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS FOR
LEAD CONTAMINATION; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO
INSPECTIONS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS; TO AMEND THE GENERAL
MUNICIPAL LAW, IN RELATION TO RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION RESERVE FUNDS; TO
REPEAL SUBPARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 OF PARAGRAPH A OF SUBDIVISION 1 OF
312
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SECTION 3609-A OF THE EDUCATION LAW, RELATING TO LOTTERY
APPORTIONMENT AND LOTTERY TEXTBOOK APPORTIONMENT AND TO REPEAL A
CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF 2019 AMENDING THE EDUCATION LAW RELATING TO
STATE ASSESSMENTS AND TEACHER EVALUATIONS, AS PROPOSED IN LEGISLATIVE
BILLS NUMBERS S. 1262 AND A. 783 (PART YYY); TO AMEND THE VEHICLE
AND TRAFFIC LAW AND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION TO
ESTABLISHING A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TOLLING PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF
NEW YORK; AND TO AMEND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, IN RELATION TO
CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS (SUBPART A); TO AMEND THE
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION TO ALLOWING THE ASSIGNMENT,
TRANSFER, SHARING OR CONSOLIDATING OF POWERS, FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES OF
THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ESTABLISHES AN INDEPENDENT
FORENSIC AUDIT AND THE MAJOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW UNIT (SUBPART B);
TO AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION TO VARIOUS
PROCUREMENT PROCESSES OF THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
(SUBPART C); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION TO
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TRANSIT PERFORMANCE METRICS
(SUBPART D); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION TO THE
SUBMISSION OF A TWENTY-YEAR CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT (SUBPART E); AND
TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TOLL
CREDIT (SUBPART F) (PART ZZZ); AND TO AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
LAW, IN RELATION TO VOTING BY MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK STATE
AUTHORITIES CONTROL BOARD (PART AAAA).
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MS.
WEINSTEIN, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS
313
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ADVANCED. GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: I HEREBY CERTIFY TO AN IMMEDIATE VOTE,
ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AN EXPLANATION IS
REQUESTED.
ONE MINUTE. WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT WHILE THE CHAIR
EXAMINES IT.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I
OFFER THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT, WAIVE ITS READING AND MOVE FOR ITS
IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND ASK FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN IT.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: PROCEED.
MS. MALLIOTAKIS: THIS AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE
AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THE BUDGET BILL. AS YOU KNOW,
GOVERNOR CUOMO HAD SAID IF THERE WAS NO PROPERTY TAX PERMANENT
EXTENSION, HE WOULD MAKE NO DEAL. AND WHAT WE DID SEE IS THAT THE
PROPERTY TAX CAP WAS EXTENDED; HOWEVER, NEW YORK CITY WAS LEFT OUT
OF IT. SO WHILE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AROUND THE STATE ARE GOING TO BE
PROTECTED WITH A 2 PERCENT PROPERTY TAX CAP, NEW YORK CITY,
UNFORTUNATELY, WILL BE EXCLUDED AND THIS IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE NEW
YORK CITY HAS SEEN A 44 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY OVER
THE LAST FIVE YEARS. IT IS AFFECTING HOMEOWNERS, IT IS AFFECTING RENTERS
ALIKE. MANY OF YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE FROM NEW YORK CITY, YOU VISIT
NEW YORK CITY, THERE ARE MANY EMPTY STOREFRONTS. BUSINESSES ARE
CLOSING. WE ARE SEEING AN ISSUE WITH LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME
314
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
COMMUNITIES SEEING A SHARP INCREASE IN THE PROPERTY TAXES, AND WE ALSO
HAVE A DISPARITY. WE DO HAVE CURRENTLY A PROPERTY TAX COMMISSION THAT
IS EXAMINING THE DISPARITY PORTION OF WHY LOWER- AND MIDDLE-INCOME
COMMUNITIES IN OUR CITY ARE PAYING TRIPLE THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE THAT
MORE AFFLUENT AND EXPENSIVE NEIGHBORHOODS IN NEW YORK CITY PAY.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE STILL SEEING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY GO UP
EVERY SINGLE YEAR, 6, 7, 8 PERCENT.
SO, THE LEAST WE SHOULD BE DOING IS PROVIDING A CAP, OR
WE SHOULD BE REALLY PROVIDING A FREEZE DURING THE TIME THAT THE
PROPERTY TAX COMMISSION IS EXAMINING THE DISPARITY ISSUE, BUT WHAT I'M
PUTTING FORWARD TODAY WOULD PROVIDE A 2 PERCENT CAP SO WE ARE TREATED
AND PROTECTED LIKE NEARLY EVERY OTHER MUNICIPALITY IN THE STATE. AGAIN,
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS, EVERYONE ACROSS
THE CITY OF NEW YORK IS TALKING ABOUT HOW UNAFFORDABLE NEW YORK
CITY HAS BECOME, PROPERTY TAXES ARE PROBABLY THE NUMBER ONE
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THAT. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CHAIR HAS
EXAMINED YOUR AMENDMENT AND FOUND IT GERMANE TO THE BILL BEFORE THE
HOUSE.
ON THE AMENDMENT, THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE AMENDMENT IS DEFEATED.
ON THE -- OH, EXCUSE ME. WE HAVE ANOTHER
315
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK. THERE'S AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK BY MR.
DANIEL STEC WHO WILL BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT WHILE THE CHAIR
EXAMINES IT.
MR. STEC: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENT, WAIVE ITS READING AND MOVE FOR ITS IMMEDIATE
ADOPTION AND ASK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN IT.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: PROCEED.
MR. STEC: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD STRIKE LANGUAGE AND ADD LANGUAGE TO THE
BILL-IN-CHIEF TO FULLY RESTORE THE CUT TO AID AND INCENTIVES TO
MUNICIPALITIES TO LAST YEAR'S LEVEL OF FUNDING METHOD.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CHAIR HAS
EXAMINED YOUR AMENDMENT AND FOUND IT GERMANE TO THE BILL BEFORE THE
HOUSE.
MR. STEC: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO FURTHER
EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT.
OVER 20 YEARS AGO, REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM WAS
CREATED WHICH PROVIDED UNRESTRICTED AID TO MUNICIPALITIES THROUGHOUT
THE STATE. SINCE THE 1989-1990 BUDGET, REVENUE SHARING WAS PROVIDED
AS A FLAT GRANT BASED ON POVERTY FACTORS WHICH INCLUDED RELIANCE ON
UNRESTRICTED AID, PROPERTY WEALTH AND INCOME WEALTH. IN THE 2005-'06
STATE BUDGET, THE AID AND INCENTIVES FOR MUNICIPALITIES PROGRAM WAS
CREATED. THIS PROGRAM CONSOLIDATED ALL THE UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID
PROGRAMS INTO ONE FLAT GRANT PROGRAM. FOR CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES,
AIM HAS SEEN NO GROWTH SINCE 2012. MUNICIPALITIES RELY ON THIS
316
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ANNUAL STATE ASSISTANCE TO CARRY OUT DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS, TO FUND
EMPLOYEE'S SALARIES, SNOW REMOVAL, VOTING, NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF,
AMONG COUNTLESS OTHER LOCAL EXPENSES.
AS SOME LOCAL BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS ARE UNDERWAY,
LOCAL OFFICIALS ARE LEFT WITH LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO DETERMINE HOW THEIR
ALREADY OVER-TAXED RESIDENTS WILL FRONT THE BILL FOR THIS LOSS IN STATE
ASSISTANCE. AND IN TODAY'S TAX CAP ENVIRONMENT, TAKING AWAY THIS AID
AND THEN SUGGESTING THAT THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM IS TO TAKE SALES
TAX MONEY FROM THE COUNTIES TO MAKE THESE TOWNS AND VILLAGES WHOLE
IS TO LITERALLY TAKE MONEY FROM ONE POCKET OF THE TAXPAYER AND PUT IT IN
THE OTHER POCKET OF THE SAME TAXPAYER. IT'S NOT RIGHT. WE SHOULD
RESTORE THIS FUNDING THE WAY IT'S BEEN DONE FOR THE PAST MANY YEARS.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RA ON THE
AMENDMENT.
MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, JUST ON THE
AMENDMENT. THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS BUDGET WE'RE -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF DIFFERENT TAXES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND OUR
TOWNS AND VILLAGES ALL OVER THE STATE, BUT CERTAINLY FOR MYSELF ON LONG
ISLAND, LONG ISLAND'S LOSING ABOUT $15 MILLION IN AIM FUNDING.
TOWNS AND VILLAGES THAT I REPRESENT, PORTIONS OF -- ALONE ARE BASICALLY
$8 MILLION. AND TO SAY WE'RE RESTORING IT BY BASICALLY TAKING MONEY
FROM OUR LOCAL COUNTIES REALLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. AND IF YOU GO
BACK TO THE REASON FOR -- SUPPOSEDLY FOR DOING THESE CUTS, IT MADE UP
LESS THAN A 2 PERCENT PORTION OF -- OF THE LOCAL VILLAGE GOVERNMENTS.
317
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WELL, PART OF THAT IS THAT THIS FUNDING HAS BEEN FLAT FOR MANY YEARS. SO,
IT BECAME A SMALLER AND SMALLER PORTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S
FUNDING, AND NOW WE'RE USING THAT AS A JUSTIFICATION TO -- TO TAKE IT
AWAY.
SO, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT ENDS UP BEING POTENTIALLY
A CASH FLOW PROBLEM FOR THOSE TOWNS AND VILLAGES THAT ARE LOSING THE
AIM FUNDING, AND ESSENTIALLY A MANDATE, A NEW UNFUNDED MANDATE ON
OUR COUNTIES. SO, I WOULD URGE THOSE TO SUPPORT THIS -- THIS
AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE AMENDMENT IS DEFEATED.
ON THE BILL.
AN EXPLANATION WAS REQUESTED.
MS. WEINSTEIN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: BRIEFLY, THIS BILL, COMMONLY
REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE BILL, ENACTS INTO LAW MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
LEGISLATION WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE FISCAL PLAN FOR
THE 2019-2020 STATE FISCAL YEAR. IT ALSO INCLUDES A NUMBER OF
PROPOSALS. I CAN JUST RUN THROUGH A COUPLE OF THE HIGHLIGHTS IN THIS BILL.
WE REQUIRE -- REQUIRE SALES TAX TO BE COLLECTED FROM
MARKETPLACE PROVIDERS AND ESTABLISHES CERTAIN DISTRIBUTION
318
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REQUIREMENTS. WE DISCONTINUED THE ENERGY SERVICE, ESCO, SALES TAX
EXEMPTION. WE EXTEND THE CURRENT PERSONAL INCOME TAX RATES AND
CHARITABLE DONATION LIMITS FOR FIVE YEARS. WE EXPAND THE CURRENT
HISTORIC REHABILITATION CREDIT; MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES TO REAL PROPERTY TAX
AND STAR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION; MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES TO GAMING
PROVISIONS, INCLUDING LOTTERY, CASINO, OTB AND VLTS. WE ELIMINATE
THE ANNUAL GROWTH IN STAR EXEMPTION BENEFITS AND MAINTAIN THE
GROWTH RATE IN THE STAR CREDIT PROGRAM. WE LOWER THE BASIC STAR
EXEMPTION PROGRAM INCOME LIMIT TO $250,000 FROM $500,000. WE
IMPOSE A 20 PERCENT TAX ON VAPOR PRODUCTS; EXPAND THE SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTO RENTAL SURCHARGE -- SURCHARGE THAT THE GOVERNOR HAD IN HIS BUDGET.
WE ESTABLISH AN EXCISE TAX ON OPIOIDS; EXTEND THE FILM PRODUCTION
CREDIT AND MODIFY THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION CREDIT. WE LIMIT
DISCLOSURE OF BOOKING INFORMATION; MAKE CHANGES TO IMPROVE
LIMOUSINE SAFETY; MODIFY AND LIMIT THE CASH BAIL SYSTEM; IMPLEMENT
SPEEDY TRIAL REFORMS; REFORM OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS AND
IMPLEMENT A FUNDING SYSTEM FOR -- WE HAVE REFORMS OF THE MTA AND
THE FUNDING SYSTEM FOR THE MTA.
BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON ANY OF
THESE TOPICS --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BARCLAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- AND OTHERS.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, FOR YIELDING. I ASSUME YOU'LL YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, OF COURSE.
319
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU. I HAVE SOME SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS ON A NUMBER OF PIECES OF THE BILL, BUT AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN
WAYS AND MEANS, I WANTED TO GIVE THE BODY A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF
THE REVENUE RAISES THAT YOU HAVE POSED IN THIS BILL. AND I WAS A LITTLE
CONFUSED IN WAYS AND MEANS, AND I DIDN'T FOLLOW UP, BUT I WANT TO
FOLLOW UP. IF YOU CAN TELL ME, HOW MUCH DOES THIS BILL RAISE TAXES THIS
YEAR?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO FROM BASELINE PROJECTIONS, THE
BUDGET REFLECTS AN INCREASE OF $919 MILLION IN 2019-2020, AND THAT
WOULD BECOME $4 BILLION IN 2020-'21. THE MAJORITY OF THE INCREASE IS
NOT THE RESULT OF TAX INCREASES, BUT RATHER THE EXTENSION OF THE HIGH
INCOME -- PERSONAL INCOME TAX OF 8.82 SURCHARGE, THAT'S $771 MILLION IN
2019 AND $3.6 BILLION IN 2020. THE OTHER -- THE MAJORITY OF THE
REMAINING INCREASES RELATED TO SALES TAX CONFORMITY PROPOSALS.
WHAT WE DIDN'T -- WHAT WE DIDN'T MENTION IN WAYS
AND MEANS ARE THE INCREASES THAT THE NEW TAXES THAT ARE GOING DIRECTLY
TO THE MTA AND ARE NOT ON BUDGET, SO WHY DON'T I JUST --
MR. BARCLAY: APPRECIATE THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S
WHERE MY NUMBERS DIDN'T MATCH UP WITH YOUR NUMBERS, SO...
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE. SO, THE MAJOR NEW REVENUE
PROPOSAL IN THE BUDGET IS A PROGRESSIVE -- THERE'S TWO. THERE'S A
PROGRESSIVE MANSION TAX AND A REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX. THE PROPOSAL IS
DEDICATED TO THE MTA AND WOULD PROVIDE $243 MILLION IN THE -- THIS
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, AND $378 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 2020-'21.
MR. BARCLAY: SO JUST ON SOME SPECIFICS ON THE,
320
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FOR INSTANCE, THE HIGH EARNERS, I THINK YOU CALLED IT, TAX, THE EXTENSION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. BARCLAY: IN THE PAST THAT'S BEEN CALLED THE
MILLIONAIRE'S TAX, BUT OBVIOUSLY, I ASSUME YOU CALL IT IS THE HIGH EARNERS
TAX BECAUSE IT COVERS PEOPLE, NOT JUST MILLIONAIRES, BUT PEOPLE THAT
MAKE LESS THAN $1 MILLION, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, AND WE HAD A, YOU KNOW, A
MILLIONAIRE'S-PLUS TAX THAT WAS IN OUR ONE-HOUSE THAT UNFORTUNATELY DID
NOT MAKE IT INTO THE NEGOTIATED BUDGET.
MR. BARCLAY: SO HOW MUCH INCOME DO YOU HAVE
TO EARN WHEN YOU GET HIT WITH THAT SURCHARGE, OR "MILLIONAIRE'S TAX"
SO-CALLED.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, IT'S $1.1 MILLION FOR SINGLE
FILERS. SO, IN FACT, $1.1 MILLION FOR SINGLE FILERS, $2.2 MILLION FOR
MARRIED FILING JOINTLY FILERS, AND $1.6 MILLION FOR HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
FILERS. YOU KNOW, SO IT IS -- IT IS A MILLIONAIRE'S TAX, BUT IT WASN'T WHAT
WE WOULD HAVE -- WERE COMMONLY REFERRING TO AS THE "MILLIONAIRE'S
TAX."
MR. BARCLAY: ALL RIGHT, UNDERSTOOD; MY MISTAKE.
JUST GENERALLY, IS THERE ANY TAX THAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE EXECUTIVE
BUDGET THAT THE ASSEMBLY MAJORITY OR BOTH HOUSES REJECTED?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, THERE -- I GUESS, THE
MARIJUANA TAX WAS AN OUT YEAR TAX.
MR. BARCLAY: FAIR ENOUGH.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T MENTION,
321
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE TAXES, THE SURCHARGE ON RENTAL CARS WHICH IN
NEW YORK CITY IS CURRENTLY 5 PERCENT, THAT WE'RE GOING TO 6 PERCENT
AND WILL NOW BE INSTITUTED -- ESTABLISHED IN UPSTATE NEW YORK. WE'RE
SPEEDING UP THE EFFECTIVE DATE TO JUNE 1, AND THAT WILL GENERATE FUNDS
FOR UPSTATE TRANSIT.
MR. BARCLAY: THE -- THAT'S FOR UPSTATE TRANSIT AND
THEN, IS ANY OF THAT MONEY GOING FOR THE MTA COUNTIES? IS THAT GOING
TO MTA?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, THE DOWNSTATE REGION DOES
GO TO THE MTA.
MR. BARCLAY: AND THEN WITH THE SALES TAX
EXPANSION, EXPANDING THE INTERNET SALES TAX FROM MARKETPLACE
PROVIDERS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. BARCLAY: SOME OF THAT MONEY IS GOING TO GO
INTO A LOCKBOX FOR THE MTA, SO-CALLED "LOCKBOX"?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE NEW YORK CITY SHARE OF THE
INTERNET SALES TAX IS ESTIMATED TO BE $170 MILLION. IT WILL GO TO THE
LOCKBOX FOR MTA REVENUE, AND THE STATE SHARE OF THAT INTERNET SALES FOR
NEW YORK CITY, WHICH IS $150 MILLION, WILL ALSO GO TOWARDS THE
LOCKBOX FOR MTA REVENUE.
MR. BARCLAY: NOT THE INTERNET SALES TAX, ANY
STATE SALES TAX, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, THE INTERNET SALES TAX.
MR. BARCLAY: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU, ON
322
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE REVENUE. I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I HAD ON
THE -- ON THE BILL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. BARCLAY: THERE'S SOME CONTINGENCY
LANGUAGE, ONE, IN THE MEDICAID FUNDING CONTINGENCY LANGUAGE, THERE'S
FINANCIAL PLAN FUNDING CONTINGENCY LANGUAGE. I KNOW THE GOVERNOR
PROPOSED THESE IN HIS EXECUTIVE BUDGET. DID THIS BILL MAKE ANY
CHANGES TO HIS PROPOSALS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO.
MR. BARCLAY: VERY GOOD. THE -- YOU HAVE SOME
SWEEPS AND TRANSFERS IN THIS BILL. I NOTE THAT YOU'RE TRANSFERRING, IF I'M
CORRECT, UP TO $20 MILLION FROM NYPA; IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING
WE DO EVERY -- IT IS SOMETHING WE DO EVERY YEAR.
MR. BARCLAY: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE ALSO
AUTHORIZE NYPA TO PUT CHARGING STATIONS AROUND THE STATE, I THINK TO
HELP BUILD AND FINANCE TRANSMISSION LINES, AND ALSO TO BUILD RENEWABLE
RESOURCES. WILL YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THAT EVEN SWEEPING OUT SOME OF THE
MONEY FROM THEM, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO DO
EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE REQUIRING THEM TO DO?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, WE DO.
MR. BARCLAY: IS -- THE GOVERNOR, IN THE PAST, HAS
TRIED TO SWITCH SOME OF THE STAR EXEMPTION BENEFITS OVER TO MAKE
THEM TAX CREDITS. I THINK HE DID IT MAYBE TWO YEARS AGO WHERE HE WAS
TRYING TO DO IT FOR PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT, YOU KNOW, RECENTLY BOUGHT THEIR
323
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HOUSE. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS EFFORT IS CONTINUING UNDER THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. COULD YOU ENLIGHTEN THE BODY OF EXACTLY WHAT THIS
PROPOSAL'S ABOUT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE -- I THINK I DID KIND OF BRIEFLY
BEFORE, BUT WHY DON'T WE JUST FOCUS ON STAR. SO, THE BASIC STAR
EXEMPTION INCOME LIMIT WILL BE LOWERED FROM $500,000 TO $250,000
BEGINNING THIS YEAR. IT WILL REDUCE GENERAL FUND SPENDING BY $125
MILLION. THE PEOPLE IN THE $250- TO $500,000 INCOME RANGE WHO WILL
NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR BASIC STAR EXEMPTION CAN -- WILL BE ABLE TO
AVOID ECONOMIC -- ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACTS BY SWITCHING TO THE
STAR CREDIT PROGRAM WHERE THE INCOME LEVEL REMAINS AT THE $500,000
LEVEL.
MR. BARCLAY: DOES IT SEEM ODD TO YOU THAT WE'RE
SWITCHING IT TO THE CREDIT? I MEAN, IT'S ALL EVENTUALLY GOING TO BE AN
EXPENSE TO THE STATE; GRANTED, ONE'S GOING TO BE AN APPROPRIATION AND
ONE'S GOING TO BE THROUGH A CREDIT. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: THIS IS TO HELP MEET THE 2 PERCENT
-- 2 PERCENT SAVINGS WHICH GIVES A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY, THEN, IN ORDER
TO DO SOME SPENDING.
MR. BARCLAY: THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, TOO. SO,
YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY CONSIDER THIS A GIMMICK, THOUGH, WOULD YOU?
A BUDGET GIMMICK?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF MANY
CONTAINED THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING OR HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING.
324
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. BARCLAY: I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I APPRECIATE
YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT IN THE ONE-HOUSE, CORRECT, YOU ONLY -- THIS IS A
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT, CORRECT.
MR. BARCLAY: SO, I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE KUDOS FOR
THAT.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN. I MAY
COME BACK FOR 15 LATER.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. RA.
MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE CHAIR
YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, BE HAPPY TO.
MR. RA: SO, PUBLIC FINANCING.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. RA: WHICH IS PART XXX. SOME MIGHT FIND THAT
APPROPRIATE, OR OBSCENE, OR I DON'T KNOW, BUT...
(LAUGHTER)
SO, WE'VE -- WE'VE GOTTEN ON THE ROAD BEFORE OF DOING
COMMISSIONS AND WE'VE HAD VARYING RESULTS FROM THAT. SO, I MEAN, I
THINK THE FIRST QUESTION IS -- IS WHY ANOTHER COMMISSION? WHY -- WHY
SEAT OUR AUTHORITY TO -- TO AN UNELECTED COMMISSION TO DO SOMETHING
THAT SHOULD BE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE LEGISLATURE?
325
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT IS COMPLICATED -- A COMPLICATED
ISSUE AND WE LIKE TO HAVE THE EXPERTS LOOK AT THIS WITHOUT THE -- WE LIKE
TO HAVE THE EXPERTS WORK ON THIS, HOLD THE HEARINGS AND MAKE THEIR --
MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHOUT THE SPECTER OF POLITICS OVER THEM.
MR. RA: OKAY. NOW YOU'RE SAYING HAVING EXPERTS
WORK ON IT. ARE THERE ANY QUALIFICATIONS IN THIS BILL THAT -- OF WHO
QUALIFIES TO BE APPOINTED TO IT? I DON'T -- I DON'T SEE ANY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. THERE AREN'T SPECIFIC --
SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE QUALIFICATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS. WE CERTAINLY
HAVE FAITH IN THE APPOINTING AUTHORITIES, THE LEADERS, THE GOVERNOR, TO
APPOINT PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE EXPERTISE.
MR. RA: OKAY. NOW, IN TERMS OF THOSE
APPOINTMENTS. I -- PERHAPS YOU CAN ENLIGHTEN ME WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION
WOULD BE FOR DOING THE APPOINTMENTS IN THE MATTER. I KNOW WE'VE DONE
ALL KINDS OF TASK FORCES AND COMMISSIONS AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS, BUT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE AUTHORIZED TO
MAKE POTENTIALLY MAJOR CHANGES THAT AFFECT CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND
CAMPAIGNS AND WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IT BY A VERY PARTISAN
COMMISSION. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENTS THAT PEOPLE BE APPOINTED OF
DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE HERE, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, BUT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITIES
REPRESENT DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES.
MR. RA: YES, BUT IT'S NOT A TRULY BIPARTISAN
COMMISSION WHEN IT'S OVERWHELMINGLY SLANTED TO ONE POLITICAL PARTY.
UNLIKE, YOU KNOW, OUR STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, WE MAKE SURE
326
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
EVERYTHING'S BIPARTISAN ACROSS THE BOARD, JUST LIKE OUR LOCAL BOARDS OF
ELECTIONS. SO, WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR GIVING SO LITTLE
REPRESENTATION FROM THE TWO LEGISLATIVE MINORITIES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE MAJORITY OF -- WE OFTEN HAVE
APPOINTMENTS WHERE THE MAJORITIES OF EACH HOUSE HAVE A LARGER
NUMBER OF APPOINTMENTS THAN THE MINORITIES, IT HAPPENS THAT THIS YEAR
THERE ARE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE, ALSO. IN PRIOR YEARS WHEN WE HAD
COMMISSIONS, IT WOULD'VE BEEN THE MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS WHO WERE
MAKING THOSE APPOINTMENTS. THE DECISION TO DO THE COMMISSION IS
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO.
IS LEADING WHICH HOUSE.
MR. RA: I DIDN'T AGREE WITH DOING IT THAT WAY THEN,
EITHER, BUT THE PROBLEM HERE IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COMMISSION THAT
IS GOING TO MAKE DECISIONS AFFECTING HOW POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS ARE RUN
AND IT'S GOING TO BE DONE BY A BODY THAT IS OVERWHELMINGLY PARTISAN TO
ONE POLITICAL PARTY WITH NO -- NO PROVISIONS MANDATING THAT PEOPLE GET
APPOINTED THAT ARE OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES OR ANYTHING OF THAT
NATURE. AND MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I KNOW ONE OF THE MODELS THAT,
PERHAPS, IS I'M SURE GOING TO BE LOOKED AT BY THIS COMMISSION IS -- IS
NEW YORK CITY. DOES -- THEIR CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD THAT OVERSEES
THE SYSTEM HAS THAT TYPE OF REQUIREMENT, DOES IT NOT, THAT SOME OF THE
APPOINTMENTS THAT ARE MADE BY POLITICAL LEADERS HAVE TO BE MADE OF
PEOPLE THAT ARE OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT MAY WELL BE THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT COMES FROM THIS BODY. THIS ISN'T A BODY THAT'S --
327
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YOU MENTIONED BOARD OF ELECTIONS, THAT'S REVIEWING PETITIONS. THIS
ISN'T A BODY THAT'S GOING TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS AND BE THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PROGRAM. IT'S A BODY THAT'S GOING TO RECOMMEND
AND CHANGES TO THE -- RECOMMEND A SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC FINANCING OF
CAMPAIGNS AND RECOMMEND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THAT SYSTEM AND MAY
VERY WELL BE THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION WILL
REFLECT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS AN EVEN SPLIT OF EQUAL REPRESENTATION OF
VARIOUS POLITICAL PARTIES ON THAT.
MR. RA: OKAY. SO ANOTHER QUESTION THAT THEN COMES
UP. ONCE THEY MAKE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE
FULL FORCE OF THE LAW UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE COMES BACK AND REJECTS
THEM. WOULD WE HAVE TO REJECT THEM FULLY? COULD WE AMEND WHAT
THEY DO? HOW DOES THAT PART WORK?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE. WE CAN MODIFY -- WE
CERTAINLY CAN MODIFY DURING THE TIMEFRAME BEFORE IT WOULD BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
MR. RA: OKAY. NOW, THIS SAME QUESTION I THINK
CAME TO MIND AFTER THE PAID COMMISSION LAST FALL. WHAT DID WE
ACTUALLY MODIFY AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE THEIR -- TECHNICALLY THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW, BUT THEY'RE NOT IN STATUTE
ANYMORE. SO, HOW DOES THAT WORK? WHAT WOULD WE ACTUALLY MODIFY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE WOULD MODIFY THE PROPOSAL.
IF WE DON'T MODIFY THE PROPOSAL, IT WOULD, IN FACT, HAVE THE EFFECT OF
LAW.
MR. RA: BUT THERE WON'T BE ANY SECTION OF LAW THAT
328
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WE -- THAT WILL BE THERE FOR US TO MODIFY. THAT'S WHAT I DON'T
UNDERSTAND, HOW WE CAN MODIFY A SECTION OF LAW THAT WON'T EXIST.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, THERE
WOULD BE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD COME TO US FROM THIS
COMMISSION. WE WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO DO A BILL -- IF WE WANTED TO, IN
FACT, MODIFY IT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO THEN DO LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
MODIFY IT.
MR. RA: OKAY. NOW, WHEN -- WHEN WILL THIS SYSTEM
TAKE EFFECT, THEN, IF THEY RECOMMEND GOING FORWARD WITH A PUBLIC
FINANCING SYSTEM? OR REALLY, IT'S SAYING THEY'RE -- THEY'RE GOING TO, IT'S
JUST, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH RATIOS AND THINGS OF THAT
NATURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT IS ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT WE
TASK THEM TO -- TO LOOK AT.
MR. RA: OKAY. WHAT IS THE COST OF -- OF THIS
PROGRAM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THEY ARE -- THEY ARE GIVEN THE
DIRECTION OF DEVELOPING A PROGRAM WITH A MAXIMUM $100 MILLION
ANNUAL COST.
MR. RA: OKAY. AND IN -- ARE WE MAKING ANY
APPROPRIATION IN EITHER THIS BILL OR ANY OTHER BUDGET BILL FOR THAT $100
MILLION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, WE ARE NOT.
MR. RA: DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHERE THAT MONEY IS
GOING TO COME FROM? THERE HAVE BEEN PAST BILLS WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC
329
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FINANCING IN THE PAST THAT IDENTIFY AT LEAST A PARTIAL REVENUE SOURCE. ARE
WE IDENTIFYING ANY REVENUE SOURCE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, WE ARE NOT, AND WE ARE
ASKING THE COMMISSION THEMSELVES TO LOOK AT POSSIBLE REVENUE AND
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVENUE SOURCES.
MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. RA: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. RA: THIS IS -- I WAS READING THIS EARLIER TODAY
AND -- AND, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE EVER GOING TO LEARN
OUR LESSON. THE PEOPLE ELECTED US. WE ALL WENT OUT LAST FALL, WE
CAMPAIGNED, PEOPLE ELECTED US TO COME HERE AND MAKE DECISIONS. IT'S
BAD ENOUGH WITH SOME OF THE WAY THAT THE PROCESS WORKS AT BUDGET
TIME AND -- AND WE'VE GIVEN, YOU KNOW, IN PAST BUDGETS ALL KINDS OF
NEW AUTHORITY TO THE GOVERNOR AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. NOW, WE'RE
SENDING OUR AUTHORITY TO MAKE LEGISLATION TO ANOTHER UNELECTED GROUP
OF PEOPLE. THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR CONSTITUENTS ELECTED US TO DO. THEY
ELECTED US TO BE THE STATE LEGISLATURE. THEY DIDN'T ELECT WHOEVER GETS
APPOINTED BY THIS GROUP TO BE THE STATE LEGISLATURE. AND WE REALLY
NEED TO LEARN OUR LESSON AT SOME POINT. IT'S THE WRONG THING FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC. IT'S THE WRONG THING FOR -- FOR MAKING LAW.
THE OTHER PART IS, AS I SAID, HAVING A COMMISSION THAT
IS GOING TO MAKE THESE TYPES OF DETERMINATIONS THAT IS THIS POLITICALLY
SLANTED -- EARLIER TODAY I TOLD SOMEBODY IT WAS BORDERLINE CORRUPT; I
330
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THINK I'D TAKE THE TERM "BORDERLINE" OUT. YOU CAN'T -- TO HAVE THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS COME FORTH, IT'S GOING TO BE AN OVERWHELMINGLY
DEMOCRATIC - LARGE D, NOT SMALL D - PROCESS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE
THE RECOMMENDATIONS I AM SURE THAT WILL BEST BENEFIT THE "LARGE D"
DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THIS -- THIS IS THE WRONG THING TO DO. THERE'S A
REASON WHY WHEN WE GET INTO CAMPAIGNS, THERE'S A REASON WHY OUR
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS IS COMPLETELY BIPARTISAN. THERE'S A REASON
WHY OUR LOCAL BOARDS OF ELECTIONS ARE COMPLETELY BIPARTISAN. THIS IS
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. IT IS NOT A FAIR THING TO DO TO THE VOTERS OF THIS STATE,
AND I COULD NOT IN A MILLION YEARS SUPPORT IT. AND, THANKFULLY, THERE'S A
MILLION OTHER REASONS TO VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL.
SO, I'M GOING TO BE CASTING MY VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE.
WE NEED TO DO BETTER AS A STATE LEGISLATURE TO TAKE THE INFORMATION --
IT'S OUR JOB TO GO OUT AND HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON BILLS. IT'S OUR JOB TO
TAKE THAT INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC AND IT'S OUR JOB TO COME TO A
DETERMINATION AND DO IT, BY THE WAY, OUTSIDE OF A BUDGET PROCESS WHERE
WE DON'T HAVE OUR -- OUR -- OUR BACKS AGAINST THE WALL SO THAT WE DO IT
CORRECTLY. SO, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO BE CASTING MY VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE
AND I HOPE MANY OF YOU WILL JOIN ME. THANK YOU.
MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
CHAIR YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, BE HAPPY TO.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MS. WALSH: THANK YOU. THERE'S TWO AREAS THAT I'D
331
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LIKE TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT. ONE HAS TO DO WITH EDUCATION, SO LET'S
START WITH THAT PART.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MS. WALSH: AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SEVERAL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS THAT HAVE HAD EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAVE RESULTED IN
SIGNIFICANT SCHOOL AID PENALTIES, PARTICULARLY FOR THE LATE FILING OF
TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS AND FINAL COST REPORTS. BOTH ONE-HOUSES
INCLUDED LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED AMNESTY FOR PENALTIES
ASSESSED ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR BOTH THE LATE FILING OF TRANSPORTATION
CONTRACTS AND FINAL COST REPORTS. WHY DID THAT LANGUAGE ULTIMATELY NOT
MAKE IT INTO THE FINAL BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: AS YOU SAY, WE DID ADVANCE THAT
AND, UNFORTUNATELY, WE COULD NOT GET THREE-WAY -- COULD NOT GET
THREE-WAY AGREEMENT ON THE FORGIVENESS OF THE VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION,
AS WELL AS OTHER LATE REPORTING FINES IMPOSED UPON SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
MS. WALSH: THANK YOU.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT IS OUR HOPE THAT WE WOULD
ADVANCE INDIVIDUAL BILLS ON THOSE -- ADVANCE INDIVIDUAL BILLS ON THOSE
MATTERS.
MS. WALSH: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE --
BOTH ONE-HOUSE BUDGETS ALSO PROVIDED LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HAVE
PROVIDED SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH BUILDING AID FOR ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
RELATED TO A TAX CERTIORARI BOND. THIS WOULD HAVE PROVIDED MUCH
NEEDED RELIEF TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS. COULD YOU SPEAK, PLEASE,
ABOUT WHY THIS MEASURE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL BUDGET EITHER?
332
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: AGAIN, WE WERE UNABLE TO GET
THREE-WAY AGREEMENT ON INCLUDING THE ADJUSTMENTS TO BUILDING AID FOR
DEBT SERVICE.
MS. WALSH: DO YOU FORESEE ANY STANDALONE EFFORT,
YOU KNOW, BETWEEN POST-BUDGET AND END OF SESSION TO TRY TO ADDRESS
THAT ISSUE, AS WELL?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE HAVE SEVERAL MONTHS LEFT
ONCE -- OF SESSION ONCE THIS PASSES AND, CERTAINLY, IT'D BE A TOPIC OF
DISCUSSION.
MS. WALSH: OKAY. VERY GOOD. I WOULD ALSO LIKE
TO ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PORTIONS OF THIS BILL HAVING TO DO WITH
THE DIRECT CARE WORKERS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MS. WALSH: WE -- WE ARE HAPPY TO SEE THAT THERE'S
FUNDING INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET FOR SALARY SUPPORTS FOR DIRECT SUPPORT
WORKERS AND PROFESSIONALS; HOWEVER, WE ARE REALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT
THE AMOUNT IS LESS THAN WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN PRIOR YEARS. WHY IS THAT,
THAT THERE'S LESS BEING PROVIDED THIS YEAR?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I THINK WE'RE A COMBINATION OF
NOT HAVING AVAILABLE -- ADDITIONAL AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND NOT BEING
ABLE TO GET AN AGREEMENT TO FUND AT A HIGHER LEVEL THAN WHERE WE ARE
NOW.
MS. WALSH: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: DESPITE, YOU KNOW, A SHARED
CONCERN FOR THE -- FOR THE DESIRE TO DO SO.
333
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WALSH: SO IN THIS BILL AND -- AND COMPANION
BILLS, THERE'S ONLY AN INCREASE OF 2 PERCENT PER YEAR INSTEAD OF THE 3.25
PERCENT THAT WAS HOPED FOR. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU'RE STARTING THE
INCREASE -- THE 2 PERCENT INCREASE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR IN THE LAST QUARTER?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- THAT -- YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT
GOES BACK TO OUR LIMITED RESOURCES, BUT WE DO -- DID WANT TO MAKE THE
COMMITMENT TO BEGIN IN THIS FISCAL YEAR SO WE STARTED AT THE -- THE LAST
QUARTER.
MS. WALSH: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW MANY
INDIVIDUALS WON'T GET AN INCREASE IN SALARY THIS YEAR AS A RESULT OF THE
INCREASE BEING PUSHED INTO JANUARY 1ST OF NEXT YEAR, 2020?
MS. WEINSTEIN: OH, NO. THAT I REALLY -- I DON'T
THINK WE HAVE THOSE NUMBERS.
MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THANK YOU.
MS. WALSH: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL.
MS. WALSH: ON THE SECOND POINT, THIS ISSUE OF
DIRECT CARE WORKERS, IT'S MY OPINION THAT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A $174
BILLION BUDGET THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH ROOM TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THROUGH
ON COMMITMENTS THAT HAD BEEN MADE TO DIRECT SUPPORT PROFESSIONALS
OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. AND ONE POSSIBLE PLACE WHERE SOME
MONEY COULD'VE BEEN FREED UP I THINK WOULD'VE BEEN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
$15 MILLION IN FUNDING TO MARKET THE NEW YORK STATE OF HEALTH
PROGRAM ON BUSES AND TRAIN STATIONS AND THROUGH COMMERCIALS. SO, I
334
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DO BELIEVE THAT THAT MONEY COULD HAVE BEEN FOUND. WE'RE VERY
DISAPPOINTED THAT IT WASN'T, AND OUR DISAPPOINTMENT WON'T EVEN
APPROACH THE DISAPPOINTMENT THAT THE PEOPLE IN THIS VERY DIFFICULT FIELD
ARE GOING TO FEEL TOMORROW WHEN THEY WAKE UP AND THEY REALIZE THAT
THIS MONEY ISN'T IN THERE FOR THEM. SO, THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. PALUMBO.
MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A FEW QUESTIONS ON --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS.
WEINSTEIN. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON PUBLIC PROTECTION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: DEPENDING ON THE SUBJECT MATTER,
I MAY BE DIFFERING TO --
MR. PALUMBO: I'LL CONFINE IT TO TWO AREAS,
DISCOVERY AND BAIL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY. SO, ON DISCOVERY, MR.
LENTOL WILL BE HANDLING DISCOVERY -- THE QUESTIONS ON THE DISCOVERY BILL
THAT HE HAS SPONSORED FOR SO MANY YEARS AND OUR COLLEAGUE,
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LATRICE WALKER, WILL BE HANDLING QUESTIONS ON THE
BAIL BILL WHICH SHE HAS SPONSORED WHICH IS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS BILL.
MR. PALUMBO: TERRIFIC. TERRIFIC. WHOEVER
335
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST. I'M HAPPY TO GO EITHER WAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: DO YOU WANT TO START WITH MR.
LENTOL?
MR. PALUMBO: CERTAINLY. WILL YOU YIELD, JOE,
PLEASE FOR A FEW QUESTIONS?
MR. LENTOL: YES, I WILL, MR. SPEAKER.
MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, JUST
GENERALLY, THIS HAS BEEN A LONG-STANDING POLICY DEBATE IN THIS HOUSE
AND IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THAT WE COULDN'T HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS AND
POSSIBLY DO THIS OUTSIDE OF THE BUDGET, OR DID THIS KIND OF END UP ON THE
TABLE AS A RESULT OF THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS AND THERE WAS SOME URGE TO
DO IT NOW?
MR. LENTOL: WELL, AS YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU'VE
DEBATED THIS MANY TIMES, AS HAVE I, IT HAS HAD A VERY GOOD PUBLIC AIRING
ALREADY AND I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NOW
REALIZE HOW ANTIQUATED AND UNFAIR THE DISCOVERY SYSTEM IS IN NEW YORK
STATE, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THAT THE CIVIL SYSTEM WHICH
DOESN'T PUT ANYBODY INTO JAIL IS SO OPEN AND FREE DISCLOSURE OF
INFORMATION OCCURS, WHERE IT HAS NEVER OCCURRED IN NEW YORK STATE IN
THE CRIMINAL LAW.
MR. PALUMBO: CERTAINLY, MR. LENTOL, AND YOU
HAVE BEEN A CHAMPION ON THIS ISSUE AND I THINK THAT THIS HAS DEVELOPED
INTO A VERY GOOD IDEA THAT IT'S SOMETHING NEEDED TO BE DONE, SO I THINK
THIS IS REALLY GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THERE ARE JUST A FEW AREAS
LEFT THAT WE HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH, THAT I HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH
336
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AND I HAVE HAD SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES INDICATE THEIR CONCERNS,
AS WELL.
MR. LENTOL: WELL, I'M HAPPY TO HELP YOU WITH
THEM.
MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU. PARTICULARLY NOW THAT
THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR NEW DISCOVERY STATUTE. REGARDING THE GENERAL, I
GUESS, GENERALLY SO MY COLLEAGUES ARE AWARE, THE ENTIRE ARTICLE 240 IS
GONE AND WE HAVE AN ENTIRELY -- WE HAVE A NEW 245 ARTICLE WHICH
COVERS ALL OF OUR DISCOVERY. SO, IF IT'S NOT ADDRESSED HERE, ESSENTIALLY,
ALL THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW RELATIVE TO DISCOVERY IS GONE, FOR ALL
INTENTS AND PURPOSES.
MR. LENTOL: YES, BUT THERE ARE SOME INHERENT
POWERS IN THE COURTS, AS YOU KNOW.
MR. PALUMBO: CERTAINLY. AND IN THAT REGARD, I
SEE THAT THERE'S SOME RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY THAT'S REQUIRED FROM THE
DEFENDANT.
MR. LENTOL: YES.
MR. PALUMBO: AND IN SECTION 245.20, THEY HAVE
SOME DISCOVERABLE EVIDENCE AND I DID SEE THAT THERE WERE SOME
SPECIFIC REQUESTS AS FAR AS EXPERT DISCLOSURE, THAT THEY KNEW, AND SOME
WITNESS DISCLOSURE, BUT IT WAS REALLY REGARDING STATEMENTS. IS THERE
ANYTHING IN THIS NEW ARTICLE THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN ALIBI NOTICE?
BECAUSE, AS YOU RECALL, UNDER THE OLD STATUTE THE PROSECUTORS WOULD
MAKE, TYPICALLY AT ARRAIGNMENT, A 250.20 DEMAND AS FAR AS ALIBI NOTICE
IS CONCERNED -- OR 240 OR 250, I FORGET WHICH ARTICLE IT WAS, BUT DOES
337
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT STILL EXIST TODAY, THAT AN ALIBI NOTICE WOULD NEED TO BE PROVIDED BY
THE DEFENDANT WITHIN A FIXED PERIOD OF TIME?
MR. LENTOL: WELL, THERE'S A -- AS YOU KNOW, SIR,
THERE'S AN ALIBI PROCEDURE THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
LAW, AND THAT STAYS THE SAME.
MR. PALUMBO: AND THAT STAYS THE SAME, VERY
GOOD. THANK YOU. THAT WAS A -- THAT WAS A CONCERN. AND AS FAR AS THE
PROSECUTION'S TIME LIMITS OF RESPONDING TO THIS DISCOVERY, THEY HAVE 15
CALENDAR DAYS FOR THE AUTOMATIC DISCOVERY, OR SOON AS PRACTICABLE IF
THERE A GOOD FAITH REASONS WHY NOT. WHAT'S THE SANCTION FOR THEIR
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THAT STATUTE?
MR. LENTOL: WELL, THE COURT COULD, AS YOU KNOW,
ORDER DISCLOSURE AND THERE COULD BE PRECLUSION IF THEY DO NOT.
MR. PALUMBO: SURE. ARE THERE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
SANCTION, THOUGH? COULD THE COURT JUST GIVE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AND
NOT PRECLUDE, OR ARE THERE DIFFERENT LEVELS THAT DEPENDING ON THE GRAVITY
OF THE OFFENSE THAT IT COULD BE COMPLETE PRECLUSION OF A WITNESS, OR
EVIDENCE, VERSUS MAYBE A JURY CHARGE INDICATING THAT THEY CAN MAKE THE
ADVERSE INFERENCE. IS THAT ALL AVAILABLE STILL?
MR. LENTOL: WELL, I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES. THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DECIDE TO
PRECLUDE IF THEY WERE SERIOUS.
MR. PALUMBO: VERY GOOD. AND REGARDING THE
SANCTIONS, I SEE HERE THAT NO LATER THAN 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE DEFENDANT'S
GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, ALL STATEMENTS, WRITTEN, RECORDED AND ORAL
338
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
STATEMENTS MUST BE MADE BY THE DEFENDANT. IF THERE'S A NONCOMPLIANCE
SITUATION IN THAT REGARD AND, AS YOU CERTAINLY KNOW, FROM ARREST, NOT
ARRAIGNMENT, FROM ARREST TO INDICTMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE WITHIN 144
HOURS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ON A MONDAY YOU HAVE A DEFENDANT WHO GETS
ARRESTED MIDDAY IN PARTICULARLY IN A PLACE LIKE SUFFOLK COUNTY, WHICH IS
OBVIOUSLY A LARGE COUNTY, 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE, BUT THEY DON'T TYPICALLY
HAVE -- THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A GRAND JURY ON THE WEEKEND,
THEY'D HAVE TO INDICT THAT BY 5:00 ON FRIDAY. SO, THEY'D BE UNDER A REAL
TIGHT WINDOW TO GET THAT DISCOVERY TO THEM BY WEDNESDAY TO GET ALL OF
THAT INFORMATION. SO, OF COURSE, WRITTEN STATEMENTS COULD BE PROVIDED,
BUT IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF A SURVEILLANCE TAPE, IF THAT ISN'T PROVIDED IN A
TIMELY FASHION, WHAT WOULD THE SANCTION BE IF THE PROSECUTOR STILL
PROCEEDED WITH THE GRAND JURY PRESENTATION IN ORDER TO HOLD THE
DEFENDANT?
MR. LENTOL: WELL, I THINK THAT THE JUDGE COULD BE
WISE IN HIS DISCRETION AND ORDER A HEARING IF THAT INFORMATION COULDN'T
BE DISCLOSED.
MR. PALUMBO: OKAY, TERRIFIC. SO, I JUST WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THAT FOR THOSE SITUATIONS THAT THERE MAY BE NONCOMPLIANCE,
IT'S STILL A DISCRETIONARY CHOICE BY THE JUDGE, THEY COULD DO AS LITTLE OR AS
SEVERE A SANCTION AS THEY SO CHOOSE?
MR. LENTOL: YES.
MR. PALUMBO: GREAT.
MR. LENTOL: AS YOU KNOW, MAYBE FROM READING
THIS, THAT WE TRY TO GIVE THE JUDGE A GREAT DEAL OF DISCRETION OVER THIS
339
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS, AS WELL.
MR. PALUMBO: EXCELLENT.
NOW, JUST TWO OTHER QUICK AREAS, IF YOU DON'T MIND,
REGARDING, IT'S 245.50, THERE'S CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE REQUIRED BY THE
PROSECUTOR. AND I HAVE HERE, THIS IS ON PAGE 143 OF THE BILL, LINE 35,
THAT WHEN THEY PROVIDED THE DISCOVERY REQUIRED BY SUBDIVISION 1 OF
SECTION 245.20 OF THIS ARTICLE, ACCEPTS OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO
THE ORDER, IT SHALL SERVE UPON THE DEFENDANT AND FILE WITH THE COURT A
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE STATING THAT AFTER EXERCISING DUE DILIGENCE
AND MAKING REASONABLE INQUIRES TO ASCERTAIN THE EXISTENCE OF MATERIAL
AND INFORMATION SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY, THE PROSECUTOR HAS DISCLOSED AND
MADE AVAILABLE ALL KNOWN MATERIAL AND INFORMATION SUBJECT TO
DISCOVERY. AND THAT, AGAIN, IF -- IF -- IS THIS A SWORN STATEMENT THAT THE
LAWYER NEEDS TO PROVIDE, THAT THE PROSECUTOR WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE?
MR. LENTOL: YES, IT COULD BE, BUT I DON'T THINK THE
STATUTE REQUIRES IT.
MR. PALUMBO: OKAY, GOOD. SO -- AND THAT'S
ANOTHER ONE. IN THE EVENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE, THAT MIGHT EVEN OPEN UP
A PROSECUTOR TO POSSIBLY A GRIEVANCE OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF SANCTION
AGAINST THEIR LICENSE IF THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY MAKING MISREPRESENTATION TO
THE COURT. WAS THAT THE LOGIC BEHIND INCLUDING THAT PROVISION?
MR. LENTOL: NOT NECESSARILY.
MR. PALUMBO: IS THERE ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT FOR
THE DEFENDANTS IN THEIR RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY?
MR. LENTOL: YES. I THINK THE COURT, IN ITS WISDOM,
340
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD
HAVE A DISCOVERY OF THIS MATERIAL AND ACT ACCORDINGLY.
MR. PALUMBO: VERY GOOD. NOW, ONE -- ONE OTHER
ISSUE REGARDING THAT RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY, THAT UNDER 245.20,
SUBDIVISION 4 --
MR. LENTOL: THE IDEA, MR. PALUMBO, IS FOR THE
FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. THAT'S ALWAYS THE THOUGHT THROUGHOUT
THIS DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT HASN'T EXISTED IN OUR LAW BEFORE.
MR. PALUMBO: AND THAT'S WHY --
MR. LENTOL: SO, WE'RE TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH
OTHER STATES THAT HAVE DONE THIS.
MR. PALUMBO: CERTAINLY, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY
THIS HAS BEEN SO WELL RECEIVED. I DO AGREE, AND I JUST HAD, AS I
INDICATED, I THINK IT'S GENERALLY REALLY THE PUBLIC OR I SHOULD SAY THE
PRACTITIONERS HAVE REALLY COME AROUND WITH REGARD TO THIS IDEA, THAT IT'S
CERTAINLY IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS AND FAIR JUSTICE, THIS WAS NEEDED.
BUT REGARDING THAT ONE SECTION, THAT IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THE DEFENSE
WITNESS -- DISCLOSURE OF A DEFENSE WITNESS WHO TESTIFIES TO IMPEACH A
PROSECUTION WITNESS IS NOT REQUIRED UNTIL AFTER THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED
AFTER A TRIAL.
NOW, THE PEOPLE AT THIS POINT HAVE PROVIDED ALL OF
THEIR WITNESSES, WITNESS LISTS LONG BEFORE OR CERTAINLY AT THE BEGINNING
OF TRIAL, IF THERE ARE ANY NEW ONES, TO PREVENT UNFAIR SURPRISE. WITH
REGARD TO EXPERT TESTIMONY, IS THERE ANY OBLIGATION, BECAUSE IT SEEMS AS
THOUGH THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT IN CONFLICT WITH THE DEFENDANT'S
341
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OBLIGATION FOR RECIPROCAL REDISCOVERY, THAT IS THERE ANY OBLIGATION THAT
TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF AN EXPERT WITNESS NOTICE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN
REASONABLY ASCERTAINED? FOR EXAMPLE, IN AN ACCIDENT CASE, IN A
MANSLAUGHTER CASE WHERE YOU'RE DOING ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION. THEY
KNOW RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX THAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO PRESENT A
RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT AND, CERTAINLY, PROVIDE DIFFERENT EMPIRICAL DATA
WITH REGARD TO THE IMPACTS AND SO FORTH, POINTS OF IMPACT. SO, THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE REASONABLY ANTICIPATED. DOES THE DEFENDANT
HAVE AN OBLIGATION IN A CASE LIKE I JUST PRESENTED TO YOU TO PROVIDE THAT
INFORMATION TO THE PROSECUTOR?
MR. LENTOL: I THINK THAT COULD BE, BUT REMEMBER,
THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WITH REGARD TO THAT, THAT THE COURT
WOULD HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, AS WELL AS THE DEFENDANT.
MR. PALUMBO: CERTAINLY, BUT IT LOOKS AS THOUGH
THAT THEY TYPICALLY WOULD, UNDER THAT PREVIOUS SECTION FOR RECIPROCAL
DISCOVERY, IF THEY HAD ANTICIPATED AN EXPERT REASONABLY, BECAUSE THAT'S
SOMEONE THAT I DON'T THINK WOULD -- IT WOULD CREATE ANY ISSUES
REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE OR
DISCOVERABLE, JUST THEIR QUALIFICATIONS AND A GENERAL STATEMENT
REGARDING ALMOST LIKE A 3101 DISCLOSURE REGARDING WHAT THEY -- WHAT
THEY INTEND TO OFFER AT TRIAL.
MR. LENTOL: OKAY.
MR. PALUMBO: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR.
LENTOL.
MR. LENTOL: YOU'RE WELCOME.
342
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. PALUMBO: NOW FOR ROUND TWO, HOW ARE YOU,
MS. WALKER? WOULD YOU MIND YIELDING FOR A FEW QUESTIONS ON BAIL?
MS. WALKER: ABSOLUTELY.
MR. PALUMBO: GREAT. THANK YOU.
SO, I GUESS I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION THAT I STARTED MR.
LENTOL WITH REGARDING THE FACT THAT THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY FISCAL
IMPLICATIONS. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE DIDN'T DO THIS PARTICULAR
SECTION OF PUBLIC PROTECTION IN A SEPARATE STANDALONE BILL WITH PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND SO FORTH?
MS. WALKER: WELL, MR. PALUMBO, I BEG TO DIFFER.
THIS BILL DOES HAVE HUGE FISCAL IMPLICATIONS, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO
THE COST SAVINGS THAT WE WILL BE REAPING A BENEFIT FROM WITH RESPECT TO
NOT -- RELEASING INDIVIDUALS ON NONMONETARY CONDITIONS OR RELEASING
THEM ON THEIR OWN RECOGNIZANCE, AS OPPOSED TO THE EXPENSES OF PAYING
FOR THEIR PRETRIAL DETENTION. HOWEVER, I'LL SAY THAT THE URGENCY OF THE
TIME IS RIGHT NOW FOR US TO ACT, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT TOO MANY PEOPLE
ARE LANGUISHING IN JAILS AND, FOR INSTANCE, RIKERS ISLAND AND ALL ACROSS
OUR STATE, WHO HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME. AND,
PARTICULARLY SO WHEN I THINK ABOUT SANDRA BLANDI -- SANDRA BLAND,
SOMEONE WHO HAD NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHO COMMITTED
SUICIDE. AND WE SEE TOO MANY PEOPLE FALL INTO THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION
EACH AND EVERY DAY --
MR. PALUMBO: UNDERSTOOD.
MS. WALKER: -- SO I THINK THAT THE URGENCY OF THE
TIME FOR US TO DO THIS IS IMMEDIATELY.
343
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. PALUMBO: I GOT IT. NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE,
THOUGH, THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY A COST WITH RESPECT TO THE NONMONETARY
BAIL, SUPERVISION OF SOMEONE WHO IS RELEASED UNDER THIS PARTICULAR
STATUTE, THAT THERE ARE OUT-OF-CUSTODY DETAINEE SERVICES, MAYBE THROUGH
PROBATION, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME PRETRIAL RELEASE COSTS THAT
WOULD ALSO BE IMPLICATED. SO, THERE'S A SAVINGS ON ONE SIDE, BUT THERE
ARE ALSO OTHER COSTS THAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY, AS WELL?
MS. WALKER: WELL, ABSOLUTELY. THERE ARE COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND, IN FACT, THIS BUDGET ACTUALLY DEALS WITH THOSE.
THERE ARE PROBATION SERVICES IN EVERY COUNTY ACROSS THE STATE OF NEW
YORK AND WE ARE ALWAYS CONSIDERING PRETRIAL ALTERNATIVES TO
INCARCERATION THAT WE HAVE PAID FOR FOR MANY YEARS HERE. IN ADDITION TO
THAT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COST SAVINGS THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH WHEN
WE ARE UTILIZING THESE METHODS AS OPPOSED TO KEEPING PEOPLE CONTAINED
IN JAILS.
MR. PALUMBO: VERY GOOD. NOW, REGARDING THE
ONE SECTION THAT REQUIRES LOCAL CRIMINAL COURTS TO SEND AN APPEARANCE
REMINDER AND NOTIFY THE ARRESTEE OF THEIR COURT APPEARANCE BY TEXT
MESSAGE, TELEPHONE CALL, ELECTRONIC MAIL OR FIRST-CLASS MAIL. IS THAT
REQUIRED BY THE COURT ITSELF, OR CAN THEY HAVE ANOTHER AGENCY ASSIST IN
THAT MATTER? THAT'S REALLY THE FIRST ASPECT OF THAT THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK.
MS. WALKER: WELL, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE
ANOTHER PRETRIAL SERVICE AGENCY TO DO THOSE. BUT, IN FACT, MR. PALUMBO,
WE HAVE ALREADY BEGUN UTILIZING THESE METHODS IN NEW YORK CITY AND
THEY'VE BEEN WORKING OUT JUST FINE AND HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN
344
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SECURING A DEFENDANT'S RETURN TO COURT, JUST IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW
YORK STATE PRINCIPLES.
MR. PALUMBO: IT LOOKS AS THOUGH IT'S A MUST
STATUTE. IF THE COURT FAILS TO PROVIDE THIS NOTIFICATION, WHAT IS THE
ALTERNATIVE OR WHAT IS THE SANCTION? DOES THAT EXCUSE A
NONAPPEARANCE? ARE THEY NOT AUTHORIZED TO THEN ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT
BASED UPON THAT NONAPPEARANCE?
MS. WALKER: I'M SORRY. IF THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT
RECEIVE THE TELEPHONE CALL OR THE TEXT MESSAGE, OR IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY REFUSES TO DO SO, DOES THAT REQUIRE A BENCH WARRANT?
MR. PALUMBO: I'M SAYING A CLERICAL ERROR, BECAUSE
-- IS THIS EVERY COURT DATE THAT THE LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT MUST GIVE THEM A
REMINDER?
MS. WALKER: WELL, ACCORDING TO THIS BILL, THIS IS
ACTUALLY WHAT SHOULD TAKE PLACE; HOWEVER JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOUR
DOCTOR WOULD REACH OUT TO YOU TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU HAVE A DOCTOR'S
APPOINTMENT, YOU APPEAR WHEN YOU HAVE TO, AND IT'S NO DIFFERENT HERE
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE AND, IN FACT, A BENCH WARRANT IS NOT ISSUED UNLESS
THERE IS A WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR COURT APPEARANCES ON A CONTINUAL BASIS.
MR. PALUMBO: VERY GOOD. WE'LL MEET AGAIN.
MS. WALKER: THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: GOOD.
MR. REILLY.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
CHAIR YIELD?
345
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MS. WEINSTEIN. I HAVE A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON PUBLIC PROTECTION, AS WELL, IN REGARDS TO THE
MUST ISSUE DESK APPEARANCE TICKETS BY POLICE OFFICERS. SO, DOES THE
DESK APPEARANCE TICKET REQUIREMENT PREVENT POLICE OFFICERS FROM TAKING
AN INDIVIDUAL TO THE PRECINCT FROM THE LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE?
OH, I'M SORRY; OKAY, I'M SORRY.
MS. WALKER: I'M SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR
QUESTION?
MR. REILLY: SURE. SO, DOES THE DESK APPEARANCE
TICKET REQUIREMENT PREVENT POLICE OFFICERS FROM TAKING AN INDIVIDUAL TO
THE PRECINCT FROM THE LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE?
MS. WALKER: NO. I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, MOST
RESPECTFULLY, THAT'S WHERE THE DESK IS LOCATED.
MR. REILLY: OKAY. SO, WHAT CONSTITUTES A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR A PRINCIPAL TO MAKE THEIR VERIFIABLE IDENTITY
KNOWN FOR A DESK APPEARANCE TICKET?
MS. WALKER: WELL, YOU CAN SEE WHAT TYPE OF ID
THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAS AND PRODUCE IT; IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT MOST POLICE
OFFICERS DO IN NORMAL IDENTIFICATION STOPS AT THIS MOMENT.
MR. REILLY: YEAH, AT THIS MOMENT IF THEY DON'T
PROVIDE ID, THEY GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM. THEY GET -- THE ARREST IS
346
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AFFECTED, SO THIS --
MS. WALKER: UNDER THE BILL, THAT WILL CONTINUE.
MR. REILLY: I'M SORRY. SAY --
MS. WALKER: UNDER THIS PARTICULAR BILL, THAT WILL
CONTINUE.
MR. REILLY: BUT, NO, IT ACTUALLY -- NO, READING IT, IT
SAYS IF THEY CAN'T PROVIDE PHOTO ID, IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
MS. WALKER: I'M SORRY. AN OFFICER IS NOT REQUIRED
TO ISSUE AN APPEARANCE TICKET IF THE PERSON CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED. BUT IT
IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS DIFFERENT FORMS OF
IDENTIFICATION THAT CAN BE PROVIDED. SOME COULD BE GOVERNMENT
ISSUED, IT COULD BE A BENEFIT CARD THAT GETS ISSUED, BUT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY POLICING, THERE MANY INSTANCES WHERE A
POLICE OFFICER WILL IDENTIFY THE PERSON WHO IS COMING INTO THEIR
JURISDICTION AND BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THEM IN THAT WAY, AS WELL.
MR. REILLY: WELL, OFTENTIMES -- AND I'LL REFER BACK
TO WHEN I WORKED IN MIDTOWN, IN MIDTOWN MANHATTAN IN MIDTOWN
NORTH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A VERY -- IT WAS A TRANSIENT LOCATION SO WE --
OFTENTIMES PEOPLE THAT WERE PLACED UNDER ARREST AND BROUGHT BACK TO
THE PRECINCT DID NOT RESIDE OR WORK IN THE AREA. SO, SOME OFFICERS MAY
NOT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THEM THAT WAY. SO, THE QUESTION WAS, WHAT
WOULD CONSTITUTE GIVING THAT PRINCIPAL, THAT DEFENDANT, A REASONABLE, THE
REASONABLE TIME TO IDENTIFY THEM?
MS. WALKER: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A TIME PERIOD
COMES INTO QUESTION HERE, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON CAN BE
347
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IDENTIFIED. IF THEY CAN BE IDENTIFIED, THEN A DESK APPEARANCE TICKET IF,
UNDER THOSE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, ARE WARRANTED, WILL BE GIVEN AT
THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. IF THE PERSON'S IDENTIFICATION CANNOT BE
ASSESSED AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, THE OFFICER'S NOT REQUIRED TO ISSUE A
DESK APPEARANCE TICKET.
MR. REILLY: OKAY. STILL A LITTLE FUZZY WITH THE
REASONABLE TIME, BUT I CAN MOVE ON. SO, IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS ARRESTED FOR
SHOPLIFTING AND DURING THE ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL RESISTS ARREST, WHICH ARE
BOTH MISDEMEANORS, WOULD THE POLICE OFFICER HAVE TO ISSUE A DESK
APPEARANCE TICKET EVEN THOUGH THE CONDUCT IS A LITTLE MORE SEVERE THAN
THE SHOPLIFTING?
MS. WALKER: IT WOULD BE AN APPEARANCE TICKET IN
THAT SITUATION.
MR. REILLY: WOW, OKAY. SO IF THE PERSON -- AND I
WAS READING THE BILL, THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL AND I UNDERSTOOD THAT IF
THE PERSON WAS INTOXICATED OR, YOU KNOW, MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, A DESK
APPEARANCE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ISSUED, AND ALSO IF, OF COURSE, DRIVING,
ANY -- ANY OFFENSE WHERE A COURT CAN SUSPEND A DRIVER'S LICENSE, I KNOW
THAT THEY CAN'T -- THE OFFICER WOULDN'T HAVE TO ISSUE A DESK APPEARANCE
TICKET. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE
EFFORT IN THAT CASE WHEN THE PERSON MAY BE -- MAY BE INTOXICATED TO THE
POINT WHERE THEY CAN HARM THEMSELVES. IT SAYS BEFORE MAKING THE
ARREST, THE OFFICER HAS TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO GET THE PERSON THE
SERVICES AND ISSUE THE DAT.
MS. WALKER: WELL, PARTICULARLY, THERE IS AN
348
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INTEREST HERE IN ORDER TO NOT PERSECUTE OR PROSECUTE INDIVIDUALS BASED
ON THEIR MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION, OR THEIR HEALTH CONDITION. SO, IF
THERE'S A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY BE UTILIZED WHERE WE CAN GET THE
INDIVIDUAL MEDICAL ATTENTION, THEN WE BELIEVE MEDICAL ATTENTION IS
WARRANTED IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION. BUT YOU ALSO BROUGHT UP THE
SITUATION REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS DRIVING WHILE
INTOXICATED. OF COURSE, IF SOMEONE IS PULLED OVER AND CHARGED WITH
THAT PARTICULAR OFFENSE, WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM A DESK APPEARANCE
TICKET --
MR. REILLY: OH, NO, I --
MS. WALKER: -- AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME --
MR. REILLY: DEFINITELY.
MS. WALKER: -- SO THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY
HARM SOMEONE. SO, WE HAVE ALSO REQUIRED -- DID NOT MAKE THE
REQUIREMENT THAT A POLICE OFFICER HAS TO ISSUE A DESK APPEARANCE TICKET
IN THOSE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
MR. REILLY: ABSOLUTELY. I READ THAT, I FULLY
UNDERSTAND THAT ABOUT THE DRIVING OFFENSE, BUT MY QUESTIONS HINGE ON
WHAT CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE EFFORT AND A REASONABLE TIME BEFORE THE
OFFICER CAN CHANGE IT FROM A DESK APPEARANCE TICKET TO AN ACTUAL ARREST
AND THE INDIVIDUAL GET -- THE PRINCIPAL GOES THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND
GOES BEFORE THE COURT. THAT'S THE ISSUE.
MS. WALKER: WELL, I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, A
REASONABLE PERSON WILL BE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN A REASONABLE TIME PERIOD
AND A REASONABLE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I RECOGNIZE THAT ALL OF
349
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THOSE ISSUES WILL SORT OF BE BASED ON WHATEVER GETS PRESENTED AT THAT
TIME, AND YOU GOT TO USE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT.
MR. REILLY: THAT'S A LARGE GREY AREA, ESPECIALLY
WHEN IT CAN WIND UP LEADING TO LAWSUITS AND ACCUSATIONS OF BEING
DETAINED FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. SO, THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE
CLARIFICATIONS THAT I THINK SHOULD BE MADE.
MS. WALKER: I AGREE, HOWEVER, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
THERE'S ANY DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS SITUATION AND IN ANY
PARTICULAR POLICE ENCOUNTER WHERE THERE MAY BE A MENTAL HEALTH
SITUATION THAT NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED, OR A HEALTH CARE SITUATION THAT NEEDS
TO BE ASSESSED. SO, THIS ISN'T ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ON A
POLICE OFFICER HAVING TO UTILIZE THEIR REASONABLE SENSIBILITIES IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A SITUATION THAT MIGHT WARRANT THEM TO
TAKE AN ADDITIONAL STEP PRIOR TO MAKING THEIR ASSESSMENT AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT TO ARREST OR TO ISSUE A DESK APPEARANCE TICKET.
MR. REILLY: OKAY, FAIR ENOUGH. THANK YOU.
I JUST HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS, WOULD THE CHAIR
YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'D BE HAPPY TO.
MR. REILLY: THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON
THE NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. I SEE IN THE BILL
THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY EXPANDING THE PANEL FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY TO 15
MEMBERS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. REILLY: SO, WE'RE ADDING A -- A -- AN APPOINTEE
350
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT'S ELECTED BY THE PRESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNCILS
THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND AN ADDITIONAL APPOINTMENT BY THE MAYOR; THAT'S
CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. REILLY: SO WE GAVE THE MAYOR ANOTHER --
ANOTHER APPOINTMENT, AND WE ALSO -- I SEE IN THE LEGISLATION THAT IT
ALLOWS THE -- ANY APPOINTEE TO STILL BE REMOVED, BUT IT ONLY REQUIRES THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC WITHIN TEN DAYS; IS THAT
CORRECT?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'M SORRY, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT
WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THE ADDITIONAL MAYORAL APPOINTEE TO THE
PEP. RIGHT. SO, IN TERMS OF THE REMOVAL OF A MEMBER FROM THE PEP,
WE'RE JUST TALKING -- YOU WERE ASKING, SO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY SHALL
PROVIDE TO THE PUBLIC WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE REASONS AT LEAST TEN DAYS IN
ADVANCE OF THE REMOVAL.
MR. REILLY: SO IS THERE -- IS THERE ANY, LIKE, DEBATE
ABOUT THE PERSON BEING REMOVED, OR IS IT JUST WE'RE TELLING YOU THAT
WE'RE REMOVING THEM AND THAT'S IT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S THE REASONS WHY THE PERSON IS
-- IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
MR. REILLY: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ON THE BILL, PLEASE, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. REILLY: SO, ON MAYORAL CONTROL, THIS IS
351
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PRESENTED IN THIS BILL AND, UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT INCREASING
TRANSPARENCY OR ACCOUNTABILITY. WE CAN PRETEND THAT WE'RE ADJUSTING
THE PEP AND IT'S GOT SOME TEETH, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT DOESN'T. AND,
ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE JUST ALLOWING RUBBER STAMPS BY THE PEP FOR POLICIES
WHERE WE CAN HAVE SOME REAL CHECKS AND BALANCES. IT'S A MISSED
OPPORTUNITY AND YOU KNOW WHAT, HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE SOME
HEARINGS ON IT, BUT IF WE'RE EXTENDING THIS AS IS, IT FALLS -- IT FALLS SHORT
AND WE'RE ONCE AGAIN KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. RAIA.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
CHAIRWOMAN YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, BE HAPPY TO.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU. YOU'RE DOING A WONDERFUL
JOB. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND I WON'T TRY TO BELABOR THIS --
MS. WEINSTEIN: LONG DAY AND A LONG NIGHT.
MR. RAIA: I'M GOING TO START OFF WITH... WELL, AN
INTERESTING QUESTION. HOW IS IT THAT WE'RE VOTING ON TWO CHAPTER
AMENDMENTS FROM THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE BILL THAT WE HAVEN'T
EVEN VOTED ON YET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT JUST HAPPENED THAT WE HAD
THE -- WE HAD THE MESSAGE OF NECESSITY ON THIS BILL AND NOT THE -- WE
DIDN'T YET HAVE IT ON THE MENTAL HEALTH BILL --
MR. RAIA: I HAVE NO PROBLEM BLAMING THE
GOVERNOR. SO, IF THAT'S THE ANSWER, THEN I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
352
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
(LAUGHTER)
MR. RAIA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
TAX AND REGULATION OF VAPOR PRODUCTS. NOW --
MS. WEINSTEIN: OH, VAPOR. YES.
MR. RAIA: OH, I'M SORRY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, SORRY. I JUST DIDN'T HEAR
"VAPOR PRODUCTS."
MR. RAIA: I'M JUST TRYING TO GET --
MS. WEINSTEIN: VAPOR PRODUCTS, YES.
MR. RAIA: THE THOUGHTS ARE NOT MOVING AS QUICKLY
AS THEY SHOULD BE AT THIS HOUR, BUT WE'LL GET THROUGH IT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: NOT A PROBLEM.
MR. RAIA: THE TAX AND REGULATION OF VAPOR
PRODUCTS. HOW -- I'VE HEARD THIS HOUSE A NUMBER OF TIMES DISCUSS THE
IMPORTANCE OF -- OF PROTECTING YOUNG PEOPLE FROM GETTING INVOLVED IN
-- IN VAPE PRODUCTS. SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY IT'S AN EPIDEMIC. I
CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SEE YOUNG PEOPLE VAPING. WHY IS IT THAT WE
REMOVED EVERY SINGLE BLOCK, ROAD BLOCK TO YOUNG PEOPLE STARTING WITH
-- STARTING TO VAPE? FOR INSTANCE, ELECTRONIC -- I THINK THE ORIGINAL
BUDGET HAD ELECTRONIC AGE VERIFICATION. I KNOW IN THE HEALTH
COMMITTEE WE -- YOU KNOW, WE PASSED OUT OF THE HEALTH COMMITTEE
RAISING THE SMOKING AGE FROM 18 TO 21. WHAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR -- FOR
MAKING IT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, EASIER FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO START VAPING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE -- WE DID PASS THE
353
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LEGISLATION THAT -- YET TO BE SIGNED, RAISING THE AGE FROM 18 TO 21.
MR. RAIA: SO THAT'S WHERE -- THAT'S -- SO, WE'RE
HOPING THE GOVERNOR SIGNS THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE'RE ASSUMING THAT -- YES.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. AND THE ELECTRONIC AGE
VERIFICATION, ONE OF THE, PROBABLY, MOST USEFUL THINGS TO KEEP YOUNG
PEOPLE FROM VAPING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE ONE OF THE
ITEMS THAT WE WILL LOOK AT POST -- POST-BUDGET.
MR. RAIA: I HOPE SO. THANK YOU.
NOW, THE 20 PERCENT SUPPLEMENTAL TAX ON THE RETAIL
SALE OF VAPOR PRODUCTS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. RAIA: WHERE'S THE REVENUE GOING?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT'S -- THAT REVENUE IS NOT
DEDICATED.
MR. RAIA: IT'S NOT DEDICATED?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, IT'S --
MR. RAIA: I -- I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING INTO THE
TOBACCO CONTROL AND INSURANCE INITIATIVE POOL, WHICH IS DEDICATED TO
HCRA.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. SO, RIGHT. YES, CORRECT. IT
GOES TO THE TOBACCO TAX.
MR. RAIA: MY MENTOR TOLD ME NEVER ASK A QUESTION
YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO. OKAY. SO, IT IS DEDICATED --
354
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THOSE
DRY CLEANING BAGS.
(LAUGHTER)
MR. RAIA: SO, NONE OF IT'S GOING INTO THE GENERAL
FUND, THIS IS ALL GOING INTO A DEDICATED FUND --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. RAIA: -- DEALING WITH HEALTH CARE. THAT'S GOOD.
MOVING ON TO THE EXCISE TAX ON THE SALE OF OPIOIDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
MR. RAIA: LAST YEAR -- WELL, LET'S SEE, IN DECEMBER
2018, A MANHATTAN FEDERAL JUDGE RULED THAT WHILE THE CONCERNS DRIVING
NEW YORK'S DECISION TO ADOPT THE STEWARDSHIP PAYMENT WERE VALID, THE
MEANS BY WHICH THE STATE WOULD EXTRACT PAYMENTS FROM THE COMPANIES
VIOLATED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. BASICALLY, THAT WAS A -- A FOR-
SALE TAX. WE'VE STILL GOT A FOR-SALE TAX. SO, HOW -- HOW IS THIS NOT
GOING TO PASS -- HOW IS THIS GOING TO PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE -- WE DO SUNSET THAT
LEGISLATION THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF -- WAS THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION. AND THE
ISSUE THAT THE -- THE COURTS FOUND WAS A PROBLEM IS REMOVED FROM THIS
PROPOSAL.
MR. RAIA: WHAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE BUDGET
THAT WE ANTICIPATE WILL PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE REMOVED THE LANGUAGE
THAT -- IT -- THE BILL IS -- THE LANGUAGE IS SILENT AS TO PASSING THE COST ON
TO THE CONSUMER.
355
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. RAIA: SO, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PREVENT THE COST
FROM BEING PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE -- WE WERE SUCCESSFUL
FROM THE -- IN REMOVING FROM THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL THE EXPRESS
LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE COST TO BE PASSED ON TO THE
CONSUMER. INSTEAD, WE'RE SILENT ABOUT THAT.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. SO, WE'RE KIND OF ROLLING THE DICE
AGAIN. ARE THERE ANY CARVE-OUTS? IS THERE ANYBODY EXEMPT FROM
PAYING THE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES --
MR. RAIA: -- OPIOID -- OPIOID TAX?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. WE EXCLUDE HOSPICE AND
OASAS PROVIDERS, AS WELL AS DRUGS THAT ARE USED TO TREAT SUBSTANCE --
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS.
MR. RAIA: SO, PATIENTS WHO HAVE CHRONIC PAIN AND
APPROPRIATELY-PRESCRIBED MEDS FROM THEIR LICENSED HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER, PEOPLE RECOVERING FROM SURGERY, C-SECTION, HIP REPLACEMENTS,
MASTECTOMIES, CANCER AND CHRONIC PAIN FROM DEBILITATING DISEASES,
PHARMACISTS, HOSPITALS, AND EVEN THE MEDICAID PROGRAM. SO,
ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE TAXING OURSELVES. CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, YOU KNOW -- I -- I GUESS YOU
COULD SAY THAT.
MR. RAIA: KIND OF WEIRD, RIGHT? SO, ESSENTIALLY,
THIS IS A SIN TAX, OR I GUESS WE COULD CALL IT A "PAIN TAX."
ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
356
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. RAIA: I DO -- I WILL HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION TO
CIRCLE BACK WITH, BUT --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR. RAIA.
MR. RAIA: ON THE BILL. OKAY. THIS IS A SIN TAX ON --
ON PAIN, ESSENTIALLY. PEOPLE THAT ARE LEGITIMATE USERS OF -- OF A HEALTH
CARE TREATMENT THAT'S BEEN ORDERED BY A DOCTOR IN ORDER -- YOU KNOW,
THEY'RE BEING TAXED IN ORDER TO BRIDGE A REVENUE SHORTFALL BECAUSE THE
COURT SAID WE COULDN'T HAVE THAT MONEY, AND NOW WE'RE MAKING ANOTHER
RUN AT IT. IT'S GOOD THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND GIVE THAT
$100 MILLION TO... TO OASAS AND -- AND -- AND, YOU KNOW, TRY AND PUT
THAT TO GOOD USE. BUT CARVING OUT CERTAIN END USERS SEEMS TO BE
VALUING SOME PEOPLE OVER OTHERS, AND WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT THEIR
PAIN IS NOT LEGITIMATE. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ALL PHARMACY
ASSOCIATIONS, THE CANCER SOCIETY, FAMILY PRACTITIONERS, THE MEDICAL
SOCIETY OF NEW YORK STATE, SENIOR CARE ASSOCIATIONS AND DISABILITY
RIGHTS CENTER ALL OPPOSE THIS. BECAUSE WE'RE -- WE'RE TELLING PEOPLE
THAT, YOUR PAIN IS NOT WORTHY TO BE EXEMPTED FROM A TAX. I HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH THAT, AND I HAVE A FEELING THIS IS NOT GOING TO PASS
CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER, AND IT REALLY SHOULDN'T.
MR. SPEAKER, WILL THE CHAIRWOMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER
QUICK QUESTION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, I'D BE HAPPY TO.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ON THE
COMMUTER TAX. HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST MY CONSTITUENTS TO DRIVE
357
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INTO THE -- INTO LOWER MANHATTAN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CONGESTION
PRICING?
MR. RAIA: YEAH --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU SAY
COMMUTER --
MR. RAIA: CONGESTION PRICING, YES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY. SO, IN THE SPIRIT OF HAVING
OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOME EXPERTISE IN SUPPORT OF THE MEASURE
ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, I'M -- ASSEMBLYWOMAN PAULIN, CHAIR OF OUR
CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE, WILL BE HANDLING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
MTA, THE CONGESTION PLAN, SO --
MR. RAIA: I'M TOTALLY COOL WITH THAT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'LL DEFER TO MS. PAULIN.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU.
MS. PAULIN, WOULD YOU YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS?
MS. PAULIN: I -- I'D BE HAPPY TO. I'M HAPPY TO
STAND UP.
(LAUGHTER)
MR. RAIA: I HEAR YOU. I ALWAYS SAY IT'S LIKE FLYING
TO JAPAN WHEN WE HAVE A BUDGET NEGOTIATION. BUT... SO, BASIC
QUESTION: HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS?
MS. PAULIN: THE -- THE TOLL WILL BE DETERMINED BY
THE TBTA AFTER THEY GET ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATION FROM A COMMITTEE
358
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SET UP CALLED THE TRANSIT [SIC] MOBILITY REVIEW
BOARD, AND THEN THAT RECOMMENDATION WILL GO BACK TO THE TBTA FOR
THEM TO ADOPT THE TOLL.
MR. RAIA: AT WHAT POINT DO WE HAVE A SAY IN
WHETHER OR NOT WE LIKE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LEVY?
MS. PAULIN: I GUESS YOU HAVE A SAY RIGHT NOW,
ASSEMBLYMAN.
MR. RAIA: BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S GOING
TO COST. I -- I MEAN, AND THE --
MS. PAULIN: I --
MR. RAIA: GO AHEAD.
MS. PAULIN: YOU KNOW, THE -- THE COST WILL BE
DETERMINED ON TWO FACTORS: ONE, THE -- YOU KNOW, WHAT WE DO IS WE
ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT $15 BILLION WORTH OF CAPITAL HAS TO BE RAISED FOR THE
2020-24 PLAN. AND CONGESTION IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK IN THE CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT HAS TO BE REDUCED. SO, BASED ON THOSE TWO FACTORS,
THIS ADVISORY BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO TOLLS, AS TO
DISCOUNTS AND CREDITS, AND THE -- BECAUSE THE CONGESTION PRICING
INFRASTRUCTURE IS GOING TO TAKE AT LEAST TWO YEARS TO SET UP, IT'S HARD TO
MAKE AN ASSESSMENT RIGHT NOW. WE DO KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT GROUPS
LIKE FIX NEW YORK CAME UP WITH A PLAN THAT WAS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO
THE ONE THAT WE'RE ADOPTING IN TERMS OF THE... THE PARAMETERS, WHERE
THE... YOU KNOW, WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE INSTALLED, AND THE
FACT THAT IT WOULD BE 60TH -- INCLUDING 60TH AND BELOW, AND THEY CAME
UP WITH A FIGURE OF $11.52. SO, WE IMAGINE IT'S GOING TO BE IN THAT
359
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RANGE. BUT THE DETERMINATION WILL BE DECIDED WHEN IT'S CLOSER TO THE
TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION.
MR. RAIA: SO, WE HAVE A DOLLAR FIGURE WE WANT TO
ACHIEVE. SO, IN A PERFECT WORLD IF EVERYBODY SEES THERE'S NOW A
COMMUTER TAX AND THEY DECIDE TO JUMP ON A TRAIN OR CARPOOL OR DO WHAT
HAVE YOU, AND WE ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF CONGESTION PRICING AND -- AND
KEEPING PEOPLE OUT OF LOWER MANHATTAN, THEN ESSENTIALLY, SOME PEOPLE
COULD BE PAYING A LOT MORE THAN $11.50.
MS. PAULIN: WELL, WE -- WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE
POPULATION IN THE CITY HAS GROWN, AND WE WOULD ASSUME THAT'S GOING TO
JUST CONTINUE. SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A -- WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
EXPECTATION IS. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TWO GOALS. AS I SAID, ONE GOAL IS
TO REDUCE THE CONGESTION. WE, IN FACT, IN NEW YORK ARE -- IS THE -- I
MEAN, NEXT TO LOS ANGELES, IT'S THE MOST CONGESTED CITY IN THE UNITED
STATES, AND MAYBE THE WORLD. AND SO, THE GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER
OF CARS, AND THE GOAL IS TO RAISE REVENUE TO FIX THE SUBWAYS AND
MAINTAIN THE COMMUTER RAILS.
MR. RAIA: ARE THERE ANY CARVE-OUTS, PEOPLE THAT --
OR GROUPS THAT ARE EXEMPT?
MS. PAULIN: THERE ARE TWO GROUPS THAT ARE EXEMPT
BY THE LAW. THAT'S PEOPLE WHO ARE DISABLED OR PEOPLE WHO ARE DRIVING
PEOPLE WHO ARE DISABLED. AND THE OTHER GROUP IS EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
AND THAT'S DEFINED IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW. SO -- AND I CAN
READ THEM, IF YOU WANT. DID YOU WANT? NO? OKAY. THE OTHER CREDITS
AND DISCOUNTS WILL BE DETERMINED AGAIN BY THAT SAME SUBGROUP, THE
360
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TRANSIT [SIC] MOBILITY REVIEW BOARD, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
TBTA, AND THEN THROUGH THAT SAME MECHANISM, THOSE DISCOUNTS AND
CREDITS WILL BE ESTABLISHED.
MR. RAIA: WE'RE VERY BLESSED TO HAVE SOME OF THE
WORLD'S BEST HOSPITALS IN THAT AREA OF MANHATTAN. I THINK MY MOTHER'S
ACTUALLY HAD OVER 20 SURGERIES AT THE HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY. A
LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE GO FOR SURGICAL PROCEDURES, THEY HAVE TO GO FOR
FOLLOW-UP. THEY CERTAINLY CAN'T TAKE A TRAIN. YOU KNOW, HEAVEN FORBID
A WOMAN THAT'S HAD A MASTECTOMY CERTAINLY DOESN'T WANT TO BE
BOUNCING INTO PEOPLE. SO, THERE'S NOTHING FOR -- FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE
COMING INTO THE CITY TO OBTAIN THE -- THE HIGH QUALITY OF -- OF HEALTH
CARE THAT'S OFFERED THERE?
MS. PAULIN: AGAIN, THE TRANSIT [SIC] MOBILITY
REVIEW BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO LOOK AT A GROUP OF FACTORS, ONE OF WHICH
IS CALLED "HARDSHIPS," WHICH I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS WOULD BE WHAT
YOU'RE SUGGESTING WOULD BE CLASSIFIED UNDER, AND THEY ARE -- YOU KNOW,
WE GIVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO COME UP WITH THE PLAN OF WHAT WOULD BE
DISCOUNTED AND WHAT WOULD BE CREDITED. AND THERE'S AN APPLICATION
PROCESS THAT THE TBTA WILL HAVE ALREADY SET UP FOR PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES, AND THAT SAME APPLICATION PROCESS WOULD BE USED FOR
WHATEVER -- WHATEVER CRITERIA WAS RECOMMENDED FROM THE TRANSIT [SIC]
MOBILITY REVIEW BOARD.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. I -- I'M BLESSED TO HAVE AN
AWESOME TENANT THAT LIVES IN MY HOUSE. HE'S A UNION STEAMFITTER.
EVERY DAY HE LEAVES AT 5:30 IN THE MORNING, COMES HOME 7:30 EVERY
361
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
NIGHT. HE CAN'T TAKE THE TRAIN BECAUSE HIS TOOLS OF THE TRADE, HE -- HE
HAS TO KEEP WITH HIM.
(BUZZER)
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I'LL -- I'LL CIRCLE BACK.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. RAIA: OR I'LL EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LALOR.
MR. LALOR: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. BE HAPPY TO.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. LALOR: THANK YOU. I WANT TO TALK VERY
QUICKLY ABOUT SECTION SSS OF THIS BILL, THE FILM TAX CREDIT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. LALOR: AND IN THIS BILL WE'RE EXTENDING BY
TWO YEARS THE FILM TAX CREDIT. SO, WHEN WILL THAT END NOW?
MS. WEINSTEIN: 2024.
MR. LALOR: SO, FIVE MORE YEARS AT $420 MILLION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. LALOR: SO, WE'RE -- WE'RE BASICALLY --
MS. WEINSTEIN: BUT WE -- WE ALREADY -- WE'RE
EXTENDING IT, BUT IT STILL HAD TWO YEARS -- WE'VE ALREADY AUTHORIZED TWO
YEARS, SO --
362
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. LALOR: RIGHT. SO, WE'RE ADDING $840 MILLION
--
MS. WEINSTEIN: IN THE OUT-YEARS.
MR. LALOR: CORRECT. AND FIVE YEARS TIMES $420
MILLION, WE'RE OVER $2 BILLION. WHY THE FILM INDUSTRY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE NUMBER -- WHAT HAS
HAPPENED SINCE WE ESTABLISHED THIS -- THIS CREDIT IS WE'VE HAD AN
INCREDIBLE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THIS -- THIS TAX -- THIS
TAX CREDIT. IN BROOKLYN, IN QUEENS AND THE BRONX THERE ARE STUDIOS THAT
DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE. THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
AND REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED BY THE -- THIS INDUSTRY BEING HERE IN NEW
YORK, UPSTATE NEW YORK, ALSO. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT INDUSTRY FOR NEW
YORK STATE.
MR. LALOR: WHY IS THE AMOUNT $420 MILLION? IT'S
-- IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT. IT'S THE BIGGEST TAX CREDIT WE GIVE. WHY -- WHY
THAT NUMBER?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S -- IT'S -- AS I SAID, THIS IS A
TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC -- THE CREDIT BRINGS TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC
BENEFIT TO ALL PARTS OF NEW YORK STATE. WE GET TREMENDOUS -- WE GET A
LOT OF REVENUE FROM THE EMPLOYEES, AS WELL AS ALL OF --
MR. LALOR: SURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THE LOCAL IMPACT. AND THAT'S A
NUMBER THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO SETTLE ON.
MR. LALOR: IS THERE A POINT OF DIMINISHING
RETURNS? IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE GAVE THEM $300 MILLION INSTEAD OF
363
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
$420-, WE'D HAVE ANOTHER $120 MILLION TO USE FOR TAX RELIEF FOR OTHER
INDUSTRIES, WE COULD USE IT FOR TEACHERS, WE COULD USE IT FOR ALL KINDS OF
THINGS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW --
MR. LALOR: WOULD WE LOSE ANY OF THIS ACTIVITY IF
WE WERE STILL GIVING AWAY $300 MILLION? WE'D STILL BE THE LEADING
STATE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: AS -- AS YOU KNOW, A CREDIT IS OFF
OF THE INCOME, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE THE DOLLARS TO SPEND. THIS IS A
CREDIT OFF OF THE INCOME THAT IS GENERATED BY THIS --
MR. LALOR: NO. IT'S ON THEIR BELOW-THE-LINE
PRODUCTION COSTS. SO, WHATEVER THEY SPEND, WE GIVE THEM, IN NEW
YORK CITY, A 30 PERCENT REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT. OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK
CITY, WE GIVE THEM A 40 PERCENT REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT. WHICH MEANS
OFTEN THEIR TAX LIABILITY IN NEW YORK STATE IS ELIMINATED AND WE END UP
CUTTING THEM A CHECK. WE CUT HOLLYWOOD FILMMAKERS A CHECK OUT OF
THE POCKET OF THE TAXPAYERS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO GO BACK
TO, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT IN -- IN THE STATE. IT'S ESTIMATED
THAT THE -- THIS PROGRAM HAS GENERATED, I BELIEVE SINCE ITS EXISTENCE, 200
AND -- I'M NOT SURE OF THE EXACT TIMEFRAME, BUT 237,500 JOBS IN THE -- IN
THE STATE.
MR. LALOR: ARE THOSE FULL-TIME JOBS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SOME MAY BE, SOME -- SOME
AREN'T --
364
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. LALOR: DO WE KNOW -- YOU'RE -- YOU'RE CITING
A NUMBER. DO WE KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THEM OR HOW MANY ARE
FULL-TIME? HOW MANY ARE YEAR ROUND? HOW MANY PROVIDE HEALTH
INSURANCE? OR HOW MANY ARE TEMPORARY? IT'S A BIG NUT, $420 MILLION.
WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING FOR IT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OBVIOUSLY, SOME OF THESE... THE
ECONOMIC BENEFIT HAS BEEN $3.2 BILLION. THE -- THE -- SOME OF THESE --
SOME OF THESE POSITIONS MAY BE FULL-TIME, SOME OF THEM ARE -- WILL RUN,
IF IT'S A SEVERAL-MONTH PRODUCTION, FOR... IF IT'S ONE OF THESE --
MR. LALOR: SURE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- TV SHOWS, A SERIAL, THE SHORTER
PERIOD OF -- BE A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME. IF A MOVIE IS BEING FILMED, IT
DEPENDS ON -- ON WHAT'S BEING FILMED --
MR. LALOR: I SEE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- AND FOR HOW LONG THAT FILMING
GOES ON.
MR. LALOR: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THERE'S A STUDY
OUT OF MICHIGAN STATE, IT SAYS 2,763 SHORT-TERM FILM JOBS, WHICH IS A LOT
OF WHAT WE PRODUCE -- EXTRAS COUNT AS A JOB, CATERERS, SET-MAKERS --
2,763 OF THOSE JOBS EQUAL ONLY 250 FULL-TIME, YEAR ROUND JOBS. THE
KIND OF JOBS THAT, YOU KNOW, CAN FEED A MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILY HERE IN
NEW YORK. SO, WHEN WE -- WHEN WE CITE A BIG NUMBER, THAT'S REALLY A
VERY SMALL NUMBER OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, A LOT OF THESE -- THESE
PEOPLE WILL -- WILL GO FROM JOB -- WILL GO FROM ONE SHOOT TO ANOTHER
365
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SHOOT, FROM ONE SHOW -- MAY WORK ON ONE SHOW AND WORK ON ANOTHER
SHOW. YOU KNOW, I -- WHEN THIS TAX CREDIT FIRST GOT ESTABLISHED, I RECALL
WALKING WITH SOME OF MY BROOKLYN COLLEAGUES IN THE STEINER STUDIO,
WHEN THEY HEARD WHO WERE, PEOPLE WHO WERE WORKING THERE WERE JUST
ECSTATIC ABOUT THIS CREDIT. I RECALL ONE WOMAN SAYING, WHO LIVED --
MR. LALOR: I'M SURE THEY WERE. I'M SURE THEY
WERE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: ONE WOMAN WHO LIVED IN
BROOKLYN SAYING THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SHE'S NOT HAD TO GO TO WORK OUT OF
A HOTEL ROOM, THAT SHE'S BEEN ABLE TO WORK OUT OF HER OWN -- THAT SHE'S
ABLE TO STAY IN HER OWN APARTMENT AND HAVE A JOB HERE IN -- IN NEW
YORK CITY. WE HEARD THAT THROUGH -- FOR MANY PEOPLE, THAT THEY'VE HAD
TO LEAVE -- THEY HAD TO LEAVE NEW YORK BEFORE THIS CREDIT, TO BE ABLE TO
GO TO A -- TO BE ABLE TO GO TO A SITE THAT -- WHERE THEY COULD WORK.
MR. LALOR: RIGHT. AND YOU'D AGREE IF -- IF NEW
YORK STATE WAS PAYING 30 OR 40 PERCENT OF THE PRODUCTION COSTS OF A
MANUFACTURER, A PIZZERIA, A DRY CLEANER OR A PHARMACY, NAME YOUR
BUSINESS, THEY'D BE ECSTATIC ABOUT IT, ALSO.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN
INDUSTRY THAT'S A NATIONAL INDUSTRY THAT CAN GO -- NOT ONLY GO TO ANOTHER
STATE, BUT AS I SAID, THE PERSON -- A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE FILMING IN
TORONTO, WE WERE EXPORTING OUR -- OUR EMPLOYEES OUT OF NEW YORK
STATE. IT'S A MOBILE INDUSTRY, AND WE'VE REALLY CAPTURED NEW YORK AS
THE CENTRAL HUB FOR SO MUCH OF THE FILMING THAT TAKES PLACE IN THE
COUNTRY, AND EVEN NATIONALLY.
366
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. LALOR: RIGHT. BUT IF WE ELIMINATED THIS, GOT
RID OF ALL $420 MILLION, WE'D STILL HAVE SOME FILM PRODUCTION HERE,
WOULDN'T WE? I MEAN, LAW AND ORDER WAS HERE BEFORE THE CREDIT. ONE
OF THE -- ONE OF THE SHOWS THAT IS SUBSIDIZED IS SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE.
SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE IS OLDER THAN I AM. WE GIVE THEM $15-17 MILLION
A YEAR TO FILM IN NEW YORK. IT WAS NEVER GOING TO BE "LIVE FROM
VANCOUVER, IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT." IT'S ALWAYS BEEN "LIVE FROM NEW
YORK." SO, WHY ARE WE GIVING THEM $15-17 MILLION EVERY YEAR?
MS. WEINSTEIN: ALL -- ALL OF THESE CREDITS ADD UP
TO INCREASED INCOME IN NEW YORK STATE. INCREASED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY,
INCREASED INCOME.
MR. LALOR: IF YOU SPEND $420 MILLION, YOU'RE
GOING TO GET A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. DO YOU THINK
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY COST? IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE TOOK THIS $420
MILLION IN TAX RELIEF ON ONE INDUSTRY AND GAVE IT, MAYBE, TO INDIVIDUALS
IN REDUCTIONS IN THE PERSONAL INCOME TAX, OR GAVE IT TO ANOTHER INDUSTRY,
OR REDUCED OTHER TAXES, THERE WOULD BE TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC BENEFIT,
ALSO? JOBS CREATED? CHIPS? THAT'S FOR YOU, PHIL.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I MEAN, WE -- WE DO GIVE, I THINK,
OVER $1 BILLION IN MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUTS AS PART OF THIS BUDGET, SO...
MR. LALOR: YOU KNOW, IN 2013 THE GOVERNOR
COMMISSIONED A STUDY TO STUDY THE TAX CODES. STUDY THE SUBSIDIES.
AND THERE WAS AN ADDENDUM THAT WASN'T PUBLISHED BUT IT LEAKED OUT.
AND IF YOU -- IF YOU WILL, CAN I READ YOU A QUOTE FROM IT? THESE ARE
GOVERNOR CUOMO'S OWN ECONOMISTS STUDYING --
367
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'VE -- I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO --
MR. LALOR: -- THE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- ON THAT, SO --
MR. LALOR: -- TAX CODES. GOOD.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO LISTEN --
MR. LALOR: THAT'S $420 MILLION, ONE OF THE BIGGEST
THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO TONIGHT. THE FILM PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT,
NOW GENERALLY 30 PERCENT OF QUALIFYING COSTS, IS LARGE RELATIVE TO
INDUSTRY PROFITS AND TAX LIABILITY BECAUSE THE CREDIT EXCEEDS TAX
LIABILITY MANY TIMES OVER AND IS REFUNDABLE, IN EFFECT, IS A PROGRAM OF
CASH PAYMENTS BY THE STATE TO CREDIT RECIPIENTS. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM
OUR ANALYSIS THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SIZE OF THE FILM
CREDITS. THE STATE SHOULD CONSIDER SCALING BACK THE CREDITS AND
MONITORING THE FILM INDUSTRY CLOSELY TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT ON ITS
ACTIVITIES, SHOULD SUCH A CUTBACK OCCUR. SO, THAT'S PROBABLY -- THAT'S
2013, SO THAT'S $2.5 BILLION TAX DOLLARS AGO. I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE
WERE UPSET ABOUT AMAZON. I WASN'T A FAN OF THE AMAZON DEAL. THIS IS
BIGGER THAN THE AMAZON DEAL IN THE PAST. IT'S GOING TO DOUBLE WHAT THE
AMAZON DEAL WAS. AND, FOR THE MOST PART, AMAZON WAS GOING TO
CREATE FULL-TIME JOBS. HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF PART-TIME JOBS,
AND OVER FIVE YEARS, $2.5 BILLION. WHY -- WHY IS THIS -- WHY IS THIS A
GOOD INVESTMENT? I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. YOU'RE THE
PROPONENT OF IT. WHY -- WHY IS THIS A GOOD INVESTMENT OVER SOMETHING
ELSE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- I HAVE SAID THAT THIS A -- I'LL
368
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
JUST REPEAT WHAT I'VE SAID, THAT THIS IS A -- A CREDIT THAT HAS PRODUCED
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY THROUGHOUT OUR STATE, IT HAS BROAD SUPPORT IN
COMMUNITIES AROUND THE STATE, AND WE ARE CONTINUING IT.
MR. LALOR: DO YOU REMEMBER A COUPLE OF YEARS
AGO SONY PICTURES WAS HACKED, SOME OF THEIR E-MAILS BECAME PUBLIC?
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. LALOR: THERE WAS A -- THERE WERE E-MAILS
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF SONY TO OTHER EXECUTIVES IN THE FILM INDUSTRY, OUR
GOVERNOR WAS GOING TO CALIFORNIA, HE RAISED $300,000 IN ONE NIGHT,
AND THESE HACKED E-MAILS THAT NO ONE WAS SUPPOSED TO SEE, BUT THEY
BECAME PUBLIC, SAID, HEY, WE HAVE TO RAISE $50 MILLION -- $50,000 FOR
GOVERNOR CUOMO'S FUNDRAISER HERE IN CALIFORNIA, EXPLICITLY BECAUSE
HE'S A DEFENDER OF THESE TAX CREDITS. SO, HOLLYWOOD FILMMAKERS ARE
GIVING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO A POLITICAL FIGURE, AND THEY'RE GETTING
BILLIONS BACK OVER TIME. IS THAT TROUBLING TO YOU?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE -- AS I SAID EARLIER, THE FILM
TAX CREDIT ENJOYS WIDE SUPPORT AMONGST COMMUNITIES AROUND OUR STATE
AND AMONGST MANY OF THE MEMBERS -- TREMENDOUS SUPPORT AMONGST
MEMBERS IN -- IN THIS HOUSE.
MR. LALOR: DID YOU READ THE STORY LAST MONTH
NOW, IN MARCH, THAT HBO LAID OFF 200 WORKERS IN LONG ISLAND?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I --
MR. LALOR: THAT WAS BIG NEWS, 200 NEW YORKERS
LOST THEIR JOBS AT HBO. HBO FROM 2014 TO 2017 RECEIVED $157
369
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MILLION IN THIS SUPPOSEDLY GREAT JOB-CREATING ECONOMIC ENGINE THAT
WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND TO THEM.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I --
MR. LALOR: DO YOU THINK OF A COMPANY THAT LAYS
OFF --
MS. WEINSTEIN: I MUST HAVE MISSED THAT ARTICLE
THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED.
MR. LALOR: OKAY. DO YOU -- DO YOU THINK A
COMPANY THAT RECEIVES $157 MILLION, ABOUT -- ABOUT $30 MILLION A YEAR,
SHOULD LAY OFF EMPLOYEES IN OUR STATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, I CAN'T COMMENT ON
SOMETHING THAT I DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE -- KNOWLEDGE OF.
MR. LALOR: WELL, LET'S BE HYPOTHETICAL. A
COMPANY RECEIVES $125 MILLION OVER FOUR YEARS -- I'M SORRY, $157
MILLION OVER FOUR YEARS FROM NEW YORK STATE. SHOULD THEY BE ABLE TO
LAY OFF EMPLOYEES IN NEW YORK STATE? IS THAT A PROBLEM? IT'S A
PROBLEM FOR ME.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK
AT THAT -- THAT INSTANCE AND LOOK AT THE --
MR. LALOR: SHOULD WE LOOK AT THAT BEFORE WE
SPEND ANOTHER $420 MILLION EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: I -- IT'S A BROADER QUESTION ABOUT
TAX CREDITS IN GENERAL THAT -- THAT YOU'RE ASKING, THE ISSUE ABOUT
INCREASED TRANSPARENCY IN -- IN THESE -- IN CREDITS THAT ARE HAPPENING.
AND THE -- THE HBO CLOSING APPARENTLY IS THE -- CLOSING THEIR FACILITY IS
370
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PART OF A REORGANIZATION PLAN. AND THEY -- THEY ARE, FOR THE BLOOMBERG
ARTICLE I'M READING, SOME OF THE APPROXIMATELY 200 EMPLOYEES WILL
TRANSFER TO NEW FACILITIES IN MANHATTAN FROM THE LONG ISLAND LOCATION.
SO, I'M NOT REALLY SURE THAT THEY'RE --
MR. LALOR: JUST -- IF YOU KEEP READING, SOME OF --
SOME OF THEM ARE LOSING THEIR JOB --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- NOT LEAVING -- LEAVING OUR
STATE, THEY'RE JUST LEAVING THE ISLAND.
MR. LALOR: KEEP -- KEEP READING. THEY'RE LEAVING
OUR STATE. SOME ARE LEAVING OUR STATE.
BUT I'LL -- BUT I'LL MOVE ON. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE
DISNEY-FOX MERGER? TWO BIG MEDIA COMPANIES ARE -- ARE MERGING --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU -- YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE A LOT
MORE TIME THAN -- THAN I DO TO --
MR. LALOR: WELL, WE'VE GIVEN --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- KEEP UP WITH SOME OF THE NEWS
SO I'M SORRY.
MR. LALOR: DISNEY AND FOX, WE'VE GIVEN $112
MILLION TO, THEY'VE ALREADY LAID OFF 20 PEOPLE. THEY'RE GOING TO LAY OFF
3,000 MORE. NOT ALL IN NEW YORK, BUT MY POINT IS, WE'RE GIVING THEM
LOTS OF MONEY. THEY ARE THE BIGGEST RECIPIENT OF A TAX CREDIT. THEY'RE
STILL LAYING OFF PEOPLE, THEY'RE MOSTLY CREATING PART-TIME JOBS. I THINK
WE SHOULD LOOK AT REDUCING IT. I THINK BEFORE WE EXTEND THIS TO $420
MILLION WE SHOULD KNOW HOW MANY ARE FULL-TIME, HOW MANY ARE
PART-TIME, HOW MANY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
371
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
I -- I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
ON THE BILL VERY QUICKLY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. LALOR: THANK YOU. THIS $420 MILLION IS NOT
IN A VACUUM. WE LIFT IT OFF OF HOLLYWOOD AND WE PUT IT ON ORDINARY
NEW YORKERS. THAT IS THE SIGNATURE PROBLEM IN THIS STATE. THAT'S WHY
PEOPLE ARE LEAVING THIS STATE. YEAH, HOLLYWOOD'S COMING IN WITH THEIR
PART-TIME JOBS, BUT REGULAR NEW YORKERS CAN'T FIND A JOB TO FEED THEIR
FAMILIES YEAR ROUND. AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE BIGGEST TAX CREDIT TO
THE MOST GLAMOROUS INDUSTRY AND SOME OF THE RICHEST PEOPLE.
I THINK IT'S OUTRAGEOUS, AND I'M OPPOSED TO THIS BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: MR. BARRON.
MR. BARRON: GOOD MORNING.
ACTING SPEAKER PICHARDO: GOOD MORNING.
(LAUGHTER)
MR. BARRON: HOW ARE YOU? STAY WOKE. THAT'S
THE SAYING, STAY WOKE. IT IS NO ACCIDENT THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT BILL
THAT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IS COMING TO US AT 2:30 IN THE MORNING. BUT
DON'T SLEEP ON THIS BILL. DON'T SLEEP ON THIS BILL. I CALL THIS, THE GOOD,
THE BAD AND THE UGLY. THE GOOD -- AND WE SHOULD GIVE A HANDCLAP TO
THE COLLEAGUES OF OURS WHO DID THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. THE BAIL, NO
CASH BAIL, THE DISCOVERY AND ALL THE PARTS OF THAT BILL WERE EXCELLENT.
LET'S GIVE THEM A HANDCLAP FOR THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE ON THAT BILL.
(CLAPPING)
372
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YOUR HANDCLAP IS WEAK BECAUSE YOU'RE TIRED. YOU'VE
GOT TO WAKE UP. THAT'S THE GOOD.
THE BAD IS WHAT THEY LEFT OUT. THE BAD IS WHAT THEY
LEFT OUT. SO, YOU'RE STUCK NOW. ELEVENTH-HOUR WE HAVE TO MAKE A
DECISION. AND YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE THE PROPER
DECISION, BECAUSE THEY LEFT OUT THE PIED-À-TERRE TAX, THE TAX OF THOSE RICH
PEOPLE WHO HAVE MILLION-DOLLAR HOMES. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? THEY
DON'T EVEN MIND BEING TAXED. BUT FOR SOME REASON, THE LEADERSHIP GETS
TOGETHER, HAS SOME CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSION, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT'S
GONE. THAT'S A TAX THAT WOULD HAVE GENERATED $400- TO $600 MILLION,
GONE. THE MILLIONAIRE'S TAX CREDIT, OR THE HIGH-EARNERS TAX DIDN'T GO FAR
ENOUGH. THAT WOULD HAVE GAVEN -- GIVEN YOU MORE REVENUE. AND
THEN, THE STOCK TRANSFER TAX THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE, BUT THEY REBATE IT
BACK TO WALL STREET. THAT $14 BILLION, IF WE COLLECTED THAT, YOU COULD
TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING. WE REFUSE TO COLLECT IT, EVEN DEBATE IT, DISCUSS
IT. IT'S NEVER IN ANYTHING. AND THEN EVERY TIME YOU WANT TO DO
SOMETHING, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR IT? WHAT, YOU WANT TO TAKE IT
OUT OF EDUCATION? THIS BILL NEEDS TO BE REJECTED, NO MATTER WHAT THE
CONSEQUENCES. AT SOME POINT -- THIS IS WORSE THAN LAST YEAR, THIS
PROCESS. AND WE HAVE THIS POLITICAL CHANGE, BUT IT'S WORSE THAN LAST
YEAR. WE SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR A BILL THAT TREATS OUR CHILDREN LIKE THIS.
LAST YEAR THEY ONLY ALLOCATED $618 MILLION FOR THE FOUNDATION AID.
THAT'S WITH THE OPPOSITION PARTY, REPUBLICANS IN POWER. GUESS HOW
MUCH THIS YEAR? $618 MILLION, THE SAME THING. AND FOR US IN THE BLACK
AND BROWN COMMUNITIES, WHERE THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS ARE, YOU HAVE
373
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TO TAKE $50 MILLION OUT OF THAT. SO IT'S DOWN TO $570 MILLION, AND THEY
OWE US $4 BILLION. BOTH HOUSES SAID $1.2 BILLION. HOW DOES BOTH
HOUSES AGREE TO THAT, AND THEN WE COME TO THE END AND WE HAD $618
MILLION. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
MAYORAL CONTROL, HE FAILED US. OUR CHILDREN THAT
GRADUATE ARE NOT PREPARED FOR COLLEGE OR A CAREER. NO ONE PERSON
SHOULD HAVE DICTATORIAL CONTROL OVER A $30 BILLION BUDGET, 1.1 MILLION
CHILDREN, 1,800 SCHOOLS. THAT IS ABSURD. WE MUST END MAYORAL
CONTROL. IT IS NOT WORKING. HE SAID HE WANTS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
HE'S THE MAYOR. HE'S ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE
CITY. HE WANTS POWER OVER THE CONTRACTS, THE $5 BILLION WORTH OF
CONTRACTS THAT COMES OUT OF THE EDUCATION BUDGET.
WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE COMMISSION. I'M FOR
CAMPAIGN FINANCE. WE SHOULD HAVE DONE A BILL AND PUT $60 BILLION,
WHATEVER, IF YOU HAVE THESE OTHER TAX REVENUE IN THERE AND BE -- HAVE IT
DONE LEGISLATIVELY, NOT THROUGH A COMMISSION. WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT
THAT. SO, WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE COMPONENTS IN THE BILL, MAYORAL
CONTROL, CHEATING OUR CHILDREN, THEY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO HELP US WITH
THE TAP GAP. THERE'S A GAP FOR THE TAP STUDENTS. CUNY CAN'T AFFORD
TO PAY THAT TAP GAP. THEY SAID THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY. REMEMBER
THEY DIDN'T HAVE MONEY AND THE GOVERNOR SAID HE WANTED THE EXCELSIOR
SCHOLARSHIPS FOR HIS UPPER-MIDDLE-CLASS STUDENTS? HE FOUND $124
MILLION LAST YEAR, $118 MILLION THIS YEAR. THEY FOUND MONEY FOR THAT.
EVERY TIME WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING, THEY CAN'T FIND THE MONEY.
UNLESS THE GOVERNOR WANTS SOMETHING, THE MONEY'S ALWAYS THERE. THIS
374
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IS DISAPPOINTING THAT YOU HAVE THE POWER IN BOTH HOUSES, AND HE STILL --
STILL GETS OVER. MAKE SURE YOU VOTE AGAINST HIS PAY RAISE. HE STILL GETS
OVER.
(LAUGHTER)
HE STILL GETS OVER. I'M APPEALING TO YOU, SOME OF YOU,
VOTE NO FOR THIS SO WE CAN SEND A MESSAGE THAT SOME OF US ARE NOT
GOING FOR THE LAST MINUTE "OKEYDOKE." WE'RE NOT GOING FOR THE FACT THAT
YOU MIGHT SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
THERE'LL BE AN EXTENDER BILL, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. SOME OF YOU
NEED TO VOTE NO TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU
TO DO THIS TO US EVERY YEAR, COME AT THIS HOUR, HOPING EVERYBODY'S TIRED
-- WAKE UP, I SEE YOU SLEEPING.
(LAUGHTER)
HOPING THAT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE TIRED, SO TIRED
THAT IF THE DEVIL CAME IN WITH A RESOLUTION THAT YOU WOULD PASS IT JUST TO
GET OUT OF HERE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, HE MAY HAVE COME IN.
(LAUGHTER)
BUT ANYWAY, I'M JUST HOPING THAT SOME OF US COULD
JUST SAY NO, SO WE CAN LET PEOPLE KNOW IN THE FUTURE WE'RE NOT GOING TO
BE PUT THROUGH THIS EVERY YEAR, AND NOT HAVE OUR CHILDREN PROTECTED.
ON A VERY SERIOUS SIDE, THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM IN THE SCHOOLS IN NEW
YORK CITY, IN PARTICULAR. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. THEY'RE
REALLY BAD. I THINK THEY HAVE A DECENT CHANCELLOR, BUT THE MAYOR NEEDS
TO GET OUT OF THE WAY, BECAUSE HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT EDUCATION.
SO, I JUST WANT TO URGE YOU TO DO THE THINGS THAT WE
375
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
NEED TO DO TO SEND A MESSAGE. SAY NO. SOME OF US HAVE TO SAY NO.
THERE'S TOO MUCH UGLY IN THIS UGLY -- I LEFT SOME OF THE UGLY OUT.
THERE'S MORE UGLY IN IT. I'M SURE THERE'S A LITTLE GOOD, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE. DON'T VOTE FOR YOUR PARTY. DON'T VOTE FOR A
PERSON. VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE. YOU KNOW -- SOME OF YOU I'M TALKING
TO IN THE HALLS, YOU KNOW THIS IS NO GOOD. WHAT COULD WE DO? VOTE
NO. THAT'S WHAT YOU COULD DO.
SO, I WANT TO APPEAL TO YOU TO DO THIS. I WILL BE VOTING
NO FOR THIS BILL, AS I VOTED NO FOR EVERY BILL THAT CAME UP, BECAUSE I'M
DOING A PROTEST VOTE. I'M SICK OF THIS. I'M SICK AND TIRED LIKE FANNIE
LOU HAMER WAS. I'M SICK AND TIRED OF US GOING THROUGH THE SAME THING
EVERY YEAR, AND NEVER DO THE RIGHT THING -- THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
RIGHT THING FOR OUR PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE. WE
HAVING IT ROUGH IN THIS STATE. POVERTY. YOU KNOW THEY HAVE $4.5
MILLION IN THE EMPIRE ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAM? $4.5 MILLION OUT OF $175
BILLION? THAT'S AN INSULT. WE DON'T HAVE A BUDGET THAT PRIORITIZES
PEOPLE, IT PRIORITIZES PARTY POLITICS. AND IT NEEDS TO STOP, AND IT CAN
HAPPEN WITH YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. QUART.
MR. QUART: ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.
QUART.
MR. QUART: YES, GOOD MORNING. I WANTED TO
SPEND A LITTLE TIME TALKING ABOUT THE CRITICAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
376
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PIECES OF LEGISLATION IN THIS REVENUE BUDGET. FIRST, THE LEGISLATION TO
REFORM OUR BAIL SYSTEM. I THINK SOMETIMES IN A PIECE OF LEGISLATION,
WHAT'S NOT IN THE LEGISLATION IS AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT IS IN THE
LEGISLATION. IN THIS BAIL REFORM LEGISLATION, YOU WILL NOT SEE THE WORD
"DANGEROUSNESS." YOU WILL NOT SEE A PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION. AND OUR
SPEAKER DESERVES MUCH OF THE CREDIT FOR THAT FACT. FIFTY-ONE YEARS THIS
BAIL STATUTE EXISTS, AND ALTHOUGH THE WORD "DANGEROUS" DOES NOT APPLY,
WE KNOW EACH AND EVERY DAY IN COURTROOMS ACROSS THE CITY AND STATE,
THAT A SUBJECTIVE VIEW OF DANGEROUSNESS, PUBLIC SAFETY, A BIAS EXISTS
EACH AND EVERY DAY IN OUR COURTROOMS. LET'S CALL IT WHAT IT IS:
DISCRIMINATION, DISPROPORTIONAL AGAINST PEOPLE OF COLOR. THAT WORD
APPEARS NOWHERE IN THIS BAIL LEGISLATION, IT'S BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF THIS
HOUSE. UNFORTUNATELY, IN FORGING THAT SUCCESS IN THIS LEGISLATION, WE
WERE NOT ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE COMPREHENSIVE BAIL REFORM THAT MANY OF
US FOUGHT FOR. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO END CASH BAIL. MISDEMEANORS ARE
STILL ALLOWED IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. AND WE STILL KEEP THE FALSE BINARY
CHOICE BETWEEN VIOLENCE AND NONVIOLENCE, INSTEAD OF RETURNING TO A
TRUE RISK-OF-FLIGHT ANALYSIS. SO, THERE IS MUCH WORK STILL TO BE DONE
GOING FORWARD IN YEARS AHEAD. AND WE MUST ALSO LOOK OUT OF THIS BODY
TO OUR FRIENDS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS THROUGHOUT THE 62 COUNTIES, AND
ASK THEM TO REFORM THEMSELVES, TO GO BEYOND WHERE WE HAVE GONE.
BUT I DID WANT TO SPEND THE BULK OF MY TIME TALKING
ABOUT THE CRITICAL SUCCESS OF THIS LEGISLATION, THIS PACKAGE OF LEGISLATION,
AND THAT IS, THE SEMINAL REFORM OF OUR DISCOVERY LAWS IN THE STATE OF
NEW YORK. TO CHAIRMAN LENTOL AND THE LEADERSHIP OF THE ASSEMBLY,
377
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REMARKABLE PROGRESS IN THIS AREA, SO MANY YEARS IN THE WAITING. WE
HAVE AN UNJUST AND UNFAIR DISCOVERY SYSTEM. ONE THAT PUNISHES POOR
PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY LANGUISH IN COUNTY JAILS, NOT KNOWING THE
INFORMATION AGAINST THEM. THEY TAKE PLEAS, AS OUR STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION IN THEIR REPORT SAID, WE HAVE A SYSTEM OF PLEAS, NOT TRIALS
IN THIS STATE. IN PART, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE IN COUNTY JAILS, OFTEN ON LOW-
LEVEL MISDEMEANORS, SOMETIMES FELONIES, BUT THEY DO NOT KNOW THE
EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM. THIS BILL CHANGES THAT. AND IT CHANGES THAT IN
A REAL WAY. IT MOVES US FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE PACK TO MAYBE ONE OF
THE TOP STATES IN THIS COUNTRY ON THE TRUE FLOW OF INFORMATION TO
DEFENDANTS, POOR PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THIS STATE.
BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH TALKING A LITTLE BIT -- I KNOW THE
HOUR IS EARLY IN THE MORNING -- ABOUT HOW WE GOT INTO SUCH A MESS ON
DISCOVERY IN THIS STATE. THINK ABOUT IT. IN THE MID-1970S AND BEYOND,
WE HAD EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS, WE HAD SUPPRESSION HEARINGS, POLICE
OFFICERS GAVE TESTIMONY, EVEN DEPOSITIONS. HOW WAS IT THAT WE MOVED
TO A SYSTEM OF TRIAL BY AMBUSH; THAT ONLY ON THIS DAY DO WE FINALLY FIX
25, 30 YEARS LATER? THERE ARE SO MANY CULPRITS IN THIS SAD STORY. BUT I
THINK YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO 1982 AND LOOK AT SOMEWHAT OF THE HISTORY
OF THIS FLAWED AND DEEPLY HURTFUL POLICY ON BROKEN WINDOWS POLICING.
IN 1982, A WIDELY UNREAD LAW REVIEW ARTICLE ABOUT
BRINGING FORTH BROKEN WINDOWS POLICING PICKED UP STEAM THROUGHOUT
THE 1980S, 1990S, FIRST TRIED IN THE NEW YORK CITY SUBWAY SYSTEM. IN
1994, WIDESPREAD THROUGHOUT THE NEW YORK CITY. 1995, MY
CONSTITUENT, BILL BRATTON, THE POLICE COMMISSIONER, ON HIS FIRST TOUR
378
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
EXPLAINED WHAT THE PURPOSE OF BROKEN WINDOWS POLICING WAS. IT
WASN'T TO INCARCERATE, NOT EVEN IN COUNTY JAILS. IT WAS TO DOCUMENT, TO
TAG, TO DNA SWAB, TO DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO CATALOG THOSE PEOPLE.
AND WE'LL GET TO IN A SECOND WHO THOSE PEOPLE WERE. THE POINT WAS TO
COLLECT INFORMATION. BUT NOT INFORMATION TO BE SHARED WITH DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS, INFORMATION TO BE USED ONLY BY THE NYPD OR STATE TROOPERS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE TO GATHER INFORMATION ON PEOPLE. BECAUSE THERE'S
A PREDICTIVE MODEL THEY BELIEVE THROUGH THAT FLAWED AND DEEP -- DEEPLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, THAT THE MORE INFORMATION YOU GET ON
SOMEONE, THE MORE YOU CAN PREVENT CRIME IN THE FUTURE. AND THE
NUMBERS SPIRALED OUT OF CONTROL. THIS IS A THESIS PROFESSOR ISSA
HAUSMANN AT YALE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL IN HER SEMINAL BOOK CALLED
MISDEMEANOR LAND, 1994 AT THE START OF STOP-AND-FRISK, 187,000
MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS IN NEW YORK CITY. 2010, 292,000 MISDEMEANOR
ARRESTS IN NEW YORK CITY, AN INCREASE OF 105,000 MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS.
IMAGINE THAT. THE EXPANSION OF THE GOVERNMENT OVER ITS CITIZENS, THE
DEPRAVATION OF DUE PROCESS BASED UPON THE TAGGING, THE TARGETING OF
PEOPLE, IT SHOULD SCARE BOTH LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE ALIKE. THE
AWESOME POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT OVER ITS CITIZENS THROUGH THE TAKING
OF INFORMATION. AND IT'S THAT INFORMATION THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IN THIS BILL TODAY. IT CAN CHANGE THE SYSTEM, BUT IT CAN'T CHANGE
EVERYTHING. IF YOU LOOK AT AS IT SPIRALED OUT OF CONTROL UNDER
COMMISSIONER RAY KELLY, 5-, 600,000 PEOPLE ARRESTED. THINK ABOUT
HOW IT STOPPED. THE CASE LAW ABOUT STOP-AND-FRISK IN NEW YORK CITY.
BUT WAS IT THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYNTHESIZING
379
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INFORMATION, GLEANING FROM IT CLEARLY THE DISPROPORTIONAL IMPACT ON
PEOPLE OF COLOR? NO. WAS IT THE LOWER SUPREME COURTS IN NEW YORK
OR KINGS COUNTY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION 1ST OR 2ND DEPARTMENT? NO.
IT WAS A FEDERAL JUDGE WITH NO NATURAL JURISDICTION OVER STOP-AND-FRISK,
JUDGE SCHEINDLIN, WHO SAID IN JURY -- IN CONTEMPLATION AND
CONSIDERATION OF A FLAWED POLICY TO EXPAND THE POLICE STATE OVER PEOPLE
OF COLOR, MOSTLY BLACK MEN. IT WAS JUDGE SCHEINDLIN WHO FINALLY PUT A
STOP TO THIS PRACTICE. AND THE NYPD WAS RIGHTLY CRITICIZED. AND RIGHT
NOW THEY OPERATE UNDER A, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, "RECALIBRATED SYSTEM OF
STOP-AND-FRISK." BUT IT OCCURS TO ME SOMETHING IN THE FREE-FLOW OF
INFORMATION THAT HAPPENED BOTH UNDER STOP-AND-FRISK, BUT MORE
EXPANSIVELY WITH THIS BILL TODAY. THERE WAS ONE GROUP OF
PROFESSIONALS, ONE GROUP, WHO SOMEHOW ESCAPED JUDGMENT, WHO WERE
NEVER CRITICIZED TO THE EXTENT, WHO SOMEHOW NEVER GOT THE REBUKE THAT
THE NYPD DID FOR THEIR EXPANSION OF STOP-AND-FRISK: THE PROSECUTORS.
WHEN YOU ARREST SOMEONE, THAT ARREST DOCUMENTATION, WHATEVER IT IS, IT
DOESN'T GO INTO THE ETHERLAND OF NOWHERE, IT GOES TO PROSECUTORS. AND
WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THAT INFORMATION? PROFESSOR STEVE ZEIDMAN AT
CUNY LAW SCHOOL -- THIS IS NOT MY THESIS, IT'S HIS -- IT WENT TO
PROSECUTORS WHO WENT TO CRIMINAL COURT. IT WAS A PASSTHROUGH. THINK
ABOUT IT. AND IN THE COUNTY I COME FROM, NEW YORK COUNTY, WE HAVE
A FANCY NAME FOR IT, PHONE IT IN. NYPD OFFICERS DON'T EVEN HAVE TO
PROVIDE MUCH WRITTEN INFORMATION. AND IN THE NAME OF AVOIDING
NYPD OVERTIME PAY, WHAT DO THEY DO? THEY PHONE IT IN. WE ALSO
HAVE FANCY NAMES FOR IT: ECAB, EARLY CASE ASSESSMENT BUREAU IN
380
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
NEW YORK COUNTY. THE EXTENT THAT THAT TRULY IS SOME VETTING OF THE
INFORMATION THAT POLICE OFFICERS GIVE, INFORMATION DOCUMENTATION. I
CAN ASSURE YOU NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. HALF INFORMATIONS.
MINISCULE STATEMENTS OF FACT. FURTIVE MOVEMENT. 5-, 600,000 PASSED
ALONG, PROSECUTED INTO WHAT PROFESSOR HAUSMANN CALLED MISDEMEANOR
LAND. THE PROSECUTION, THE PUNISHMENT OF POVERTY EACH AND EVERY
DAY. WHY? BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION
THAT WENT ALONG WITH PROBABLE CAUSE ARRESTS, AND THEN WAS PROSECUTED
CONTINUOUSLY IN OUR COURTROOMS THROUGHOUT NEW YORK CITY. THE
PROSECUTORS, THEY ESCAPED THEIR JUDGMENT DAY, THE NYPD DID NOT.
THE REASON I TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES IS IT'S NOT A
TECHNICAL ISSUE, IT'S NOT A TECHNICAL MATTER. THESE ARE OUR CONSTITUENTS,
THESE ARE OUR CITIZENS. THESE ARE NOT RIGHTS THAT WE GIVE THEM, THESE
ARE RIGHTS 20 MILLION NEW YORKERS IMBUED BY OUR STATE CONSTITUTION
ABUSE BECAUSE THE FREE-FLOW OF INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION NEVER
OCCURRED IN OUR CITY AND STATE. THIS BILL THAT CHAIRMAN LENTOL HAS
FOUGHT SO HARD FOR WILL GO TO FIX A LOT OF THAT. BUT IT CAN'T FIX
EVERYTHING. SO MUCH OF THE INFORMATION AND THE DOCUMENTATION THAT
GOES TO ARRESTS, INCARCERATION, IS NEVER WRITTEN DOWN, IS NOT KNOWN. IN
WHAT SHOULD BE PARAGRAPHS, THERE ARE SENTENCES. IN WHAT SHOULD BE
VIDEOTAPE OR DEPOSITIONS OF SOME TYPE NEVER EXISTS. IT'S A PASS-ALONG
SYSTEM BASED UPON A LACK OF INFORMATION. WE DO MUCH HERE TO FIX THAT,
BUT WE CAN'T DO EVERYTHING.
AND WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? HOW DOES THIS WORK INTO
THE LARGER SENSE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE REFORM OF OUR SYSTEM? ONE
381
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OF MY FAVORITE MUSEUMS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK IS THE NEW YORK
HISTORICAL SOCIETY. IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK. AND WHY I
LOVE THAT MUSEUM IS BECAUSE IT GIVES YOU, AS ASSEMBLYMEMBER BARRON
SAID, THE GOOD, BAD AND THE UGLY. IT'S DOESN'T HIDE THE UGLINESS OF NEW
YORK CITY, THE -- THE GOOD POLICIES AND THE BAD POLICIES. AND ONE SUCH
EXHIBIT TALKS ABOUT THE SLAVE TRADE AND THE SLAVE LAWS THAT EXISTED IN
NEW YORK STATE. WE ALL LIKE TO THINK THAT WE WERE AN ABOLITIONIST
STATE, AND IT IS TRUE. BUT WE WERE ALSO A SLAVE STATE, OF SLAVE LAWS. AND
ONE OF THOSE LAWS IN 1806, 213 YEARS AGO, WAS THE LAW ABOUT WHAT
SLAVES COULD AND COULD NOT SAY IN A COURT OF LAW. AND WHAT IT WAS IS,
SLAVES COULD ONLY TESTIFY AGAINST OTHER SLAVES. THEY COULD NOT TESTIFY
AGAINST FREED PEOPLE -- EXCUSE ME, AGAINST THE RULING CLASS. AND IT
OCCURS TO ME SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY OBVIOUS, AND HAS BEEN OBVIOUS
SINCE THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY OR BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE
COUNTRY RIGHT UP TO THE DAY WE PASS THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, THAT THOSE
WHO SOUGHT TO CONTROL ONE SET OF POPULATION, THOSE WHO WEREN'T FREE,
DID SO BY USE OF THE COURT. AND HOW DID THEY DO SO? THEY DID SO BY
LIMITING THE TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT COULD BE USED IN A COURT OF LAW.
WHAT WE DO TODAY IS IMPORTANT IN AND OF ITSELF - WE CALL IT ARTICLE 245 -
BUT IT'S MORE IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IMPLICITLY REJECTS THAT. IT UNDERSTANDS
THAT CONTROL OF THE COURTROOM -- CONTROL OF THE INFORMATION IN THE
COURTROOM IS THE CONTROL OF ONE PEOPLE OVER ANOTHER. TODAY WE TAKE A
SEMINAL STEP IN STOPPING THAT.
I LEARNED THE MOST FROM A GOOD FRIEND WHO PASSED
AWAY LAST MONTH. HE TAUGHT ME MORE ABOUT HOW TO TRY A CASE AND HOW
382
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TO TALK TO JURORS THAN ANYBODY ELSE THAT I'VE EVER MET. JOE HYNES WAS A
GOOD MAN, A FRIEND AND A GOOD DISTRICT ATTORNEY, NOT A MAN WITHOUT
FAULTS. HE TAUGHT NOT JUST MYSELF, BUT I'M SURE OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS
CHAMBER, HOW TO TRY CASES, TRIAL ADVOCACY AND HOW TO TRY -- AND HOW TO
TALK TO JURORS. AND 23 YEARS AGO, I REMEMBER THE SAGE ADVICE JOE
HYNES GAVE ME. AND I REMEMBER IT LIKE IT WAS YESTERDAY, OR TODAY. HE
SAID, DAN, ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS, YOU'RE A NOBODY. SOME DAY YOU'LL BE
A SOMEBODY, BUT UNTIL THAT DAY QUOTE SOMEBODY FAMOUS. THE JURY WILL
THINK YOU'RE SMART.
JOHN ADAMS, THE SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST TRIAL LAWYERS THIS COUNTRY EVER
PRODUCED. HE DEFENDED BRITISH SOLDIERS WRONGFULLY ACCUSED OF
MURDERING COLONISTS. THEY DIDN'T DO IT. HE SPOKE AT THE BRITISH
COMMONS AND HE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT INFORMATION AND ABOUT THE CASE.
AND HE SAID, YOU CANNOT RELY ON EMOTION. YOU HAVE TO PUT THAT ASIDE.
ABIGAIL MAY HAVE GAVE HIM THE LINE, BUT IT WAS A GOOD ONE ANYWAYS.
BUT HE LOOKED AT THE JURORS, THE GRAND JURORS AT THE TIME, AND OF COURSE
THEY WERE ALL WHITE MEN. BUT HE LOOKED AT THEM AND HE SAID, ALWAYS
REMEMBER THIS: PASSIONS MAY RISE, EMOTIONS MAY RISE AS WELL. BUT
REMEMBER THIS, JURORS, FACTS ARE A STUBBORN THING.
THE BILL-IN-CHIEF THAT WE DEAL WITH TODAY DEALS WITH
THE DISSEMINATION OF FACTS, FROM OUR COURTROOMS TO OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS
TO BEFORE AND AFTER AN ARREST. IT IS -- THAT IS WHY THIS BILL IS SO
IMPORTANT. IT TAKES WHAT IS FACT AND DISSEMINATES IT TO THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEY SO THEY CAN REPRESENT POOR PEOPLE, SO THEY CAN GO TO RIKERS
383
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ISLAND, SO THEY CAN TRY AND GET THEIR PERSON NOT TO TAKE A PLEA BECAUSE
THERE IS NO WAY OUT, BECAUSE EITHER THE FACTS DEMAND IT OR THE FACTS
DEMAND THAT IT BE REJECTED.
THERE IS MUCH WE HAVE TO GO FORWARD IN THIS HOUSE
ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE. NOT JUST IN MAKING OUR BAIL SITUATION AND OUR BAIL
BILLS BETTER, BUT ALSO SO MANY OTHER THINGS: REFORMING OUR SENTENCING
LAWS, EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS, SEALING OF RECORDS AND A WHOLE HOST OF
OTHER THINGS. BUT AS WE GO FORWARD, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE
LIMITATIONS OF WHAT WE DO HERE IN THIS LEGISLATION. FIXING OUR
DISCOVERY LAWS ARE IMPORTANT, BUT THEY CANNOT FIX EVERYTHING. FOR AS I
EXPLAINED, THERE IS INFORMATION NEVER WRITTEN DOWN. THERE IS
INFORMATION NOT CLEAN. THERE IS INFORMATION IN ONE SENTENCE WHICH
SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPHS. FOR THAT, WE MUST GO BEYOND THIS
HOUSE. WE HAVE TO LOOK TO OUR FRIENDS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. WE
HAVE TO LOOK TO THEM TO SEE IF THEY ARE ABLE TO REFORM THEMSELVES. FOR
IT IS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS WHO ULTIMATELY HAVE THE GREATEST SAY IN THE
FREE-FLOW OF INFORMATION, IN THE PROVIDING OF INFORMATION. AND WE
FINALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR FRIENDS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, WHO HAVE
PLAYED SUCH A DISAGREEABLE ROLE IN GETTING TO THIS VERY POINT IN THE
LEGISLATION BEFORE US, AND ASK THEM ONE BASIC QUESTION: GOING
FORWARD, WILL THEY FINALLY JOIN US IN OUR EFFORTS TO REFORM OUR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM, OR WILL THEY REMAIN IN THE FUTURE, AS THEY ARE TODAY, AN
ALBATROSS AROUND THE NECK OF THOSE WHO WANT TO FIX OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM?
(APPLAUSE)
384
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GIGLIO.
MR. GIGLIO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
CHAIR YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MS.
WEINSTEIN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GIGLIO: THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS VERY
SIMPLE. IT'S ABOUT THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES CONTROL BOARD.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GIGLIO: IN THIS BILL THERE'S SOME MODIFICATIONS
TO THE WAY THE BILL IS DONE. THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES CONTROL BOARD HAS
THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF BEING ONE OF THE LAST WAYS THAT THE LEGISLATURE
MAY IMPOSE SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES ON LARGE CAPITAL PROJECTS AND
COMMITMENTS THAT WILL ISSUE DEBT THROUGH THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. WHAT
WE DID HERE, IT APPEARS, IS THAT WE -- WE HAVE MEMBERS APPOINTED BY
THE MAJORITY IN THIS HOUSE, VOTING MEMBERS, THE MAJORITY IN THE SENATE
AND BY THE GOVERNOR. AND THIS BILL HERE TODAY, YOU ARE NOW CEDING --
CEDING POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE THAT WOULD ALLOW HIM TO REMOVE A
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES CONTROL BOARD FOR PURPOSES THAT HE
FEELS THEY DID NOT LIVE UP TO THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES THAT THEY HAVE
REGARDING THIS BILL. WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T
CHANGE THE FUNCTION OF THE -- WE DON'T CHANGE THE ROLE OF THE BOARD, WE
DON'T CHANGE THEIR -- THE AUTHORITY OF THE ROLE OF THE -- OF THE MEMBER AS
TO THE -- BEING THE REMOVAL -- OBVIOUSLY, THE MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY
385
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE EXECUTIVE. AND AS TO THE POTENTIAL REMOVAL RELATES TO, AS I -- AS I
THINK YOU -- YOU WERE SAYING, THE FAILURE OF A MEMBER TO VOTE WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF HIS OR HER LEGAL AUTHORITY.
MR. GIGLIO: WHY WOULD WE CEDE THE RIGHT TO
REMOVE THAT MEMBER TO THE GOVERNOR AND NOT TO THE ASSEMBLY AND/OR
THE SENATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THE -- THE GOVERNOR IS THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
MR. GIGLIO: OKAY. IS THIS THE RESULT OF THINGS THAT
HAVE HAPPENED RECENTLY, SUCH AS THE AMAZON DEAL?
(LAUGHTER)
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE IS NO -- NO MOTIVE LISTED IN
THE LANGUAGE.
(LAUGHTER)
MR. GIGLIO: OKAY. DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD LIMIT
THE TRANSPARENCY AND THE ABILITY OF THE BOARD TO DO THEIR JOB IN -- IN A
STRAIGHTFORWARD FASHION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE... YOU KNOW, FUNCTION OF THE
BOARD IS -- IS -- IS TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS TO MOVE
FORWARD ON A -- ON A PROJECT. SO THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE FUNCTION OF THE
BOARD.
MR. GIGLIO: OKAY. THANK YOU.
MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. GIGLIO: I THINK THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE PROBLEM
386
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WHERE WE START -- AS COEQUAL BRANCHES WITH THE EXECUTIVE, I DON'T THINK
WE SHOULD BE CEDING ANYTHING TO ONE BODY, AS OPPOSED TO ALL THREE
VOTING BODIES. AND SO, IT IS MY OPINION THAT AT THIS POINT WE HAVE
CHANGED THE RULES OF EVERYDAY WORK OF THIS CONTROL BOARD, WHICH IS SO
IMPORTANT TO THE TRANSPARENCY OF THE STATE, AND TO HAVE FAITH IN OUR
ABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS ON DEBT. I THINK AS COEQUAL BRANCHES WE
SHOULD NEVER CEDE ANY OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO JUST ONE.
SO, IN MY OPINION, THIS IS A VERY BAD PRECEDENT, AND I
WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. PALMESANO.
MR. PALMESANO: YES. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE -- THE CHAIRWOMAN, BUT I JUST WANT TO
KIND OF GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND FIRST BEFORE I GET TO THE QUESTIONS, SO
YOU CAN REST FOR A SECOND. JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A LITTLE -- THE FIRST
PART OF MY QUESTIONS WE'LL GET TO, MORE ON LOCAL ISSUES FIRST, THEN I'LL GET
TO SOME BIGGER, BROADER ISSUES. BUT I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THE -- MY
COLLEAGUES A LITTLE PICTURE OF THIS. LAST YEAR I WAS CONTACTED BY MY
LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. THEY HAD A NEW EMPLOYEE, THEY WERE SENDING IN
TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS TO -- TO THE STATE. THE NEW EMPLOYEE SENT
THEM -- SENT THEM INTO THE STATE, BUT DIDN'T SEND IT CERTIFIED MAIL. A
FEW MONTHS LATER, THEY WENT BACK TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE STATE
ABOUT FOLLOWING UP ON THOSE CONTRACTS, AND THE STATE SAYS, WE DON'T
HAVE THEM. AND THEY REALIZED WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING CERTIFIED,
SO WE CAN'T COUNT IT. IT'S ALWAYS -- IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE -- IT'S ALWAYS
387
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
POSSIBLE THAT -- EXCUSE ME FOR A SECOND. IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE THAT THEY
COULD LOSE -- IN AN EDUCATION BUILDING LIKE THAT WITH A BUREAUCRACY,
THEY COULD LOSE THE PAPERWORK. WELL, NO, THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DIDN'T HAVE ANY WAYS TO RELIEVE. WHAT HAPPENED TO MY SCHOOL DISTRICT
WAS THEY WERE FINED NEARLY $500,000. AND SO, AROUND CHRISTMASTIME I
GOT A PHONE CALL WHEN -- THE BILL WAS SENT TO THE GOVERNOR AROUND
CHRISTMASTIME, SO A FEW DAYS LATER I GOT A CALL FROM THE GOVERNOR'S
COUNSEL SAYING, HEY, MERRY CHRISTMAS ASSEMBLYMAN PALMESANO. THE
GOVERNOR IS GOING TO VETO YOUR BILL. BY THE WAY, I SAID TO HIM -- I HAD
SOME WORDS FOR HIM, AND I SAID, SO, THE GOVERNOR IS GOING TO GO OUT
AND DELIBERATELY HURT OUR KIDS AND HURT OUR TAXPAYERS. WELL, THAT'S NOT
HIS INTENTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT HIS INTENTION, BUT THAT'S WHAT
HE'S DOING THROUGH THIS ACTION. SO, SOME OF US WROTE LETTERS TO THE
SPEAKER, TO THE MAJORITY LEADER AND THE SENATE, BOTH THE SENATE AND
ASSEMBLY COLLEAGUES ASKED HIM TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE ONE-HOUSE
BUDGET. WE WERE VERY GRATEFUL THAT YOU DID THAT, WE APPRECIATE THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WAS NOT, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, INCLUDED IN THIS
BUDGET.
SO, MY QUESTION, FIRST QUESTION, TO THE CHAIRWOMAN --
AND I KNOW THE SPEAKER IS HERE - GOOD MORNING, MR. SPEAKER - IS I
KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT WE COULD DO -- INTRODUCE INDIVIDUAL BILLS
AGAIN. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WOULD WE CONSIDER -- THIS HOUSE
CONSIDER AN OMNIBUS BILL? BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF YOUR MEMBERS'
BILLS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT, AND THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF THEM. BUT
DO AN OMNIBUS BILL WITH ALL THOSE BILLS IN ONE PACKAGE, AND THEN PASS
388
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THE BILL AGAIN, AND LET THE SENATE PASS THE BILL AND THEN SEND IT TO THE
GOVERNOR. HE HAS THE ABILITY TO VETO THE BILL; THAT'S HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT. BUT AFTER HE VETOES THE BILL, SEND IT BACK TO HIM -- OR LET'S BRING IT
BACK HERE AND OVERRIDE HIS VETO. LET'S USE -- LET'S TAKE BACK SOME OF
OUR POWER THAT WE HAVE IN THIS HOUSE. OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS TO
OVERRIDE A VETO. LET HIM VETO THE BILL. I DON'T CARE IF HE VETOES THE BILL,
IT'S A BAD VETO. BUT WHY DON'T WE CALL THIS BACK TO OVERRIDE THE VETO?
WE COULD PROTECT THESE TAXPAYERS AND -- AND -- AND THE -- PROTECT THESE
KIDS WHO WERE HURT BY THAT VETO, AND ALSO WHO WERE NOT APPROVED IN
THIS BUDGET. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU -- YOU GUYS WOULD CONSIDER?
TAKING UP A BILL THAT WOULD -- OMNIBUS, ALL THESE BILLS, INSTEAD OF
INDIVIDUAL BILLS. LET HIM VETO IT, BUT THEN CALL IT BACK AND OVERRIDE THE
VETO.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YEAH, AS --
MR. PALMESANO: IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'D GO
ALONG WITH?
MS. WEINSTEIN: AS I RESPONDED TO
ASSEMBLYWOMAN -- WOMAN WALSH, WE WOULD LIKE -- WE DID ADVANCE
THESE PROPOSALS, THE SENATE DID ADVANCE THE PROPOSALS. WE COULD NOT
ULTIMATELY GET A THREE-WAY AGREEMENT ON THEM. WE CERTAINLY COULD
CONSIDER -- I SAID THAT WE WOULD BE PLANNING TO ADVANCE THESE -- THESE
BILLS. WE CERTAINLY COULD CONSIDER COMBINING THEM. THAT'S SOMETHING
WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT AS TO -- I MEAN, I WOULDN'T PRESUPPOSE --
MR. PALMESANO: SURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- VETOES OF THE -- VETOES OF THE
389
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BILLS, BUT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT OVERRIDE, THAT'S
OBVIOUSLY NOT SOMETHING THAT I -- I COULD MAKE A COMMITMENT ABOUT.
MR. PALMESANO: I WOULD JUST ASK, I GUESS, THE
HOUSE AND THE LEADERSHIP TO CONSIDER DOING THIS AGAIN, BRING THEM ALL
TOGETHER. BUT LET HIM -- IF HE'S GOING TO VETO IT, LET HIM VETO IT. THAT'S
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. BUT IT'S ALSO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
OVERRIDE THAT VETO.
I WANT TO GET ON ANOTHER LOCAL ISSUE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. PALMESANO: LAST YEAR, MY -- POLITICS KIND OF
COMES INTO PLAY. FOUR OF OUR LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES HAD MORTGAGE
RECORDING TAX BILLS. FOUR OF THEM. THE SENATE PASSED THEM. BECAUSE
OF THE POLITICS, OUR HOUSE DID NOT TAKE UP THOSE FOUR BILLS BEFORE THE
END OF THE YEAR. IT GOT CAUGHT UP IN THE SCHOOL ZONE SPEED CAMERA
ISSUE. ULTIMATELY, I KNOW WE LEFT SESSION IN JUNE, IT DIDN'T PASS. THE
GOVERNOR EXERCISED EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO PUT THE SPEED CAMERA BILL IN
PLACE FOR THE -- FOR THE CITY SO IT WAS READY FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR. AND
THEN AFTER THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, YOU KNEW THE SENATE WAS GOING TO
GET CONTROL OF THE HOUSE, SO YOU COULD NOT JUST EXTEND THE CAMERAS.
YOU COULD EXPAND THEM, WHICH YOU DID, WHICH IS GOING TO GIVE YOU
EVEN MORE REVENUE. SO, WE COULD HAVE CAME BACK AT THAT POINT TO -- TO
PASS THAT LEGISLATION. GRATEFUL THAT WE DID PASS THE LEGISLATION AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, BUT BECAUSE OF THAT DELAY AND THE DELAY IN
GETTING IT TO THE GOVERNOR TO SIGN, THOSE FOUR MUNICIPALITIES BY --
SPONSORED BY THREE OF OUR COLLEAGUES, LOST $790,000 IN MORTGAGE
390
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RECORDING TAXES BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THIS BODY TO DO THEIR JOB AND
DO IT IN A TIMELY MANNER. AND IT HURT THOSE MUNICIPALITIES. IT HURT
THOSE TAXPAYERS. NOW, JUST LIKE THE GOVERNOR -- DO I THINK HE
DELIBERATELY -- DO I THINK YOU GUYS DELIBERATELY INTENDED TO HURT THOSE
COUNTIES AND THOSE TAXPAYERS? ABSOLUTELY NOT. BUT YOU DID. SO,
WOULD YOU ALSO CONSIDER DOING A -- AN OMNIBUS BILL TO PUT THE FUNDING
FOR THAT? BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I'M ASSUMING THE
GOVERNOR DIDN'T WANT TO DO THIS, ALSO. WHEN WE SAY "THREE-WAY" -- WE
HEAR THAT A LOT. WOULD YOU ALSO CONSIDER AN OMNIBUS BILL TO PUT THAT
$790,000 - WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $175 BILLION BUDGET - $790,000 TO
REIMBURSE THOSE FOUR COUNTIES FOR THE MONEY THEY LOST FROM THE
MORTGAGE RECORDING TAX? THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WHY CAN'T WE DO
-- I KNOW THERE'S POTS OF MONEY. WE COULD TAKE POTS OF MONEY ALL OVER
THE PLACE AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PLENTY OF POTS OF MONEY TO DO THAT.
THAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT THING. WOULD YOU PLEASE CONSIDER PUTTING IN
AN OMNIBUS LEGISLATION FOR THOSE FOUR BILLS TO MAKE -- DO THE RIGHT THING
TO HELP THOSE FOUR COUNTIES? WOULD YOU GUYS CONSIDER DOING THAT? I
WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU WOULD LIKE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CERTAINLY COULD DISCUSS WITH...
WITH OUR COLLEAGUES AND THE CHAIRS OF THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES.
MR. PALMESANO: I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. I
KNOW MY COLLEAGUES, MY THREE COLLEAGUES WHOSE COUNTY -- THE THREE --
THE FOUR COUNTIES THAT I REPRESENT WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. IT WOULD JUST
BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO CORRECT AN ERROR FROM OUR FAILURE TO ACT TO DO
WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. I UNDERSTAND IT GOT CAUGHT UP IN THE
391
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
POLITICS. I DON'T THINK THE HARM WAS INTENTIONAL, BUT THERE WAS STILL
HARM DONE. SO, LET'S FIX THAT HARM.
NOW, I'D LIKE TO GET ON TO SOME BIGGER, BROADER ISSUES,
IF I MAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. PALMESANO: THE FIRST ONE IS ON CONGESTION
PRICING. I HAD JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION ON CONGESTION PRICING. I KNOW
-- I THINK IT'S THE -- MS. PAULIN, IS THAT RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YES. SURE.
MR. PALMESANO: AMY, ON THE CONGESTION PRICING
ISSUE, WAS THERE EVER ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT EXEMPTING -- PUTTING ANY
TYPE OF AN EXEMPTION IN FOR AGRICULTURE? BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF
FARMERS AND AGRICULTURAL PEOPLE WHO DRIVE DOWN TO THE CITY, I KNOW
FOR FARM MARKETS, TO BRING FRESH PRODUCE AND VEGETABLES. I MEAN, THAT'S
THAT'S GOING TO BE A -- A BURDEN ON OUR FARMERS, AND OUR FARMING
COMMUNITIES ALREADY GOT ENOUGH CHALLENGES AS IS. THEY WANT TO BRING
THOSE PRODUCTS, THEY WANT TO BRING THOSE PRODUCTS DOWN THERE FOR THE
KIDS AND FOR THE FAMILIES. WAS THERE EVER ANY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT OR
EVEN A CONSIDERATION OF LOOKING AT THAT? BECAUSE OUR AGRICULTURAL
COMMUNITY IS HURTING BIG TIME. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS WOULD
CONSIDER, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED?
MS. PAULIN: I -- AS I SAID BEFORE, ALL OF THE
EXEMPTIONS AND DISCOUNTS AND CREDITS WILL BE CONSIDERED OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF THE BILL BY A TRANSIT AUTHORITY, BY A TBTA SUBCOMMITTEE OR
COMMITTEE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH MADE UP OF SIX PEOPLE THAT
392
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WILL -- IT'S CALLED A TRANSIT [SIC] MOBILITY REVIEW BOARD, AND -- AND
THEY WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TBTA FOR THOSE KINDS OF
DISCOUNTS. BUT, ALL -- YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT COULD ABSOLUTELY BE
DISCUSSED.
MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT
BEING ON THE TABLE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR OUR FARMERS.
I'D -- I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE CHAIRWOMAN, IF I
COULD, FOR SOME QUESTIONS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CERTAINLY.
MR. PALMESANO: RELATIVE TO THE STAR FREEZE
THAT'S IN THIS BUDGET --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. PALMESANO: I KNOW IN THE PAST OUR HOUSE
HAS ALWAYS REJECTED THAT. AND NOW IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING -- SO IF YOU
JUST GET THE REGULAR TAXES OFF YOUR TAX BILL, THAT STAR RE- -- STAR
CREDIT, LET'S SAY, REBATE OFF YOUR TAX BILL WILL NOW BE FIXED. THERE'S NO
MORE 2 PERCENT GROWTH THAT WAS BUILT INTO IT BEFORE. IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. PALMESANO: BUT, IF YOU TAKE IT AS A TAX
CREDIT OFF YOUR TAXES AND PAY IT UP FRONT, YOU DO DO GET THE 2 PERCENT.
IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. PALMESANO: ISN'T THAT KIND OF DISCRIMINATORY
AGAINST -- IN -- IN THEORY AND IN PRACTICE? A LITTLE BIT MAYBE? MAYBE
NOT.
393
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: I THINK THE IDEA IS TO GUIDE PEOPLE
-- TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR THE -- THE CREDIT VERSUS --
MR. PALMESANO: SURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THE EXEMPTION.
MR. PALMESANO: I -- I AGREE WITH YOU 100
PERCENT, THAT THE GOVERNOR WANTS TO -- TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S A
GIMMICK. BECAUSE WHEN HE'S -- WHEN IT'S -- IT IS A GIMMICK BECAUSE
WHEN HE'S TAKING IT AS A TAX CREDIT, THAT MEANS THAT'S LESS TAXES COMING
IN, BUT WHEN HE PAYS IT OUT AS AN EXPENDITURE, THAT'S MORE MONEY GOING
OUT, SO HE CAN SAY, NOW I'M -- I'M STAYING WITHIN MY 2 PERCENT
PROPERTY TAX -- MY 2 PERCENT SPENDING CAP. CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. PALMESANO: IS THAT ACCURATE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, I THINK YOU EXPLAINED IT
FAIRLY WELL.
MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU. I JUST -- I JUST -- I
THINK WITH THE -- WITH THE STAR, THE THING THAT KIND OF FRUSTRATES ME IS
OUR HOUSE HAS REJECTED IT IN THE PAST, BUT WE KIND OF GAVE IN. WE JUST
ROLLED OVER AND GAVE IT TO HIM ANYWAY. THE GOVERNOR IS GETTING ALL HE
WANT -- ALL THE HEADLINES ARE SAYING THE GOVERNOR'S GETTING EVERYTHING
HE WANTS. I THINK IN THIS CASE IT JUST LOOKS LIKE THE GOVERNOR GOT WHAT
HE WANTED ON IT, AND I JUST THINK THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.
ON THE AIM FUNDING CUT -- ON THE AIM FUNDING, I
KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THE AIM FUNDING CUT IS -- NOW IT'S GOING
TO BE PAID FOR OUT OF SALES TAXES COLLECTED BY THE COUNTIES. THE
394
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
COUNTIES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT CUT NOW, CORRECT? SO, IT'S AN
UNFUNDED MANDATE NOW ON THEIR COUNTIES, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT -- IT ACTUALLY IS -- WELL, THE
COUNTIES AREN'T GOING TO PAY IT, IT'S A TAX INTERCEPT BY THE -- THE TAX
DEPARTMENT WILL BE INTERCEPTING THE PORTION OF THE AIM FUNDING THAT
THE GOVERNOR HAD PROPOSED TO CUT IN HIS ORIGINAL SUBMISSION, AND IT'LL
BE TRANSMITTED BY THE -- THE COMPTROLLER. IT'S NOT A CUT IN THEIR FUNDING
--
MR. PALMESANO: I UNDERSTAND.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- BECAUSE AS PART OF THIS BUDGET,
WE ALSO ADOPT THE NEW -- NEW SALES TAX REVENUES REGARDING INTER --FROM
INTERNET MARKETPLACE --
MR. PALMESANO: YEP, I -- I DO UNDERSTAND THAT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- FUNDINGS.
MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO, IN OUR
ONE-HOUSE, THOUGH, WE REJECTED THE GOVERNOR'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. WE
-- WE SAID THE STATE, THEY SHOULD JUST PUT THE MONEY FORWARD --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT --
MR. PALMESANO: -- DO IT (INAUDIBLE). BUT WHAT
WE ENDED UP DOING IS WHAT THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE -- THERE WERE SEVERAL
DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF --
MR. PALMESANO: SO --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- OF THIS, BUT WE ULTIMATELY CAME
UP WITH THE VERSION THAT'S IN THE BUDGET TODAY.
395
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. PALMESANO: THAT THE -- A VERSION THAT THE
GOVERNOR WANTED. SO, HE'S GETTING WHAT HE WANTS ON THAT ISSUE, TOO.
NOW, I -- I DO WANT TO GO THROUGH THE SALES TAX. YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT SALES TAX ON THE INTERNET.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. PALMESANO: NOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING SO
THIS -- SO JUST LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. SO I --
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. PALMESANO: -- WHO -- I'M IN UPSTATE NEW
YORK. I SPEND $100 FOR AMAZON ONLINE. FOUR -- $4 OF MY FUNDS WILL
GO TO MY LOCAL COUNTY FOR SALES TAX. BUT THE OTHER $4 WILL GO TO THE
STATE SALES TAX, CORRECT? BUT NOW, THAT STATE SALES TAX DOLLARS IS GOING
TO GET SHIPPED DOWN TO HELP FOR -- TO FUND THE MTA; IS THAT CORRECT?
SO, MY -- MY STATE SALES TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING TO GO INTO FUND THE MTA
FROM UPSTATE NEW YORK. IS THAT RIGHT, OR NO?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, NO.
MR. PALMESANO: HOW DOES THAT WORK, EXACTLY?
BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, THE -- LET ME JUST GET THE... SO,
THE SALES TAX WILL -- IN THE NEW YORK CITY -- BOTH THE CITY SALES TAX AND
THE STATE SALES TAX IN THE NEW YORK CITY REGION WILL -- BOTH THE CITY
PORTION AND THE STATE PORTION WILL GO TO THE MTA LOCKBOX FOR -- TO
MEDIATE IN RELATION TO THE -- THE CONGESTION PRICING.
MR. PALMESANO: SO, YOU'RE JUST -- SO YOU'RE JUST
SAYING -- SO THE -- THE STATE SALES TAX THAT'S COLLECTED ON THE CITY GOES
396
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FOR THE MTA, BUT THE STATE SALES TAX FOR PEOPLE WHO PURCHASE OFF THE
INTERNET UPSTATE, THAT'S NOT GOING TO THE MTA? BECAUSE THE WAY I
UNDERSTOOD IT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. PALMESANO: -- THE STATE SALES TAX DOLLARS ARE
GOING -- FOR THE INTERNET PURCHASE ARE GOING TO FUND THE MTA LOCKBOX.
THERE IS NO CLARIFICATION OF -- OF UPSTATE VERSUS DOWNSTATE. BECAUSE IF
THAT'S THE CASE, THAT'S CONCERNING FOR A LOT OF US.
(PAUSE)
I'VE GOT ANOTHER 15 MINUTES I CAN USE IF I RUN OUT OF
TIME.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, THE -- LET ME JUST, YOU KNOW,
CLARIFY. SO, IT'S A -- THE STATE SHARE OF THE INTERNET SALES TAX IN NEW
YORK CITY IS ESTIMATED TO BE $150 MILLION, THAT -- THE MONEY THAT
COMES OFF OF THE -- SO THAT'S THE PORTION THAT'S ESTIMATED TO BE NEW
YORK -- IN NEW YORK CITY. THE NEW YORK CITY'S INTERNET SALES TAX IS
ESTIMATED TO BRING IN $100- -- TO GENERATE $170 MILLION, SO THOSE
MONIES WILL BE IN NEW YORK CITY FOR THE -- THE LOCKBOX. SO, IT'S NOT --
MR. PALMESANO: SO, FOR UPSTATE NEW YORK, ANY
MONEY THAT WE SPENT ON INTERNET SALES TAXES FOR THE STATE PORTION, THAT
MONEY DOES NOT GO DOWN TO THE MTA, THAT MONEY JUST GOES TO THE
GENERAL FUND, OR DOES IT GO TO THE --
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YES. CORRECT.
MR. PALMESANO: SO, WE HAVE WAYS TO BREAK THAT
DOWN. SO, I JUST THINK --
397
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S -- IT'S BASED ON ESTIMATIONS.
IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THE EXACT DOLLAR THAT MATCHES THE NEW YORK CITY
NUMBER, IT'S NOT THAT -- YOU KNOW, THE DOLLARS --
MR. PALMESANO: SURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- DON'T TRAVEL UNTIL --
MR. PALMESANO: I KNOW --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- THEMSELVES. YOU KNOW -- IT'S
-- YOU KNOW, THE MONEY'S FUNGIBLE, SO.
MR. PALMESANO: SURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO IT GOES FROM --
MR. PALMESANO: I MEAN, BECAUSE IF WE'RE USING
INTERNET PURCHASES FOR THE MTA, WHY AREN'T WE USING THE INTERNET, THE
SALES TAX FOR MAYBE ROADS AND BRIDGES OR FOR LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR
UPSTATE? MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT.
I'LL COME BACK LATER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME,
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I'LL HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU THEN.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GARBARINO.
MR. GARBARINO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL
THE CHAIRWOMAN YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, HAPPY TO.
MR. GARBARINO: YOU KNOW, VERY LIVELY
DISCUSSION ABOUT -- FOR 3:30 IN THE MORNING ABOUT NEW YORK STATE REAL
ESTATE TRANSFER TAXES. THIS IS GOING TO BE GREAT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S -- WE'LL SEE IF ANYBODY'S
398
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LISTENING.
MR. GARBARINO: OR THEY'LL BE -- THEY'LL BE ASLEEP
AFTER WE'RE DONE. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. SO CURRENTLY, STATEWIDE,
THERE'S A $4 FOR EVERY $1,000 OF VALUE TRANSFER TAXES; IS THAT CORRECT?
FOR EVERY SALE? THE SELLER USUALLY PAYS THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. AND THEN ANYTHING
$1 MILLION OR OVER, THERE'S A -- A MANSION TAX OF 1 PERCENT, AND THAT'S
USUALLY PAID FOR BY THE BUYER. IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. GARBARINO: SO, WE'RE -- IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE
CREATING TWO NEW TRANSFER TAXES FOR PROPERTIES IN NEW YORK CITY. IS
THAT CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. THOUGH IT'S LIMITED TO NEW
YORK CITY --
MR. GARBARINO: JUST THE FIVE BOROUGHS, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. AND ONE OF THEM IS, IT'S
1. -- IT'S ONE AND -- $1.25 FOR EACH $500 OF VALUE OF PROPERTY SOLD FOR
RESIDENCES -- FOR RESIDENCES OVER -- VALUED -- VALUED AT $3
MILLION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE RESIDENTS OF -- SO, BETWEEN
THE $2 MILLION AND $3 MILLION, THE MANSION TAX GOES TO 1.25,
ONE-AND-A-QUARTER. AND FROM $3- TO $5 MILLION GOES TO 1.5 PERCENT.
AND IT CONTINUES UP TILL -- THE PERCENTAGE IS INCREASED TILL YOU GET TO
399
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OVER $25 MILLION, WHERE IT IS AT 3.9 PERCENT.
MR. GARBARINO: SO, THAT'S A -- THAT'S THE
SUPPLEMENTAL NEW YORK CITY TAX ON TOP OF THE CURRENT MANSION TAX.
SO, THE MANSION TAX WILL STAY AT THE 1 PERCENT, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE IT
GO UP --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. IT -- WELL, IT'S NOT ON TOP
OF THE 1 PERCENT. INSTEAD OF 1 PERCENT -- SO, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR $2- TO $3
MILLION, INSTEAD OF IT BEING 1 PERCENT --
MR. GARBARINO: IT'S 1.25.
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S 1.25. SO, THE 2.5 IS THE
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.
MR. GARBARINO: SO, MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT TABLE
IS, SO, FOR THE -- SAY IT'S A $5 MILLION HOME --
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. GARBARINO: -- IS THE ENTIRE VALUE -- IS THE
ENTIRE TAX ON THAT $5 MILLION 1.5 PERCENT, OR IS IT SIMILAR TO INCOME TAX,
WHERE IT'S FROM -- IT'S 1 PERCENT FOR THE FIRST $2 MILLION, 1.25 PERCENT FOR
THE NEXT MILLION, AND THEN 1.5 PERCENT FOR THE NEXT $2 MILLION?
(PAUSE)
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S GOING TO TAKE A... A MOMENT.
MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. NO PROBLEM. I -- I
COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT, SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.
MS. WEINSTEIN: BECAUSE I WANT TO GIVE YOU A REAL
ANSWER, NOT A... ANSWER ON THE FLY.
MR. GARBARINO: THE REASON I'M ASKING IS,
400
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CURRENTLY, IF IT'S $1 MILLION, IT'S -- THE 1 PERCENT IS ON THE FULL VALUE, AND,
YOU KNOW, SO I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, IF PEOPLE TRY TO GAIN THE
SYSTEM.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE -- WE THINK -- I MEAN, YOU
KNOW, SERIOUSLY WE'LL GET BACK TO IT, BUT WE THINK THAT THAT IS NOW THE --
THE RATE FOR TRANSFERS OF -- --
MR. GARBARINO: SO, IF IT'S $5 MILLION --
MS. WEINSTEIN: TWO FOR THREE. YES, IT'S ON THE
WHOLE --
MR. GARBARINO: IF IT'S -- IF IT'S $5 MILLION, IT'S
GOING TO BE 1.5 PERCENT ON THE ENTIRE $5 MILLION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, I -- I BELIEVE SO, BASED ON
WHAT THE NUMBERS SEEM TO GENERATE.
MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. SO THAT'S -- THAT'S THE ONE
TRANSFER TAX. AND THEN -- OR THE -- THAT'S ONE TAX. AND THEN, WOULD THAT
BE PAID SINCE THE -- SINCE THE MILLIONAIRE'S TAX IS CURRENTLY -- THE 1
PERCENT IS CURRENTLY PAID BY THE PURCHASER, WOULD THE ADDITIONAL
SUPPLEMENTAL TAX ALSO BE PAID FOR BY THE PURCHASER?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE MAKE NO -- NO CHANGES IN --
IN THAT REGARD. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE SUBJECT OF
NEGOTIATION IN A -- IN A SALE. BUT THE REQUIREMENT IS ON THE -- ON THE
PURCHASER.
MR. GARBARINO: AND THAT'S --
MS. WEINSTEIN: TO FILE THE TAX.
MR. GARBARINO: AND THIS IS JUST -- THIS TAX, THE
401
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MANSION TAX AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL NEW YORK CITY TAX, IS JUST FOR
RESIDENCES, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE MANSION TAX, YES, CORRECT.
MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. BUT -- BUT THERE'S A
SECOND TAX THAT WE'RE CREATING THAT STARTS AT WHEN A HOUSE -- OR WHEN A
RESIDENCE IS VALUED AT $3 MILLION OR MORE, OR ANOTHER PROPERTY SOLD AT
$2 MILLION OR MORE, CORRECT? SO THAT --
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. GARBARINO: I MEAN, IT WOULD AFFECT
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT SELL FOR $2 MILLION OR MORE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: FOR $2 MILLION OR MORE. YES, FOR
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
MR. GARBARINO: AND THAT'S THE ADDITIONAL TAX
THAT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW THEY DO $4 PER EVERY THOUSAND, AND IT'S
ANOTHER -- THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER $1.25 PER $500 IN VALUE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. SO, IT'S -- THIS IS THE
ADDITIONAL NEW YORK CITY REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX.
MR. GARBARINO: YES. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR CLEARING SOME OF THAT UP FOR ME.
I JUST HAD ONE FURTHER QUESTION DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC
FINANCING AND ELECTIONS COMMISSION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. GARBARINO: THEY HAVE -- THEY HAVE A LOT OF
THINGS THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT. I'M JUST WONDERING, ARE THEY
GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT BACK, YOU KNOW -- GET RID OF THE BAN ON OUTSIDE
402
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INCOME FOR THE LEGISLATORS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE ITEMS
WITHIN THEIR PURVIEW.
MR. GARBARINO: WELL --
MS. WEINSTEIN: BUT NICE TRY.
MR. GARBARINO: WELL, I MEAN, DOING THE BAN
WASN'T ONE OF THE ITEMS IN THE LAST COMMISSION'S PURVIEW, AND THEY DID
IT ANYWAY, SO...
(LAUGHTER)
I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS WILL -- IF WE COULD LOOK
FORWARD TO THAT. NO? ALL RIGHT. I TRIED.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
MR. GARBARINO: THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. NIOU.
MS. NIOU: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I HAVE A SLIGHT
COLD, SO APOLOGIES IF I START COUGHING. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK ON THE BILL. I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR WAYS AND MEANS CHAIR FOR
HER TIRELESS WORK TONIGHT.
MY DISTRICT IS LOWER MANHATTAN. WE ARE SO MANY
THINGS ALL TOGETHER. I REPRESENT THE FINANCIAL DISTRICT, BATTERY PARK
CITY, CHINATOWN, SOUTH STREET SEAPORT AND THE LOWER EAST SIDE. WE
ARE RACIALLY, ETHNICALLY AND SOCIOECONOMICALLY DIVERSE, AND WE ARE ALL
NEIGHBORS CARING FOR ONE ANOTHER. ONE-THIRD OF MY DISTRICT IS NYCHA
HOUSING. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE PASSING A BILL THAT INCLUDES SOME GOOD
THINGS, LIKE $64 MILLION FOR RENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND $15 MILLION IN
403
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HOME STABILITY SUPPORT EVICTION PREVENTION. BUT WE HAVE NOT INCLUDED
A SINGLE DOLLAR YET FOR NYCHA, WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN HORRENDOUS
CONDITIONS.
WE ARE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEW YORK TIMES FOR
SEGREGATION, AND OUR STUDENTS HAVE TEACHERS THAT ARE PAYING FOR THEIR
SNACKS OUT OF THEIR POCKETS WITHOUT ACCESS TO BASIC SCHOOL SUPPLIES, YET
WE HAVE NOT FULLY FUNDED FOUNDATION AID. MY DISTRICT ALONE IS OWED
$23.8 MILLION WORTH OF FOUNDATION AID. THE FACT THAT WE COMPLAIN
ABOUT NOT HAVING ENOUGH MONEY FOR THINGS IMPORTANT TO US, LIKE
HOUSING, SOCIAL SERVICES, EDUCATION OR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING, BUT THEN
CHOOSE NOT TO FULLY FUND CENSUS OUTREACH DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. WE
ARE ESPECIALLY LEAVING MONEY ON THE TABLE WHEN WE ARE NOT DOING
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE FULLY COUNTED IN THE 2020
CENSUS. THE FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENTS ARE LEFT AT THE TABLE. THAT IS
ACTUAL MONEY THAT SHOULD BE OURS.
WE HAVE ONE PARTICULAR SPARKLING GEM IN OUR BUDGET
THIS TIME. IT IS THE PACKAGE THAT WAS CAREFULLY CRAFTED ON BAIL REFORM. I
COMMEND MY COLLEAGUES THAT WORKED ON PIECES OF THIS PACKAGE. THIS
IS ONE STEP TO STOPPING THE CRIMINALIZATION OF POVERTY. THE HIGH COST OF
BEING POOR HAS BEEN PAID BY TOO MANY WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED A
TWO-TIERED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. NO OTHER PIECE OF OUR BUDGET WAS
AS WELL HASHED OUT, AND IT ISN'T PERFECT, BUT IT IS THOUGHTFUL AND IT IS
GOOD. WE SHOULD HAVE -- WE SHOULD MAKE HOW WE CRAFTED THESE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM BILLS AS A BETTER EXAMPLE OF REAL CONVERSATION
WITHIN OUR BODY. WE DESERVE A REAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESS ON THE MOST
404
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IMPORTANT DECISIONS WE MAKE EACH YEAR AS A LEGISLATURE.
WE NEED TO MAKE REAL, SYSTEMIC CHANGE. WE BEGAN
THIS YEAR PROCLAIMING OUR COMMITMENT TO A NEW FUTURE FOR NEW YORK
STATE. WE HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT SO FAR, SUCH AS PASSING
GENDA, THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT, THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT AND
STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS, BUT EVEN WITH ALL OF THAT PROGRESS WE HAVE
ACCOMPLISHED, ALBANY, IN MOMENTS LIKE THESE, STILL FEELS LIKE BUSINESS
AS USUAL. THE LEGISLATURE HAS A KEY ROLE IN MAKING SURE THE MONEY OF
THE STATE IS WELL SPENT; YET, THE PROCESS WE HAVE TO MAKE THESE
DECISIONS IS NOT ALWAYS TRANSPARENT.
THE BUDGET HAS BEEN ONE BIG POWER GRAB AFTER ANOTHER
BY THE GOVERNOR. CONGESTION PRICING IS NOT CLOSE TO BEING FLESHED OUT,
WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC FOR BOTH SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF THE POLICY.
THERE ARE NO SET DETAILS ON THE TOLLING AMOUNTS, OR THE FULL SET OF
EXEMPTIONS THAT MIGHT BE INCLUDED. WE'VE PUSHED THAT CONVERSATION TO
THE GOVERNOR-APPOINTED AUTHORITY. THE BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES A
PROVISION THAT ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS THE GOVERNOR TO UNILATERALLY REMOVE A
MEMBER FROM THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONTROL BOARD, WHICH WAS
INSTRUMENTAL IN DEFENDING COMMUNITIES FROM AMAZON. PUBLIC
FINANCING, WHICH WOULD EMPOWER OUR COMMUNITIES AND LIMIT
CORRUPTION HAS ALSO BEEN SIDELINED TO ANOTHER GOVERNOR-APPOINTED
COMMISSION. THE FORMATION OF THIS COMMISSION INSTEAD OF A VOTE ON
PUBLIC FINANCING IS AN ACTION THAT IS CLEARLY AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN
POLITICS IS PUT BEFORE POLICY, A PERSONAL VENDETTA PRIORITIZED BEFORE
DEMOCRACY.
405
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IT ISN'T AN EXAGGERATION TO CALL OUT THIS PROCESS AND SAY
THAT IT HAS BEEN FULL OF FALSE CHOICES AND TRAPS. I HOPE WE CAN HAVE
CONVERSATIONS LIKE THE ONE WE HAD ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM ON EVERY
ISSUE THAT WE ARE TACKLING. WE NEED TO CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATIONS ON
THESE POLICIES WHICH WILL AFFECT NEW YORKERS EVERYWHERE AND PUT THEIR
VOICES IN THIS ROOM, LIKE WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG. THIS IS
HOW WE MAKE GOOD POLICY.
THIS IS THE OLDEST LEGISLATURE IN THE NATION. WE
SHOULD BE A BEACON OF DEMOCRACY. THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE A
COEQUAL BRANCH, BUT BY GIVING AWAY OUR LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO TAKE THE
PUBLIC EYE FROM US ON HARD ISSUES THROUGH GOVERNOR-APPOINTED
COMMISSIONS, WE UNDERCUT OUR LEGISLATIVE POWERS. SOMETIMES WE
NEED TO HAVE MEANINGFUL AND UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATIONS IN ORDER TO
MAKE US A BETTER, STRONGER BODY. WE CANNOT BE AFRAID. WE LEARN
TODAY, WE CHANGE TOMORROW. I WILL BE VOTING AFFIRMATIVE IN THIS -- ON
THIS BILL, BUT IT'S ONLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE PRESENTED WITH A
WORSE OPTION. BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK ON THIS
VERY IMPORTANT BILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. JOHNS.
MR. JOHNS: GOOD MORNING, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: GOOD MORNING, SIR.
MR. JOHNS: I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE BILL, AND I JUST
WANT TO COVER A LITTLE BIT ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. I'M PROBABLY
ONE OF THE FEW REPUBLICANS THAT'S FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, BUT I'M
FOR REAL REFORM. AND WHAT I SAW IN THE, WELL, AT LEAST WHAT THE
406
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
GOVERNOR PROPOSED, WAS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THIS HOUSE PASSED EIGHT
YEARS AGO. AND FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN IT, IT WOULD
ALLOW INCUMBENTS, PEOPLE IN OFFICE, TO RAISE UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF
MONEY, SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY, AND DURING THAT TIME, THEY COULD RAISE
THIS MONEY, SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY, AND THEN ONCE THEY GET AN
OPPONENT, THEY COULD RAISE ANOTHER $25,000 IN SMALL DONATIONS AND
HAVE IT MATCH SIX-TO-ONE. THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A REAL FAIR SYSTEM.
AND IF YOU'RE IN OFFICE AND YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THE MAJORITY PARTY, YOU
CAN RAISE UP TO TEN TIMES AS MUCH MONEY AS THE MINORITY MEMBER.
AND BY THE TIME YOU HAVE AN OPPONENT, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY TOUGH FOR
THAT OPPONENT TO RAISE MONEY TO TAKE ON AN INCUMBENT. IT'S A HYBRID
SYSTEM. IT'S NOT REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. WHAT WE NEED IS AN
EITHER/OR SITUATION, EITHER YOU TAKE BIG MONEY, SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY,
PACS, LOBBYIST MONEY, OR YOU TAKE PUBLIC FINANCING. WE CAN'T DO
BOTH. AND THAT WOULD ALLOW EVERYBODY TO HAVE A VOICE THAT WANTED TO
RUN FOR OFFICE, WOULD ALLOW THEM TO TALK ABOUT ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT
TO THE PEOPLE BACK HOME, INSTEAD OF BEING BEHOLDEN TO BIG MONEY AND
SPECIAL INTEREST.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS COMMISSION IS MAYBE NOT
THE BEST THING THAT WE COULD BE PUTTING IN THIS BILL. WE HAVE A LOT OF
SMART PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER. WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS OF
OUR OWN. THE COMMISSION, THE PAID COMMISSION THAT WE -- THAT SOME
PEOPLE VOTED FOR A YEAR AGO WASN'T THAT WELL-RECEIVED BACK HOME WHERE
I'M FROM. SO, I THINK HAVING A COMMISSION, PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT
UNDERSTAND REALLY WHAT'S GOING ON, IS NOT THE BEST IDEA. AND THEN ALL
407
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WE CAN DO IS EITHER VOTE IT DOWN OR IT BECOMES LAW.
SO, MY SUGGESTION IS LET'S GET TOGETHER, BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE, COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS FOR REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
AND THEN LET'S VOTE ON THAT AND HAVE THAT THE LAW OF THE LAND HERE IN
NEW YORK. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. SCHMITT.
MR. SCHMITT: GOOD MORNING, MR. SPEAKER.
WOULD THE CHAIRWOMAN YIELD FOR A FEW QUESTIONS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MR. SCHMITT: THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN. JUST
WANTED TO EXPAND ON A FEW ITEMS THAT WE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT ALREADY IN
SOME OF THE QUESTIONING.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. SCHMITT: GOING TO THE FINAL COST REPORTS AND
THE PENALTIES THAT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS. YOU
HAD MENTIONED THAT STANDALONE BILLS OR SOMEBODY HAD PROPOSED AN
OMNIBUS BILL MAY BE CONSIDERED GOING FORWARD. NOW, IF I RECALL
CORRECTLY, LAST YEAR IN THE GOVERNOR'S VETOES OF THE STANDALONE BILLS, HE
STATED THAT THIS IS A BUDGET ITEM, HE WOULD ONLY CONSIDER TAKING IT UP IN
THE BUDGET. HAS SOMETHING CHANGED SINCE THAT VETO MESSAGE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, YOU KNOW, THE STAFF DID BRING
THAT UP TO HIM AND, YOU KNOW, TO -- SEEMS HE WASN'T INTERESTED IN DOING
408
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IT IN THE BUDGET EITHER.
MR. SCHMITT: SO, WE STILL WOULD LIKE TO TRY AGAIN,
MAYBE HE'S CHANGED HIS MIND.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. SCHMITT: WE'LL HOPE. OKAY.
GOING TO THE TAX CERTIORARI DEBT RELIEF ISSUE THAT WAS
INCLUDED. THERE WAS A SOLUTION INCLUDED IN BOTH THE ASSEMBLY AND
SENATE ONE-HOUSE. IT SEEMED TO BE DROPPED OUT. HAS THERE BEEN ANY
COMMITMENT FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN THIS REGARD GOING FORWARD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO. NO. WE TRIED TO, AS I STATED
EARLIER, WE TRIED GETTING THIS IN A THREE-WAY AGREEMENT TO HAVE IT
INCLUDED IN THIS BUDGET; WE WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL.
MR. SCHMITT: OKAY. THANK YOU. GOING TO THE TAX
CAP AND MAKING THE TAX CAP PERMANENT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. SCHMITT: I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT THIS
SINGLE-HANDEDLY HAS BEEN THE MOST SUCCESSFUL TAX RELIEF AND TAX
CONTROLLING MEASURE IN STATE HISTORY, AND I'M VERY EXCITED TO SEE THAT'S
INCLUDED AND, IN MY OPINION, IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE THAT WE HAVE
IN THE BUDGET THIS YEAR. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS TO THAT
LANGUAGE, OR IS IT EXACTLY AS IT STANDS CURRENTLY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S A -- IT IS A STRAIGHT EXTENDER.
MR. SCHMITT: OKAY, GREAT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: PERMANENT -- NOT EXTENDER, IT IS --
MR. SCHMITT: PERMANENT EXTENSION.
409
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- IT IS MADE PERMANENT, YES, IN
ITS CURRENT FORM.
MR. SCHMITT: PERFECT. WHEN IT COMES TO THE
STAR EXEMPTION INCOME LIMIT CHANGES FROM $500,000 THRESHOLD TO
$250,000.
MS. WEINSTEIN: TO $250-, YES.
MR. SCHMITT: IS THERE AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY
HOUSEHOLDS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND.
MR. SCHMITT: ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND,
OKAY.
NOW, GOING TO CONGESTION PRICING, SHOULD I DIRECT
THOSE QUESTIONS TO MS. PAULIN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE BEST.
MR. SCHMITT: THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN, I
APPRECIATE IT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. SCHMITT: ON THE CONGESTION PRICING, IF I WAS
READING IT CORRECTLY, 80 PERCENT OF ANY OF THE REVENUES COLLECTED FROM
THIS WOULD GO TO MTA, AND THEN 10 PERCENT WOULD GO TO METRO-NORTH;
IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. PAULIN: WELL, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT WOULD
GET 80 PERCENT, 10 PERCENT METRO-NORTH, 10 PERCENT LIR.
MR. SCHMITT: IS THERE AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT THAT 10
PERCENT NUMBER FOR METRO-NORTH WOULD LOOK LIKE?
410
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. PAULIN: WELL, THE LOCKBOX IS WITH THE REVENUE
FROM THE SALES TAX AND THE REVENUE FROM THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX AND
THE REVENUE FROM THE CONGESTION PRICING SCHEME WOULD BE ABOUT $25
BILLION. SO, 10 PERCENT WOULD BE ABOUT $2.5 BILLION.
MR. SCHMITT: OKAY. I HEARD YOUR PREVIOUS
ANSWER --
MS. PAULIN: DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? OKAY. I'M JUST
TIRED, SORRY.
MR. SCHMITT: NO, THAT'S ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I
RECALL SOME OF YOUR PREVIOUS RESPONSES TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND I
WAS WONDERING WHO HAS STANDING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OR
SUBCOMMITTEE YOU MENTIONED TO SEEK A CONCESSION, SUCH AS IN MY
DISTRICT WE HAVE MANY MEMBERS OF THE FDNY AND NYPD WHO
COMMUTE, AMONGST, OBVIOUSLY OTHER -- MANY OTHER MEMBERS OF UNION
LABOR, PRIVATE SECTOR. WHO HAS STANDING TO GO BEFORE OR IS THERE -- WHAT
WOULD BE THE PROCESS TO GO BEFORE TO SEEK AN EXEMPTION OR CONCESSION
FROM LAW?
MS. PAULIN: WELL, IN ESTABLISHING THE TOLLS, THERE
WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE REVIEW BOARD IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED
TO DO A CAREFUL ANALYSIS. ANYBODY, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL BE WELL-KNOWN.
IT'LL BE PUBLIC WHO THEY ARE. PEOPLE CAN REACH OUT AND SO, I DON'T KNOW
THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE STANDING, PER SE. I THINK YOU JUST HAVE TO, LIKE
OUR CONSTITUENTS CALL US, YOU'D PICK UP THE PHONE OR YOU SEND AN E-MAIL
AND YOU LET THEM KNOW YOU -- YOU THINK SOMETHING SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED.
411
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. SCHMITT: NOW, THAT HEARING OR HEARINGS, IS
THERE GOING TO BE ONE OR COULD BE MORE?
MS. PAULIN: WELL, THE -- CURRENTLY IN THE LAW,
THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR ONE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FARE INCREASES, FOR
EXAMPLE, BUT THE MTA HAS BROADENED THAT TO -- TO INCLUDE MANY
DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. IN THE LAST FARE INCREASE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD, I
THINK, ONE IN EVERY BOROUGH. I KNOW THEY HAD ONE IN WESTCHESTER.
AND SO, WE EXPECT, BECAUSE WE MODELED THE LANGUAGE SIMILARLY, WE
EXPECT THAT THEY WOULD FOLLOW THE SAME PROCEDURE.
MR. SCHMITT: SO WE SHOULD EXPECT IN MY DISTRICT
IN ORANGE AND ROCKLAND COUNTIES TO HAVE ONE IN THE IMMEDIATE
VICINITY FOR PEOPLE TO ATTEND, NOT HAVING TO TRAVEL TO MANHATTAN OR TO
ONE OF THE FIVE BOROUGHS.
MS. PAULIN: I WOULD IMAGINE.
MR. SCHMITT: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL.
MR. SCHMITT: I KNOW WE'RE VERY LATE AT NIGHT, OR
EARLY IN THE MORNING, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT, MR. SPEAKER, AND
I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROPERTY TAX CAP BEING
MADE PERMANENT. I THINK IT IS THE MOST CRUCIAL AND CRITICAL PIECE OF THIS
BUDGET. IT AFFECTS EVERYONE IN MY DISTRICT AND RESIDENTS ACROSS THE
STATE. IT IS A NONPARTISAN ISSUE. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL SAVE
TAXPAYERS BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PERPETUITY NOW. WE HAVE
ALREADY SEEN THAT SUCCESS SINCE IT WAS ORIGINALLY IMPLEMENTED.
412
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MANY OF THE PROBLEMS FACING NEW YORK ARE THE
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. EVERYONE IN NEW YORK DESERVES THAT THIS STATE
SHOULD BE A PLACE WHERE ALL CAN LIVE, WORK PROSPER AND RETIRE, AND THE
PROPERTY TAX CAP BEING MADE PERMANENT WILL MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT
EASIER.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE SEE IN THE FINAL BILL LANGUAGE HERE A
WHOLE MESS OF ITEMS PUSHED TOGETHER. I PERSONALLY DO NOT APPRECIATE
AND ENJOY THE MANY PIECES THAT WERE PUT TOGETHER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO
BE DEBATED ON A STANDALONE MEASURE, BUT I DO KNOW THAT I'M PROUD TO
HAVE WORKED ON AND MY CONFERENCE IS PROUD TO HAVE WORKED ON THIS
PERMANENT PROPERTY TAX CAP. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND HOPE EVERYONE
ENJOYS THE REST OF THE MORNING.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. BICHOTTE.
MS. BICHOTTE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MA'AM.
MS. BICHOTTE: I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN VOCAL ABOUT
MY POSITION AND CONCERNS ON CONGESTING PRICING SURCHARGE ON VEHICLES
ENTERING INTO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF MANHATTAN. AND, YOU
KNOW, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD ADDRESS CONGESTION,
BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD ADDRESS CONGESTION, AND IT'S NOT
BECAUSE THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE MTA TRANSIT SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE
FIXED. OBVIOUSLY, WE KNOW THAT OUR SUBWAYS, OUR BUSES, OUR RAILWAYS
NEEDS FIXING. I EXPRESSED CONCERNS BECAUSE OF HOW IT MAY IMPACT THE
PEOPLE IN OUR CITY AND THEIR LIVELIHOOD, AND ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF
413
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MTA, MAKING SURE THAT THESE FIXES HAPPEN.
NEW YORK CITY RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT TO EMBARK ON A
MAJOR, MAJOR UNDERTAKING WITH TOLLS AND SURCHARGES ON DRIVERS DRIVING
INTO MANHATTAN, FROM THE SOUTH OF MANHATTAN UP TO THE 60TH STREET,
AND THIS WILL TAKE EFFECT UNTIL 2021. AND RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ASKING
PEOPLE OF NEW YORK CITY, THE WORKING CLASS, TO MAKE ANOTHER FINANCIAL
SACRIFICE. MANY OF US LIVE IN THE CITY IS IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE
LIVING FROM PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK, AND NOW WE'RE ASKING FOR THEM TO
FURTHER BURDEN THEIR FINANCIAL SITUATION.
I HAVE A VERY DIVERSE DISTRICT WITH ACCESS TO PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION IN SOME PARTS AND LESS IN OTHER PARTS. PARTS OF MY
COMMUNITY DON'T RIDE THE SUBWAY FOR VARIOUS REASONS. MANY FEEL THAT
DRIVING IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE ROUTE BECAUSE OF THE UNKEPT, DELAYED,
MALFUNCTIONED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION THAT HARDLY GETS ANY ATTENTION,
ESPECIALLY IN THE OUTER BOROUGHS. MR. SPEAKER, FOR MANY YEARS THERE
HAS BEEN A MOVING DISPARITY IN THE OUTER BOROUGHS. TAXI CABS WERE
SPECIFICALLY NOT PICKING UP OR WANTING TO DROP PASSENGERS IN THE OUTER
BOROUGHS. IN MANY CASES, THEY WERE RACIALLY BIASED. THE SUBWAYS AND
BUSES WERE INADEQUATELY FUNDED, WHICH MADE THE EXPERIENCE OF A
TRANSIT RIDER SUBPAR, WITH DELAYS CAUSING THEM HARDSHIP TO BALANCE LIFE,
LIKE GETTING TO WORK, GOING TO THE DOCTOR, OR GETTING THEIR CHILDREN TO
SCHOOL ON TIME. BECAUSE OF THE RACIAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITIES OF
HAVING A BROKEN TRANSIT SYSTEM OR NO SYSTEM AT ALL, THERE BECAME AN
OPPORTUNITY OF MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY TO CREATE A SECOND TIER
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. AND IN MY CASE IN MY COMMUNITY, THEY WERE
414
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CALLED A DOLLAR VAN. THE DOLLAR CAB. A PHENOMENON THAT WAS ADOPTED
FROM DIFFERENT CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES LIKE JAMAICA AND HAITI AND IN
CREOLE, WE SAY (SPEAKING CREOLE). WE NOW HAD AN ALTERNATE MEANS OF
TRANSPORTATION TO MOVE PAST THE DELAYED BUSES AND BROKEN, UNKEPT
TRAINS AND FOR THE DESERTS IN SOUTH BROOKLYN LIKE CANARSIE. IT WAS THE
ONLY MEANS TO MOVE AROUND. AND THEN WHEN THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH, MR.
SPEAKER, RIDE SHARING WAS INTRODUCED, WHERE MEMBERS OF OUR
COMMUNITY WERE NOT ONLY MAKE A LIVING WAGE AS DRIVERS, BUT WAS ABLE
TO PARTICIPATE IN HELPING MOVE NEW YORK.
SO, ALL OF THIS DISPARITY WAS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO
THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE FACING TODAY, CONGESTION. MEANWHILE, THE
CONDITIONS OF THE SUBWAYS WERE GETTING WORSE - AN INCREASE OF MOLD,
STAIRWAYS NOT FIXED, BROKEN TRACKS INFESTED WITH RATS, DELAYED TRAINS,
OUT OF DATED -- OUTDATED TECHNOLOGY. FARES WERE INCREASING AND WE, AS
LEGISLATORS, WERE ALLOCATING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF CAPITAL IN THE PAST TO
FIX OUR SUBWAY SYSTEM AND, YET, HAVE LITTLE OR NO EFFECTIVE RESULT TO
SHOW FOR IT. THE FUNDS WENT DISPROPORTIONATELY, MOSTLY TO MANHATTAN
AND, ON TOP OF THAT, THE TRANSIT WORKERS WERE BEING DOWNSIZED IN MY
DISTRICT. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BENEFITS FOR THESE TRANSIT WORKERS,
THEIR PENSION WERE BEING COMPROMISED.
SO, WHAT HAPPENED IS WHEN MANHATTANERS WERE
COMING INTO THE OUTER BOROUGHS, THEY REALIZED THE SUBSTANDARD
CONDITIONS WE WERE LIVING IN FOR YEARS. AND SO, THE SQUEAKY WHEEL
WAS FINALLY HEARD. NOW THAT PEOPLE FINALLY HAVE AN OPTION ON HOW TO
MOVE, WHETHER IT'S DRIVING VIA RIDE SHARING OR VIA -- WAS MORE THAN JUST
415
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TO HOP ON A BUS OR A SUBWAY, WHICH WOULD TAKE ACTUALLY TWO HOURS
MORE THAN DRIVING TO MANHATTAN, WAS AN OPTION THAT PEOPLE DECIDED
THAT THEY WOULD PREFER.
SO, CONGESTION PRICING, THE NOTION OF IT NO LONGER
BECAME AN ENVIRONMENTAL THING. IT BECAME, WELL, LET'S TAX THE WORKING
CLASS TO FIX THE SUBWAY VERSUS TAXING THE MILLIONAIRES. ACCORDING TO
KEEP NYC CONGESTION FEE [SIC], HERE ARE THREE MYTHS THAT WERE NOTED:
MYTH NUMBER ONE: CONGESTION PRICING WILL FIX THE SUBWAY. ESTIMATES
ON COST TO OVERHAUL THE NEW YORK CITY SUBWAY SYSTEM RANGES FROM
ABOUT $19- TO $38 BILLION. AT THE MOST, IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT
CONGESTION TAX WILL RAISE AROUND $800 MILLION PER YEAR. CONGESTION
PRICING, EVEN IF FULLY DEVELOPED AND COMPLETED -- COMPLETELY
IMPLEMENTED WILL NOT BE ENOUGH, AND THAT WAS QUOTED BY THE FORMER
CHAIR OF MTA, JOE LHOTA. MYTH NUMBER TWO: CONGESTION PRICING WILL
REDUCE CONGESTION IN MANHATTAN. NOW, THE DATA SHOWS THAT TRIPS BY
PRIVATE AUTOMOBILES INTO MANHATTAN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT HAVE
BEEN DECLINING FOR TWO DECADES. INSTEAD, CONGESTION IS BEING CAUSED
BY THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH OF SERVICES LIKE UBER AND LYFT. THESE SERVICES
ARE NOT GENERATING CONGESTION BY GOING IN AND OUT OF THE PLAN ZONE,
THEY ARE ACTUALLY TROLLING AROUND FOR RIDES WITHIN THE ZONE ITSELF. SO,
YOU ASK YOURSELF, HOW WE GOING TO BE GENERATING REVENUE?
MYTH NUMBER THREE: CONGESTION PRICING WILL ONLY
IMPACT THE WEALTHY. NEW YORK CITY RESIDENTS WHO COMMUTE VIA PRIVATE
AUTOMOBILES MAKE VIRTUALLY THE SAME AVERAGE INCOME AS THOSE WHO
COMMUTE BY BICYCLE, AND LESS THAN THOSE WHO WALK TO WORK.
416
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CONGESTION PRICING WILL AFFECT MIDDLE-CLASS COMMUTERS, MANY OF WHOM
LACK ACCESS TO RELIABLE SUBWAY TRANSPORTATION. CONGESTION PRICING
WILL IMPOSE SURCHARGES ON PEOPLE WITH VEHICLES ENTERING THE CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT.
AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT JUST WEALTHY PEOPLE WHO HAVE
VEHICLES WHO LIVE IN THE CBD. MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE DRIVE INTO THE
CBD. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE LOW-INCOME. THIS WOULD IMPACT
MIDDLE-INCOME WORKING CLASSES WHERE THEIR VEHICLES THAT THEY HAVE TO
MAINTAIN THROUGH INSURANCE REPAIR AND GAS EXPENSES, AGAIN, WILL BE
ANOTHER FINANCIAL BURDEN, AND EVEN MORE TAXING ARE THE METERED
PARKING FEES AND THE OUTRAGEOUS PARKING GARAGE FEES. YOU HAVE
BUSINESSES WHO NEED TO TRAVEL THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THOSE WITH
VEHICLES AND THOSE WITHOUT, FOR-HIRE VEHICLE PASSENGERS ARE MOST LIKELY
TO BE HIT WITH A COST-TRANSFER TO THEM. CONSUMERS EVENTUALLY WILL BE
STUCK WITH A BILL AFTER SUPPLIERS TRANSFER COST TO BUSINESSES AND
BUSINESSES TRANSFER THE COST TO THE CONSUMERS BY INCREASING THE PRICE
MERCHANDISE. WILL OUR TAXPAYERS OVERALL GET HIT TO COVER THE COST OF THE
BILLS THAT WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT? BECAUSE THERE ARE THOSE
WHO NEED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE SURCHARGE, ASSESS [SIC]
(ACCESS)-A-RIDE, FIRST RESPONDER VEHICLES.
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME EXEMPTIONS. THERE ARE
VERY -- THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT CARVE-OUTS AND EXEMPTIONS. FOR
EXAMPLE, PATIENTS WITH SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS. IMPOSING COSTS FOR
CONGESTION PRICING CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO IMPEDE ON ONE'S HEALTH.
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES OR MOBILITY; SENIOR CITIZENS; LOW-INCOME FOR
417
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SINGLES; LOW-INCOME FOR HOUSEHOLDS; DISTRICT WITH LOW RATES OF DRIVERS.
I MEAN, I KEEP HEARING THIS THING SAYING, OH, IN YOUR DISTRICT ONLY 1 TO
2 PERCENT OF PEOPLE OR DRIVERS WILL BE IMPACTED. WELL, IF THAT'S THE
CASE, LET'S EXEMPT THOSE DISTRICTS. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET MUCH MONEY
OUT OF IT ANYWAY. RESIDENTS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, THEY
SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED. RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BE HOSTAGE IN THEIR
OWN DISTRICT, IT'S UNFAIR. HOW ABOUT THE BRIDGE RIDERS? THEY'RE GOING
TO BE TAXED TWICE: TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE, VERRAZZANO BRIDGE,
BROOKLYN-BATTERY TUNNEL, QUEENS-MIDTOWN TUNNEL. AND IF WE -- WE
DECIDE TO REROUTE EVERYBODY ONTO THE BQE AND FDR, THEN WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE ANOTHER CONGESTION CRISIS AND OUR INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE BROKEN.
SO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME,
WE'RE SAYING THAT CONGESTION PRICING IS GOING TO GENERATE ABOUT $800-
TO $1.1 BILLION EACH YEAR. THERE'S A REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX THAT'S BEING
INCORPORATED, BUT AS YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO KIND OF SUSTAIN THAT BECAUSE
YOU ONLY GET THE TAX WHEN THERE'S A SALE THAT HAPPENS. AND HOW
CONSISTENT WILL THAT HAPPEN? INTERNET SALES WILL BE ABOUT $300 MILLION.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE MILLIONAIRES' TAX AGAIN THAT WAS COMPLETELY
EXCLUDED. WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONAIRES' TAX, WHICH WOULD GENERATE
ABOUT $500 MILLION. WE TALKED ABOUT A PIED-À-TERRE TAX. AGAIN, WE'RE
HEARING THAT, OH, WE CANNOT USE THIS FORM OF MILLIONAIRE TAX BECAUSE
IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL
IS TARGETING THE WRONG GROUP. WHAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS TARGETING
WORKING CLASS PEOPLE AND FINDING A WAY TO TAX THEM. AND THAT, IN
ITSELF, IS A VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
418
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CONGESTION, IT SHOULD BE A
CITY-WIDE ISSUE. IN MY DISTRICT, THERE'S A LOT OF CONGESTION. I LIVE IN
BROOKLYN, THE MOST CENTER PART OF BROOKLYN, A PLACE WHERE IT'S CALLED
FLATBUSH JUNCTION. IF WE'RE -- IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDRESSING AIR
QUALITY IN MANHATTAN, WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING AIR QUALITY ALL OVER THE
PLACE. WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT INCENTIVES LIKE ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY
VEHICLES, TAX CREDITS; INVESTING IN MORE TRAFFIC OFFICERS; FINDING A WAY
TO EXPAND OUR TRUCK LOADING ZONES TO AVOID DOUBLE PARKING.
MR. SPEAKER, LAST WEEK AFTER MEETING WITH PAT FOYE,
THE PRESIDENT OF MTA, WE DID ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS. WE TALKED
ABOUT WHAT'S THE PLAN, WHAT'S THE PLAN TO BE LAID OUT? WE TALKED ABOUT
THE MONEY, HOW IT WILL BE SPENT ON ACTUAL REPAIRS AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND NOT MERELY BE ON VANITY PROJECTS. WE TALKED ABOUT
HAVING A SAY ON THIS PANEL, THE TRAFFIC MOBILITY REVIEW BOARD OF SIX,
AND HAVING A SAY ON CARVE-OUTS, EXEMPTIONS, TOLLS AND CREDITS. WE
TALKED ABOUT HOW THE MONEYS WILL BE SECURED IN A LOCKBOX SO THAT IT'S
SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED TO FIXING THE SUBWAY, TO FIXING OUR PUBLIC MASS
TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING LIR, THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD, AS WELL AS THE
METRO-NORTH. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAVING A
VETOING POWER ON THE CAPITAL REVIEW BOARD IF THERE'S NO REAL PROGRESS.
IT MADE ME A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE TO SEE THAT
THERE'S PROGRESS IN TERMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY, BUT AS A
LEGISLATOR, I'M NOT FULLY SATISFIED; HOWEVER, I KNOW THERE'S MEMBERS IN
MY DISTRICT WHO ARE FOR CONGESTING PRICING AND I KNOW MANY MORE WHO
ARE AGAINST IT. AND WITH THAT, AS A LEGISLATOR, I HAVE TO BE OPEN-MINDED
419
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AND HOPE THAT THERE'S INTEGRITY IN THE PLAN THAT'S LAID OUT. I ALSO HOPE
THAT GOING FORWARD, ALL THE ENERGY THAT'S PUT INTO THIS TAXING OF THE
WORKING CLASS WILL SOON SHIFT TO TAXING THE MILLIONAIRES, BECAUSE THAT'S
MONEY THAT WE CAN GET IMMEDIATELY. THAT'S MONEY WE CAN GET
IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. BICHOTTE, YOU
WILL -- EXPIRED YOUR TIME. YOU CAN COME BACK.
MS. BICHOTTE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AND I
WILL -- I WILL VOTE IN THE BUDGET -- I WILL VOTE FOR THIS BUDGET AND I HOPE
THAT I BECOME A VERY ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE MOVEMENT FOR AN
EQUITABLE AND FAIR OUTCOME FOR OUR NEW YORKERS. THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MS. BYRNES.
MS. BYRNES: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I HAVE TO
JUST ABOUT BE THE LAST, HOPEFULLY, THE LAST OR ALMOST THE LAST IS NOT LEAST.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: I'M AFRAID NOT.
(LAUGHTER)
MS. BYRNES: OH, WELL; WE'RE HERE ANYWAY. IF
MADAM CHAIR, IF I COULD ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS, MA'AM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE, BE HAPPY TO.
MS. BYRNES: THANK YOU, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO YIELD.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MS. BYRNES: ALTHOUGH YOU MAY NEED TO DEFER,
BECAUSE I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THE -- THE ELIMINATION OF
420
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CASH BAIL IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND I BELIEVE YOU HAD TURNED IT OVER TO
ANOTHER MEMBER.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, ASSEMBLYWOMAN LATRICE
WALKER HAS SPONSORED THIS BILL AND NEGOTIATED THE PROVISIONS, SO SHE'LL
BE RESPONDING.
MS. BYRNES: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
MS. WALKER: THANK YOU.
MS. BYRNES: HOW ARE YA?
OKAY, I'VE GOT JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. EARLIER,
PROBABLY AT THIS POINT ABOUT TWO OR THREE HOURS AGO, THERE WAS SOME
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE COSTS MAY OR MAY NOT BE, BOTH FINANCIALLY
AND SOCIETAL, TO HAVING ANY REFORM OF THE BAIL SYSTEM. ONE THING THAT
WASN'T DISCUSSED AT THE TIME THAT I WANT TO TOUCH ON, THOUGH, IS MY
UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK
STATE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION IS THAT THEY THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A
DIRECT COST TO THEM IN ORDER TO TRACK DOWN AND REARREST PEOPLE WHO
HAVE TO HAVE BENCH WARRANTS ISSUED FOR THEIR ARREST, AND I WANTED TO
KNOW WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE ON THAT, MA'AM.
MS. WALKER: WELL, I BEG TO DIFFER. THERE WILL BE
SOME SAVINGS IN LIEU OF LESS USAGE OF THE JAILS AND LESS PRECONVICTION
INCARCERATIONS. AND ALSO, THERE WILL BE NOTIFICATIONS THAT WILL BE SENT
OUT TO INDIVIDUALS AND I BELIEVE THIS IS IN A CASE OF WHERE DESK
APPEARANCE TICKETS ARE ADMINISTERED.
MS. BYRNES: GOING TO THAT, IF THERE ARE APPEARANCE
TICKETS AND THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO GIVE NOTIFICATIONS TO PEOPLE BY WAY
421
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OF TEXT, PHONE, ELECTRONIC MAIL, FIRST-CLASS MAIL, UNDERSTAND THAT AND
THAT WORKS GREAT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE PHONES AND WHO HAVE
HOMES. I SAW A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO CAME IN FRONT OF ME ON A DAILY
BASIS WHO WERE HOMELESS AND INDIGENT AND DIDN'T HAVE THESE THINGS.
OBVIOUSLY, PRETRIAL RELEASE SERVICES, MANY, MANY DECADES AGO WAS
ORIGINALLY FORMULATED TO HELP THESE INDIVIDUALS MAKE THEIR COURT DATES,
BUT HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT TO DO THESE OFFICIAL NOTIFICATIONS WHEN
INDIVIDUALS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE CONTACTED?
MS. WALKER: WELL, I BELIEVE IT'S TO THE EXTENT
POSSIBLE. AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT AT LEAST THOSE
ARE A MODICUM OF PRETRIAL SERVICES THAT ONE COULD BE ABLE TO AVAIL
THEMSELVES OF. I'M SURE THEY WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING THE TEXT
MESSAGES OR THE TELEPHONE CALLS, BUT SINCE YOU MENTIONED THAT SOME OF
THESE PEOPLE MAY NOT HAVE TELEPHONES OR THE TEXT MESSAGE OR E-MAIL
CAPABILITIES, WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THAT?
SHOULD WE KEEP THOSE INDIVIDUALS INCARCERATED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE
THE MECHANISMS TO BE CONTACTED?
MS. BYRNES: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
MS. WALKER: I WAS JUST CHECKING.
MS. BYRNES: WHEN I WAS A JUDGE AND EVERYBODY
KNOW WHO WERE, WHAT THEY DID IS THEY LOOKED AT A PERSON'S RECORD, THEY
LOOKED AT THE KNOWLEDGE, DID THE PERSON COME BACK TO COURT WHEN THEY
WERE RELEASED PREVIOUSLY, THEY LOOKED AT THEIR NYSID TO DETERMINE IF
THEY HAVE A HISTORY OF BENCH WARRANTS OR ARREST WARRANTS ON THEIR
RECORDS, AND INDIVIDUAL COURT RECORDS, CITY COURT AT THAT POINT KEPT ITS
422
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OWN INTERNAL RECORDS, TO MAKE DECISIONS. OBVIOUSLY, THE SERIOUSNESS
OR THE LACK OF SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE AND ANY OTHER FACTOR, DID THE
PERSON HAVE A JOB, THINGS THAT WOULD GIVE YOU SOME LEVEL OF ASSURANCE
THAT A PERSON WOULD COME BACK TO COURT. IF A JUDGE FELT THAT THEY
WEREN'T A GOOD RISK TO COME BACK TO COURT, THEN BAIL WOULD BE SET.
SOMETIMES BAIL WOULD BE SET AS LITTLE AS $1 OR $2 OR $3 IF THAT'S ALL THE
PERSON MAY HAVE HAD IN THEIR POCKET BECAUSE THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO
THEM, AND THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO ENSURE THAT SOMEBODY CAME BACK TO
COURT.
MS. WALKER: WELL, I'M GLAD THAT YOU MENTIONED
THAT, BECAUSE THERE WAS A SITUATION RECENTLY THAT I DID HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON WHERE SOMEONE HAD BEEN ASSESSED BAIL FOR $1,
IT WAS A $1 HOLD THAT WAS PLACED ON THAT INDIVIDUAL. AND WHEN I
CONTACTED THE FAMILY MEMBERS TO BE ABLE TO GO DOWN AND PAY THAT $1
HOLD, DID YOU KNOW WHAT SOMEONE SAID TO ME? ASSEMBLYWOMAN, I
WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO GO AND PAY THAT $1 HOLD, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE
CAR FARE TO GET DOWNTOWN. SO, AGAIN, EVEN WHEN THERE ARE -- IS BAIL THAT
IS SET AS LOW AS $1, POVERTY STILL PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN EXERCISING
DISCRIMINATION IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND IT'S THAT THAT WE WANT
TO WEED OUT WITH THIS BILL.
MS. BYRNES: THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THE FACT
THAT POVERTY IS CERTAINLY A CONSIDERATION, AND I BELIEVE THOSE ARE THINGS
THAT ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT ALSO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
FACT THAT EVEN UNDER THIS BILL THAT THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE, STILL,
ON MISDEMEANORS AND OTHER MATTERS OF A LOW LEVEL, THAT IF IT'S
423
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PERSON IS A RISK AND THE COURT MAKES A
DETERMINATION THAT THE PERSON IS A RISK OF FLIGHT THAT BAIL CAN STILL BE SET;
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
MS. WALKER: IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS, YOU'RE
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
MS. BYRNES: NOW, WHAT CONSTITUTES THE LEVEL OF
PROOF REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS DEMONSTRATION? CAN I -- IF I WERE A JUDGE
STILL, CAN I JUST LOOK AT THEIR NYSID TO SEE IF THEIR BENCH WARRANT OR
ARREST WARRANT HISTORIES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, OR -- OR WOULD I HAVE
TO CONDUCT A FULL-BLOWN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHERE PEOPLE TESTIFIED AND
MAKE A DECISION BASED UPON SOME OTHER LEVEL OF PROOF?
MS. WALKER: WELL, IN THE CASE OF THE OFFENSES THAT
ARE STILL BAIL-ELIGIBLE, WE HAVE NOT CHANGED THE NEW YORK STATE COURT
OF APPEALS DECISIONS THAT HAVE ALLOWED FOR COURTS TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT
THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE AND THE SEVERITY OF THE SENTENCE WHICH MAY BE
IMPOSED. FOR INSTANCE, IN THOSE CASES REGARDING PEOPLE V. PERONE AND
PEOPLE V. PARKER. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE NEW YORK -- THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION IN THE SALERNO DECISION, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THE
LAW OF THE LAND, ALSO ALLOWS FOR CERTAIN OTHER SITUATIONS TO BE
CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
FIND THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT HERE, AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT WE HAVE
INCLUDED THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW WHICH DISALLOWS FOR
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX, BASED ON YOUR INCOME LEVELS, BASED ON
YOUR NATIONAL ORIGIN, BASED ON YOUR RACE. SO, WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING
THAT WE CAN IN ORDER TO WEED OUT THE TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION THAT YOU'RE
424
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DESCRIBING.
MS. BYRNES: SO IRONICALLY, THE TYPES OF THINGS
YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WANT TO BE CONSIDERED ARE EXACTLY THE SAME
THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY CONSIDERED BY JUDGES IN THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE THE
THINGS YOU MENTIONED WERE JUST THE ONES I MENTIONED JUST A COUPLE OF
MINUTES AGO. TURNING TO ANOTHER QUESTION, YOU ALSO --
MS. WALKER: THERE'S A LOT MORE WORK THAT WE
HAVE LEFT TO DO WITHIN THIS BILL, RESPECTFULLY, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES, PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW, THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE AS WELL AS THOSE SENATORS, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT
WHILE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT FIRST STEP IN BAIL REFORM, THAT WE ARE ALSO
CONSIDERING A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH ON
THIS ROUND.
MS. BYRNES: ALL RIGHT. TURNING RIGHT NOW,
THOUGH, TO THE BILL AT-HAND, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE BILL ALSO INDICATES
NOW THAT WHEN CASH BAIL IS SET, THE JUDGE SHALL SELECT THREE OR MORE
SUCH OPTIONS, ONE OF WHICH SHALL BE AN UNSECURED OR PARTIALLY SECURED
BOND; IS THAT CORRECT, MA'AM? YES OR NO?
MS. WALKER: YES.
MS. BYRNES: OKAY. NOW, THAT BEING THE CASE, IF
WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S ACCUSED OF A VIOLENT FELONY OF OFFENSE, OF A
ROBBERY, ARMED ROBBERY, BURGLARY OF A HOME, RAPE, AND A JUDGE SETS
CASH BAIL, UNDER THIS STATUTE ONE OF THE THREE OPTIONS HAS GOT TO BE AN
UNSECURED OR PARTIALLY SECURED BOND; IS THAT CORRECT? THAT DOES SEEM
TO BE THE PLAIN READING OF WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
425
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WALKER: WELL, PARTIALLY SECURED CAN BE ABOUT
90 PERCENT OF THAT BOND. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO A BAIL BONDSMAN.
MS. BYRNES: AN EXCEEDINGLY MINIMAL AMOUNT, OR
JUST FLAT-OUT RELEASED, BECAUSE AN UNSECURED BOND AND A PARTIALLY
SECURED SURETY BOND, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, ARE BASICALLY THE EQUIVALENT
OF NO BOND; WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME ON THAT? THAT'S THE CONCEPT OF
UNSECURED.
MS. WALKER: PARTIALLY SECURED BOND IS JUST WHAT IT
IS, MA'AM, A PARTIALLY SECURED BOND. SO, I CAN'T SAY THAT IT'S NO BOND IF
IT'S SECURED.
MS. BYRNES: IT'S UNSECURED.
MS. WALKER: OR, IT COULD BE A PARTIALLY SECURED.
MS. BYRNES: ALL RIGHT. TO A VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT
AND A MINIMAL PERCENTAGE.
MS. WALKER: IT'S UP TO THE JUDGE.
MS. BYRNES: SO A PERSON CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT
FELONY OFFENSE, A VERY HIGH LEVEL FELONY WHERE THEY CAN DO MANY, MANY
YEARS IN STATE PRISON, IF THEY WERE TO BE CONVICTED OR PLEAD GUILTY, NO
MATTER WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNT A JUDGE SETS, THEY'LL ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION
OF ALMOST VIRTUALLY HAVING AN ROR BECAUSE OF THE UNSECURED OR
PARTIALLY SECURED SURETY BOND, CORRECT?
MS. WALKER: NO, IT'S UP TO -- THE JUDGE HAS
DISCRETION WITH RESPECT TO THE PERCENTAGES THAT HE MAY BE OR SHE MAY
ASSESS. AND BASED ON MANY OF THE, I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED A VIOLENT
FELONY, RIGHT, SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES HERE
426
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT A JUDGE CAN CONSIDER, UP TO AND INCLUDING SETTING BAIL, AS WELL AS
REMAND.
MS. BYRNES: WELL, IF YOU SET -- NORMALLY IF THERE'S
A BOND, IT'S 10 PERCENT THAT HAS TO BE PUT UP IN CASH. SO, IF WE'RE
TALKING A STEP DOWN FROM THAT OF A PARTIALLY SECURED BOND, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT EVEN LESS MONEY THAN 10 PERCENT; WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME ON
THAT?
MS. WALKER: WELL, THAT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY,
HOWEVER, AS I INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, FOR VIOLENT FELONIES THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THAT A JUDGE CAN TAKE A -- CAN TAKE A
LOOK AT.
MS. BYRNES: BUT ONE OF THE OPTIONS HAS TO BE
UNSECURED OR PARTIALLY SECURED.
MS. WALKER: NO.
MS. BYRNES: YOU HAVE TO HAVE ONE AT THAT LOW
LEVEL, CORRECT?
MS. WALKER: I'M NOT SURE I CAN REALLY HEAR,
BECAUSE THERE'S A --
MS. BYRNES: ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. YOU CAN TAKE A
LOOK BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT SAYS ONE "MUST BE" AN UNSECURED
OR PARTIALLY SECURED SURETY BOND. DID YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK?
MS. WALKER: THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATIONS, YOU KNOW, THAT THE JUDGE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT, ONE BEING
THE CONSIDERATION OF A PARTIALLY OR UNSECURED BOND UP TO AND INCLUDING
SETTING BAIL AND REMAND IN A SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO VIOLENT FELONIES.
427
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SO, THAT WOULD BE TO THE JUDGE'S DISCRETION. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY
SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE TO BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT THIS JUDGE WOULD DO IN
THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.
MS. BYRNES: UNLESS IT'S CHANGED, THERE'S ONLY A
VERY, VERY SMALL CATEGORY OF CASES WHERE SOMEBODY CAN BE HELD ON
REMAND WITHOUT BAIL. SO, MOST PEOPLE EVEN IF THEY'RE HELD WILL HAVE
CASH BAIL AND THEN ONE WOULD HAVE TO BE UNSECURED. LET ME ASK YOU
THIS: RIGHT NOW THERE ARE CURRENTLY --
MS. WALKER: OR PARTIALLY SECURED.
MS. BYRNES: -- CURRENTLY THE LAW REQUIRES TWO
FORMS OF BAIL TO BE OPTIONS. WHY IS IT THAT YOU WENT FROM REQUIRING
TWO FORMS OF BAIL TO NOW REQUIRING ONE OR MORE OF THREE?
MS. WALKER: WELL, THEY'RE ACTUALLY NINE DIFFERENT
FORMS IN THIS STATUTE.
MS. BYRNES: I UNDERSTAND, BUT A JUDGE -- A JUDGE
RIGHT NOW CAN CHOOSE TWO OR MORE, THIS IS CHANGING IT TO THREE OR MORE.
WHAT WAS THAT CHANGE DONE FOR?
MS. WALKER: WELL, THE OTHERS ARE VERY
UNDERUTILIZED.
MS. BYRNES: AND YOU -- DID YOU ADD THE
UNSECURED OR PARTIALLY SECURED SURETY BOND? IS THAT IN ADDITION TO THE
ONES PREEXISTING, OR IS THAT ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS RARELY USED SO
YOU'RE TRYING TO EMPHASIZE IT BY THIS BILL?
MS. WALKER: NO, THEY'RE AMONG THE NINE.
428
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. BYRNES: OKAY. SO IT WAS JUST ONE THAT WAS
RARELY USED OR WHAT YOU FELT WAS UNDERUTILIZED SO YOU WANT TO GET IT IN
NOW SO THAT IT HAS TO BE AN OPTION.
MS. WALKER: IT'S ONE OF THE OPTIONS. IT ALWAYS HAS
BEEN AN OPTION AND IT STILL IS AN OPTION.
MS. BYRNES: OKAY. I'M PRESUMING THE PURPOSE OF
THE BAIL, WHICH I WOULD UNDERSTAND IT TO BE AND WOULDN'T DISAGREE, THAT
PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE UNNECESSARILY DETAINED IN JAIL PRIOR TO TRIAL,
CORRECT?
MS. WALKER: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN
YOU SAY "UNNECESSARILY." I WOULD BEG TO DIFFER AND USE THE TERM
"UNCONSTITUTIONALLY" DETAINED PRIOR TO TRIAL.
MS. BYRNES: OKAY. BUT THERE'S ALREADY SAFEGUARDS
IN THE SYSTEM RIGHT NOW, CORRECT? WE HAVE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS NOW AT
GREAT EXPENSE WHO ARE PRESENT AT EVERY ARRAIGNMENT IN THE STATE; WOULD
THAT BE CORRECT, MA'AM?
MS. WALKER: MORE OR LESS.
MS. BYRNES: AND IF THAT DEFENSE ATTORNEY DOESN'T
LIKE THE BAIL SET BY THE JUDGE, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO GO TO A HIGHER LEVEL
JUDGE ALREADY TO SEEK A BAIL REVIEW; THAT'S CORRECT, ISN'T IT, MA'AM?
MS. WALKER: THAT'S CORRECT.
MS. BYRNES: AND THE OFFICE OF COURT
ADMINISTRATION MONITORS EVERY CRIMINAL CASE, THEY MONITOR EVERYBODY
IN CUSTODY IN THE STATE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, MA'AM?
MS. WALKER: THEY KEEP RECORDS. I MEAN, I DON'T
429
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
KNOW ABOUT "MONITORING" BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO A VERY SUBJECTIVE TERM.
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: MS. -- MS. BYRNES,
YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MS. BYRNES: ON THE BILL.
MS. WALKER: THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: YOUR TIME HAS
EXPIRED. YOU CAN COME BACK A SECOND TIME.
MS. BYRNES: ALL RIGHT.
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: THANK YOU -- IF YOU
SO CHOOSE.
MR. BUCHWALD.
MR. BUCHWALD: ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: ON THE BILL.
MR. BUCHWALD: I RISE TO COMMENT ON ONE
PARTICULAR PART OF THIS BILL THAT, PERHAPS, COINCIDENTALLY LABELED PART
XXX, THE PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING ELECTION COMMISSION
PROVISION. WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS BEING FORCED TO DO IN THE
EXECUTIVE-DOMINATED BUDGET PROCESS IS A TOTAL ABANDONMENT OF OUR
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. WE'RE TURNING OVER TO AN UNELECTED COMMISSION
THE POWER TO NOT JUST WRITE LAWS IN A NARROW WAY TO EFFECTUATE A CLEAR
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO GRANT BROAD AUTHORITY TO
CRAFT ANY MANNER OF PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM, BUT ALSO, THIS
COMMISSION IS ARGUABLY GIVEN THE POWER TO WRITE OVER OR REPEAL
LONGSTANDING SECTIONS OF OUR ELECTION LAW.
WORSE, THIS COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO RAISE $100
430
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MILLION IN REVENUE, OR LAY CLAIM TO $100 MILLION IN EXISTING REVENUE.
THERE IS NO MORE QUINTESSENTIALLY LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BUT TO SERVE AS
THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES IN DETERMINING HOW TO LEVY TAXES. NO
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, MR. SPEAKER. BUT THESE NINE
UNELECTED COMMISSION MEMBERS CAN IMPOSE ANY NEW TAX UNDER THIS
PROPOSAL. ANYTHING THEY WANT AND THERE'S JUST A THREE-WEEK PERIOD FOR
REVIEW OF THEIR REPORT AND THEIR PROPOSED NEW LAWS, IN WHICH THE
ASSEMBLY, THE SENATE AND THE GOVERNOR MUST AGREE TO REPLACE OR -- OR
REMOVE, OTHERWISE IT GOES INTO EFFECT. OR THE COMMISSION CAN JUST TAKE
AWAY FROM EXISTING REVENUES, PERHAPS LOTTERY RECEIPTS THAT OTHERWISE
ARE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWARDS EDUCATION.
PUT SIMPLY, MR. SPEAKER, THIS PART OF THE BILL IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WHAT IT SEEKS TO DO IS WRONG AND I WILL BE VOTING NO.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: THANK YOU, MR.
BUCHWALD.
MR. CARROLL.
MR. CARROLL: ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: ON THE BILL.
MR. CARROLL: TWO WEEKS AGO, I SPOKE ABOUT OUR
BUDGET RESOLUTION AND WHY I WAS VOTING NO, AND I SAID THE REASON I WAS
VOTING NO WAS BECAUSE WE HAD NOT FULLY FORMED A CONGESTION PRICING
PLAN. THIS BUDGET BILL HERE TONIGHT DOES THAT. AND I STILL BELIEVE THAT A
SMART CONGESTION PRICING PLAN IS THE MOST SENSIBLE THING THAT WE COULD
DO THIS YEAR FOR OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT, FOR OUR -- FOR
431
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SAFE STREETS.
THAT BEING SAID, THIS BUDGET BILL HAS A POISON PILL IN IT.
IT SUBVERTS OUR LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. IT ASKS US TO ABDICATE OUR
RESPONSIBILITY. IT CREATES A COMMISSION THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THAT
WILL DRAFT AND REDRAW OUR ELECTION LAWS. AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU
DON'T SUPPORT CAMPAIGN FINANCE, BECAUSE I DO, BUT IF YOU SUPPORT
CAMPAIGN FINANCE, YOU NEED TO SUPPORT TRANSPARENCY. AND WHAT WE'RE
DOING IS WE ARE CHANGING OUR ELECTION LAWS IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT. WE
ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE NOT HAVING DEBATE AND WE'RE GIVING BROAD
LATITUDE TO AN UNELECTED COMMISSION THAT WILL BE ABLE TO CHANGE OTHER
LAWS INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THIS BODY TO DEBATE THEM.
AND FOR THAT REASON, I WILL VOTE NO AND I HOPE MY
COLLEAGUES WILL JOIN ME.
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: THANK YOU, MR.
CARROLL.
MR. MANKTELOW.
MR. MANKTELOW: GOOD MORNING, MR. SPEAKER,
AND THANK YOU. WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: WILL THE CHAIR YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, I'D BE HAPPY TO.
ACTING SPEAKER BLAKE: THE CHAIR YIELDS.
MR. MANKTELOW: GOOD MORNING, MS.
CHAIRWOMAN, THANK YOU; AND I COMMEND YOU FOR A JOB WELL DONE
TODAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THANK YOU.
432
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. MANKTELOW: IT'S A BEEN A LONG DAY.
JUST A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS. ON PART RRR WHERE IT
AUTHORIZES DOT TO CHARGE A FIBER OPTIC UTILITY FOR THE USE AND
OCCUPANCY OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. MANKTELOW: HOW WILL THAT BE FUNDED FOR
THEM, DO YOU KNOW? HOW WILL THEY COME UP WITH THE FEE TO PAY THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE'S AN ESTIMATE THAT WE -- IT
WOULD GENERATE $15 MILLION THIS YEAR AND I THINK WHEN FULLY
IMPLEMENTED, $50 MILLION.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. I KNOW THAT IN THE BILL
TEXT, LINE 42 OF THE BILL, IT SAYS THAT ANY PERSON OR ENTITY THAT'S
CONTRACTED WITH THE UTILITY CANNOT BE CHARGED THIS THROUGH THE PROCESS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT. BROADBAND IS -- IS NOT
AFFECTED. IF IT'S PART OF THE BIG PLAN TO EXPAND BROADBAND, THEY'RE NOT
SUBJECT TO THIS CHARGE.
MR. MANKTELOW: NO, THIS ISN'T ABOUT EXPANDING
IT, THIS IS ABOUT DOT CHARGING FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BROADBAND
ALREADY -- ALREADY IN PLACE, CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, CORRECT. WELL, IT'S FOR THE
FIBER OPTIC, BUT WE DO HAVE A PLAN TO -- THERE IS A -- A BROADER PLAN TO
EXPAND BROADBAND INTO THE MORE RURAL PARTS OF OUR STATE.
MR. MANKTELOW: SURE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO THOSE IN THE AREAS WHERE
THERE'S -- IT'S PART OF THE BROADBAND PLAN, THERE WILL NOT BE -- THEY WILL
433
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
NOT BE CHARGED.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. SO, BACK TO THE
QUESTION. THE QUESTION SAYS -- OR THE BILL SAYS FIBER OPTIC UTILITY WILL BE
CHARGED FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: CORRECT.
MR. MANKTELOW: AND THEN IN THE BILL TEXT IT
SAYS ON LINE 42, BY A FIBER OPTIC UTILITY TO ANY PERSON OR ENTITY. SO,
ANYBODY THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE FIBER OPTICS, THEY WILL NOT BE CHARGED,
CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. MANKTELOW: CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: I MEAN, THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT IT
CAN'T BE PASSED THROUGH TO THE CUSTOMERS.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IF
I'M THE FIBER OPTIC COMPANY, WHERE DO I COME UP WITH THAT MONEY TO
PAY FOR THAT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT CHARGED TO THE
CUSTOMER, BUT IT COMES OUT OF YOUR BUSINESS PROFITS AS A BUSINESS
EXPENSE.
MR. MANKTELOW: BUT ARE MY BUSINESS PROFITS
NOT FROM MY CUSTOMERS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU CAN'T PASS THE COST
ALONG, IT'S THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS AND USE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
434
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. MANKTELOW: THAT'S MY POINT. IF I CAN'T
PASS THAT COST ALONG AND CREATE REVENUE FOR MY COMPANY, HOW AM I
GOING TO PAY FOR THAT? WHERE AM I GOING TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, PRESUMABLY YOU'RE
THE PART OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE -- OF THESE OPTIC -- OF THE NEW LINES
WILL GENERATE SOME NEW CUSTOMERS, WILL INCREASE YOUR -- THE PROFITS OF
THE COMPANIES.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO THEN THE CUSTOMERS ARE
PAYING FOR IT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A DIRECT -- IT'S
NOT A DIRECT COST THAT YOU COULD PASS ON TO THE CUSTOMERS. ADDITIONAL --
AN ADDITIONAL CUSTOMER BASE WILL GENERATE MORE -- MORE REVENUE AND
IT'LL COME OUT OF THAT -- THE REVENUE TO PAY FOR THIS -- THIS FEE.
MR. MANKTELOW: AND I AGREE, AND THAT'S MY
QUESTION, MADAM. IT SAYS HERE THAT WE CAN'T DO THAT, SO I DON'T
UNDERSTAND HOW ON ONE SIDE WE CAN, BUT IN THE BILL TEXT IT SAYS WE CAN'T.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OH, IF THERE'S A MONTHLY FEE AND
YOU CAN'T NOW INCREASE IT BECAUSE YOU'VE LAID SOME -- YOU'RE BEING
CHARGED A FEE OR LAYING NEW LINES ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
MR. MANKTELOW: BUT A COMPANY -- A FIBER OPTIC
COMPANY ONLY HAS ONE WAY TO CREATE REVENUE, AND THAT'S TO HAVE
CUSTOMERS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: RIGHT.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO, IF THE BILL TEXT SAYS WE
CAN'T PASS IT TO THE CUSTOMERS, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR
435
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: FROM THE PROFITS THAT ARE
GENERATED.
MR. MANKTELOW: FROM THE CUSTOMERS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, INDIRECTLY, BUT YOU ARE NOT
GOING TO PUT A CHARGE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BILL THAT SAYS, THIS IS YOUR FIBER
OPTIC LEASE CHARGE.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. WELL, IN MY VIEW, I
STILL THINK THE CUSTOMER IS GOING TO END UP PAYING FOR THIS THROUGHOUT
THE WHOLE PROCESS AND UP TO NOW, YOU HAVEN'T TOLD ME OTHERWISE,
AGREE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, THAT'S DULY NOTED HERE,
COMMENTS.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE ONE
OTHER QUICK QUESTION, THEN, IF IT'S OKAY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MR. MANKTELOW: BACK TO THE AIM FUNDING. SO
JUST SO I CAN CLARIFY THIS, RIGHT NOW I HAVE 41 MUNICIPALITIES IN MY
DISTRICT, 28 OF THEM ARE TOWNS, 13 ARE VILLAGES AND OF THOSE 41, ONLY
FIVE OF THEM WILL BE PAID THROUGH AIM FUNDING THROUGH THE STATE THE
WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SET UP.
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO, THE REST OF THE 36
COMMUNITIES WILL NOW BE FUNDED BY, HOW, AGAIN?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE CONTROLLERS -- OR THE
436
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE WILL DISTRIBUTE THAT -- THE SAME AMOUNT THAT
THEY'VE HAD IN THE PAST WILL BE DISTRIBUTED FROM THE COMPTROLLER'S
OFFICE RATHER THAN COMING FROM THE STATE BUDGET.
MR. MANKTELOW: AND WHERE WILL THE
COMPTROLLER GET THAT MONEY FROM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: AND THE COMPTROLLER WILL GET THAT
MONEY FROM INTERCEPTED SALES TAXES FROM THE RESPECTIVE COUNTIES THAT
ARE SENT TO THE TAX DEPARTMENT.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO, THE SALES TAX THAT THE
COUNTIES WILL BE TAKING IN, THE COMPTROLLER IS GOING TO REACH OUT, GRAB
THAT MONEY, TAKE IT BACK AND THEN PAY THE MUNICIPALITIES FOR THE AIM
FUNDING.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, ACTUALLY THE TAX
DEPARTMENT WILL INTERCEPT AND WILL SEND IT TO THE COMPTROLLER, BUT YES.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO I GUESS TO FURTHER EXPOUND
ON THIS AND TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THIS, LAST YEAR I WAS VERY FORTUNATE
TO CHAIR THE FINANCE COMMITTEE IN WAYNE COUNTY AND THROUGH OUR
BUDGET PROCESS, WE USED THE WHOLE -- IN OUR BUDGET PROCESS, WE TOOK
OUR SALES TAX MONEY AND ALLOCATED IT TO THE FULL EXTENT. SO, IF WE'RE
GOING TO PULL THE SALES TAX BACK TO THE STATE NOW, WHAT'S THAT GOING TO
DO TO OUR COUNTY THAT'S ALREADY BUDGETED THIS MONEY IN THEIR BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE
DISCUSSED SEVERAL HOURS AGO, I GUESS, WE ARE ESTABLISHING SOME NEW
SALES TAX REVENUES THAT THE STATE AND LOCALITIES WILL BE COLLECTING FROM
THE INTERNET MARKETPLACE PROVIDERS AND FROM OUT-OF-STATE VENDORS AS A
437
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RESULT -- OUT-OF-STATE VENDORS AS A RESULT OF THE WAYFAIR DECISION IN
THE SUPREME COURT. SO WE ARE PROJECTING THAT THIS WILL GENERATE $220
MILLION FOR COUNTIES OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK CITY, THE DOWNSTATE AREA, SO
THAT $59 MILLION FOR AIM COMING OUT WILL STILL NET THE COUNTIES A
SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN SALES TAX REVENUES THIS -- THIS YEAR FROM THE PAST
YEARS.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. AND I KNOW IN TALKING
WITH MY LOCAL COUNTY OFFICIALS BACK HOME, I DO KNOW THAT WITH THE
ADDED COST FOR THE ELECTION PROCESS COMING UP, I KNOW THAT THEY'RE
ALREADY COUNTING ON USING SOME OF THAT MONEY FOR THAT PROCESS, SO
WE'RE STILL GOING TO LACK MONEY FROM THE COUNTIES TO COVER ALL OF THESE
EXPENSES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW, AS WE DISCUSSED
EARLIER, THE STATE IS PROVIDING $10 MILLION FOR THE -- ADMINISTERING THE
EARLY VOTING, AS WELL AS THE PURCHASE OF THE ELECTRONIC POLL BOOKS.
MR. MANKTELOW: AND WE REALLY HAVE NO IDEA IF
THAT'S GOING TO BE ENOUGH FUNDING FOR THE WHOLE STATE -- WE HAVE NO
IDEA THAT THAT $10 MILLION WILL BE ENOUGH FUNDING FOR THE WHOLE STATE,
CORRECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, THAT'S FUNDING FOR THE STATE
AND IT'S $14 -- THE $10 MILLION IS $14.7 MILLION FOR THE ELECTRONIC POLL
BOOKS.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
438
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. MANKTELOW: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL.
MR. MANKTELOW: MR. SPEAKER, ALL ALONG TODAY
AND -- OR THIS PAST DAY AND TONIGHT AND THIS MORNING, WE'VE ADDED A LOT
OF EXPENSES THAT ALWAYS SEEM TO GO BACK TO OUR COUNTIES, TO OUR LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES, TO OUR LOCAL TAXPAYERS. I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS AS WE
MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BUDGET, ESPECIALLY THIS PART OF THE BUDGET.
WE'RE JUST -- WE'RE GOING TO SQUASH ANYTHING THAT OUR LOCAL PEOPLE CAN
DO. I APPLAUD THE TAX CAP, BUT ALONG WITH THE TAX CAP, THERE'S GOT TO BE
SENSIBLE SPENDING AND ALSO ADDRESSING THE UNFUNDED MANDATES AND THE
MANDATES THAT COME ALONG.
SO, I'M GOING TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO NOT SUPPORT THIS
FUNDING TONIGHT - OR THIS MORNING - BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY TAKE CARE
OF THE UNFUNDED MANDATES AND THE ADDED COST. AND AS I AGREE WITH THE
TAX CAP, IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE. YOU CAN'T HAVE A TAX CAP AND CONTINUALLY
BE PUTTING MORE CHARGES BACK TO OUR LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES. IT WILL NOT
WORK. IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE, SO I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS. THANK YOU,
MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. COLTON.
MR. COLTON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. COLTON: THIS BUDGET BILL DEALS WITH THREE
AREAS OF WHICH I HAVE VERY GRAVE CONCERNS. THE FIRST IS EDUCATION.
439
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
EDUCATION HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT PRIORITY FOR ME AND I THINK MOST
PEOPLE IN THIS HOUSE. I WAS A TEACHER FOR 11 YEARS IN THE NEW YORK
CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL IN BEDFORD-STUYVESANT. DURING THOSE YEARS, THE
EQUITABLE FORMULA WAS NOT EQUITABLE; IN FACT, IT WAS DISCRIMINATORY
AGAINST THE CHILDREN IN THAT SCHOOL. AND I PERSONALLY SAW THE IMPACT
THAT IT HAD UPON THEIR LIVES AND THEIR FAMILIES. AND THAT IMPACT
CONTINUES TODAY. THOSE CHILDREN WHO WENT THROUGH THAT SCHOOL PERIOD
HAVE SUFFERED SCARS AND DISADVANTAGES BECAUSE OF THE INEQUITABLE
DISCRIMINATORY FORMULA. AND, FINALLY, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED
THAT THE FORMULA WAS INEQUITABLE AND THAT IT DEPRIVED THOSE CHILDREN OF
THEIR RIGHT TO A BASIC QUALITY EDUCATION.
I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH HOW THIS BUDGET DEALS
WITH THE MONEYS THAT ARE OWED TO OUR SCHOOLS. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED
WITH HOW IT DEALS WITH FOUNDATION AID. IMAGINE IF WE WENT TO A BANK
AND SAID, THE INTEREST THAT WE OWE YOU, THE MONEY WE OWE YOU IS A
GHOST OF THE PAST, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY IT. IMAGINE IF WE WENT TO A
CREDIT CARD COMPANY AND SAID, WE'VE PAID ENOUGH INTEREST. WE'RE NOT
GOING TO DO THIS ANYMORE, IT'S A GHOST OF THE PAST. WE WOULDN'T DO IT
AND IF WE DID, WE WOULD FIND THEY WOULD NOT BE RECEPTIVE. THAT ALONE
MAKES IT IMPERATIVE THAT I DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS BUDGET. I SIMPLY CANNOT
DO IT. IT'S A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE WITH ME AND I SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO DO IT ON THAT ALONE.
THERE ARE TWO OTHER AREAS. I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED
VERY STRONGLY IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND PROVIDING FUNDING SOURCES
FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. AT THE TIME, A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, WHEN
440
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THERE WAS A FUNDING SOURCE THAT WAS REPEALED, I WAS ONE OF THE FEW
WHO VOTED NO AGAINST THAT REPEAL. IF THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPEALED, WE
MIGHT NOT FACE THE CRISIS THAT WE FACE TODAY IN PUBLIC TRANSIT. I CANNOT
VOTE FOR A SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT TELL US WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT. THIS PLAN,
THIS BUDGET BILL DOES NOT SAY WHAT THE TOLLS ARE GOING TO BE. IT DOESN'T
SAY WHAT THE EXEMPTIONS ARE GOING TO BE, EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY
VEHICLES AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT
MEANS. IT DOESN'T TELL US WHERE THE TOLLS ARE GOING TO BE PLACED. IT
DOESN'T TELL US WHAT REFORMS ARE GOING TO BE MADE THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY
GET THE MTA TO RESPOND TO US AND OUR CONCERNS. AND ALMOST EVERYONE
IN HERE HAS DEALT WITH THE MTA AND THEY HAVE A VERY BAD RECORD OF
RESPONSIVENESS. SO, WITHOUT ASSURANCE THAT THE MONEYS THAT WE GIVE
THEM ARE GOING TO, IN FACT, BE USED TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSIT, I CANNOT
SUPPORT THAT KIND OF A PLAN. THE NEED FOR OUR PUBLIC TRANSIT IS MUCH
TOO GREAT.
AND FINALLY, WE HAVE A NEW ARRIVAL IN THIS BUDGET BILL
WHICH DEALS WITH PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING. I HAVE LONG BEEN A
SUPPORTER OF PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING. I'M A COSPONSOR OF THE BILLS
THAT WE'VE PASSED HERE. NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, UNITED SHAREHOLDERS WAS
A CASE THAT WAS DECIDED A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO AND IT HAS PLACED SOME
NEW CONCERNS IN TERMS OF PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING. WE NEED TO DEAL
WITH THOSE CONCERNS AND WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A BILL THAT WILL TAKE
MONEY OUT OF POLITICS, BIG MONEY, SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY, AND HAVE US
RELY UPON SMALL DONATIONS. BUT WE DO NOT NEED TO CREATE A COMMISSION
AND DELEGATE OUR AUTHORITY AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PASS LEGISLATION ON
441
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TO A COMMISSION. THIS BILL WILL DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND UP TO
$100 MILLION ON NINE NONELECTED PEOPLE. THAT SIMPLY IS NOT
ACCEPTABLE.
AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH
THIS BILL AND I CANNOT IN GOOD FAITH VOTE FOR IT. THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. BLAKE: TO -- TO MY COLLEAGUES AND TO ALL OF
OUR CONSTITUENTS, GOOD MORNING. WHEN -- WHEN WE -- WHEN WE VOTE
ON A BUDGET WITH SO MANY COMPONENTS IN IT AND FOR -- AND FOR US TO
GROUND OURSELVES AGAIN ON WHAT REALLY MATTERS, AS SOMETIMES THE
DOLLARS JUST MAY SEEM LIKE NUMBERS RATHER THAN A PATHWAY TO PROMISE.
SO BEFORE I KEEP GOING, I WANT TO THANK THE SPEAKER, CHAIR WEINSTEIN,
AND, OF COURSE, TO THE WAYS AND MEANS STAFF FOR ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE
TO GET US TO THIS POINT.
BRONX COMMUNITY COLLEGE IS A SCHOOL THAT IS NOT IN
MY DISTRICT, IT'S JUST OUTSIDE OF MINE, BUT IT'S IN MY -- MY VIEW AS I WAS
GROWING UP AS A KID. I WENT OVER THERE OCCASIONALLY FOR EVENTS. ONE
OF MY BROTHERS ACTUALLY WENT TO UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS HIGH SCHOOL. IT
WAS DOWN THE STREET FROM MY CHURCH OF CALVARY UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH, IT'S ONE THAT HAD MANY REASONS FOR PERSONAL IMPACT. BUT, IT
TOOK ON GREATER IMPORTANCE TO ME, COLLEAGUES, WHEN ABOUT THREE YEARS
AGO I WAS SITTING AT A CHURCH PEW AT A VIGIL. AND I WAS SITTING BEHIND
442
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TWO PEOPLE I DID NOT KNOW AT THE TIME, BEING VENIDA BROWDER AND
AKEEM BROWDER, THE MOTHER AND BROTHER OF KALIEF. TESTIMONIAL AFTER
TESTIMONIAL, I'M LISTENING ABOUT HOW THEY HAD BEEN MAKING PROGRESS.
AND THEN AT ONE POINT A YOUNG PERSON COMES OVER, AND THEN A TEACHER
WALKS OVER, AND THE TEACHER WAS FROM BRONX COMMUNITY COLLEGE.
AND THE TEACHER TOLD VENIDA AND SAID, I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT I
KNOW WE ARE ALL HEARTBROKEN THAT KALIEF IS NO LONGER HERE, BUT I -- I
WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT HE WAS MAKING PROGRESS IN SCHOOL AND THAT
HE WAS TRYING TO TURN HIS LIFE AROUND. NOW, AS WE TALK ABOUT KALIEF ALL
THE TIME, MANY PEOPLE MAY NOT REALIZE THAT AKEEM ALSO HAD CHALLENGES
WHEN IT CAME TO CRIMINAL INJUSTICE, SPEAKER AND COLLEAGUES. HE
ACTUALLY -- HE WAS INCARCERATED HIMSELF AT ONE POINT FOR 11 MONTHS AS
THEY ACCUSED HIM OF STEALING MONEY FROM HIS SCHOOL, UNTIL VIDEO
DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WAS NOT HIM. WE COME HERE TO UNDERSTAND THAT
THIS JUST CANNOT JUST BE A CASUAL VOTE. IT'S THE REALIZATION THAT OUR
TEMPORARY TIMES AS LEGISLATORS ARE IN VAIN IF WE'RE NOT COMMITTED TO A
CAUSE GREATER THAN OURSELVES. LEGACY IS NOT ABOUT TEMPORARY JOY, IT'S
ABOUT HAVING IMPACT THAT CAN BE PERMANENT. TRUE IMPACT IS REALIZING
THAT ONE VOTE THAT CAN HAPPEN TODAY CAN TRANSFORM LIVES. AND IT WILL.
IT WILL TRANSFORM GENERATIONS UNBORN AND IT WILL -- AND IT WILL IMPACT
PEOPLE THAT DON'T EVEN KNOW YOUR NAME. ONE NAME THAT WE SHOULD
ALWAYS REMEMBER IS KALIEF BROWDER. AND I, LIKE MANY OF YOU, MADE A
PROMISE TO HIS FAMILY THAT WE WOULD CHANGE THE SYSTEM THAT ALLOWED
FOR HIM TO BE THERE INCARCERATED IN THE FIRST PLACE. YES, WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT RAISE THE AGE OVER THE YEARS, AS WE SHOULD HAVE. BUT IT'S ALSO
443
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ABOUT BAIL AND SPEEDY TRIAL AND DISCOVERY TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
COLLECTIVE SYSTEM. I LEARNED ABOUT OPEN DISCOVERY FROM CHAMPIONS
LIKE CARMEN RIVERA AND JULIO PABON AND JUDGE FERNANDO TAPIA AND
THE DISCOVERY FOR JUSTICE COALITION, WHO TAUGHT US ABOUT THE INJUSTICES
WITHIN THE SYSTEM. A SYSTEM THAT WHEN WE TAKE THIS VOTE, ONLY
LOUISIANA AND SOUTH CAROLINA AND WYOMING ARE STILL IN THAT SPACE OF
INJUSTICE THAT WE ARE IN TODAY. A SPACE THAT RECOGNIZES THAT OUR NATION'S
DAS ACROSS THE -- ACROSS THE COUNTRY COMMUNICATE AT LEAST TEN PERCENT
OF THE TIME, DNA RECORDS COME BACK AFTERWARDS THAT EXONERATE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE PLED GUILTY IN THE FIRST PLACE. I GAINED UNDERSTANDING OF BAIL,
AND I COMMEND THE FORCE OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER WALKER FOR HER
LEADERSHIP ON TONIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU SHOULD
NOT BE CRIMINALIZED BECAUSE OF POVERTY. YOU THINK ABOUT THE RFK
FOUNDATION AND BRONX DEFENDERS AND BRONX FREEDOM FUND AND ALL THE
DIFFERENT COALITIONS THAT CAME TOGETHER. AND WHY DO YOU DO IT? IT'S
BECAUSE IT'S THE UNDERSTANDING THAT 54 PERCENT OF THOSE THAT ARE
INCARCERATED STILL DON'T HAVE $500 TO PAY THEIR BAIL. IT'S THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU COULD BE THERE FOR FIVE DAYS, AND 74 PERCENT OF
NEW YORK CITY ARE STILL THERE, OR 84 PERCENT OUTSIDE THE CITY ARE STILL
THERE. IT'S A SYSTEM THAT IS FLAWED WITH INSTITUTIONAL RACISM AND
DISCRIMINATION THAT WE CAN BREAK TODAY.
MY SPIRITUAL EDUCATION CAME WHEN UNDERSTANDING
WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE BROADER ASPECTS WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT
SPEEDY TRIAL AND ALL THE DYNAMICS AS WELL. THE CONVERSATIONS WITH
VOCAL AND JUSTLEADERSHIP AND FREE NEW YORK, SO MANY OTHERS, THAT
444
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WHEN THEY CAME TO US AND THEY SPOKE TO US IN THE HALLS, THEY WERE NOT
SPEAKING TO US IN ANGER, US INDIVIDUALLY, IT WAS THE FEAR AND FRUSTRATION
THAT THEY HAD FOR YEARS AND DECADES. IN MAY OF 2017 IT WAS INDICATED
IN A RECENT STUDY THAT RIKERS WAS STILL A PART OF PEOPLE WHO WERE
WONDERING HOW COULD THEY MAKE ENDS MEET. WHY? BECAUSE NEARLY 75
PERCENT OF THOSE THAT WERE THERE WERE THERE BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT
AFFORD BAIL. WE ARE IN THIS SPACE BECAUSE WE HAVE A SPEAKER PRO TEM
AND A CHAIR OF CODES AND A SISTER FROM BROOKLYN, AND SO MANY OTHERS,
LIKE THE STAFF THAT ARE HERE TODAY - MARTY AND DAN, THE ENTIRE TEAM- THAT
ARE MAKING THIS CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY THAT WILL TRANSFORM ALL OF US.
YOU ASK SOMETIMES WHY SHOULD CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY BE PART OF A
BUDGET. WELL, I'M REMINDING ALL OF YOU COLLEAGUES THAT NOVEMBER
2018, A PERFECT LINE CAME OUT FROM THE NEW YORK CITY BAR THAT SAID IT
BEST. "COURTS SHOULD NOT PRIORITIZE REVENUE RAISING OVER THE SUCCESSFUL
REINTEGRATION OF INCARCERATED PERSONS BACK INTO SOCIETY." MAKING IT
REAL PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IT SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT MAKING MONEY ON THE
BACKS OF BLACK AND BROWN FOLK, IT SHOULD BE ABOUT HOW WE TRANSFORM
SOCIETY FOR THE BETTER. ONE VOTE, YOU MAY BELIEVE, DOESN'T CHANGE
HISTORY. BUT IT WILL. IT WILL CHANGE THE DISCOURSE OF LIFE IN A STATE AND A
SOCIETY SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WE'VE DONE SOMETHING BETTER. NOW, I'M
NOT SAYING THAT THINGS ARE NOT PERFECT. THERE'S ALWAYS MORE
IMPROVEMENT YOU CAN MAKE. ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT, WE KNOW THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY IMPROVEMENTS THAT COULD BE
MADE THERE. WE UNDERSTAND LOCALLY WHEN WE DID RAISE THE AGE, WE
HAD GREAT IMPACT WITH THAT. BUT WE HAVE TO COME BACK, BECAUSE YOU
445
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT TEN YEARS FOR YOUR RECORDS TO BE UNSEALED. WE
KNOW THERE'S MORE WORK TO BE DONE WHEN IT COMES TO ACHIEVING THE
PROMISE WHEN IT COME TO NYCHA. WHY HAVE PEOPLE WAITING FOR
YEARS FOR FUNDING TO COME INTO THEIR COMMUNITIES? WE SHOULD MAKE IT
REAL CLEAR THAT THE FEDERAL MONITOR BEING APPOINTED SHOULD NOW LEAD TO
MONEY COMING TO OUR COMMUNITIES. AND LET'S BE ALSO CLEAR: WHY IS IT
EASY TO GET UNLEADED GAS BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A LEAD-FREE APARTMENT?
THE PROMISE STILL REMAINS WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT
MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES THAT OBVIOUSLY NEED GREATER
ACCESS TO CAPITAL. THE PROMISE STILL REMAINS WHEN WE HAVE
CONVERSATIONS OF OUR MAYORAL CONTROL WHERE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE
WONDERING WHY THEY CAN'T GO TO SCHOOL AND GRADUATE FROM SCHOOL. THE
PROMISE STILL REMAINS WHEN WE'RE NOT HAVING HONEST CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING. I UNDERSTAND FRUSTRATION AROUND PUBLIC
FINANCING. I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE
ELECTED TO HELP OUR PEOPLE. WHAT THAT MEANS IS, YOU HAVE TO MAKE
DECISIONS. IS IT MORE IMPORTANT TO SAY YOU'RE GOING TO HELP SOMEONE
GET ELECTED, OR IS IT MORE IMPORTANT TO HELP SOMEONE GET OUT OF JAIL?
THE PROMISE STILL REMAINS THAT WHEN CHANEY YELVERTON OF MORRISANIA
AIR RIGHTS REACHES OUT AND SAYS THAT THERE ARE BROKEN LOCKS ON DOORS,
OR GLEN PRIMUS REACHES OUT SAYING THEY NEED MORE MEALS FOR THE YOUNG
PEOPLE, OR NYCHA RESIDENTS ARE WONDERING WHY THERE'S STILL LEAD, OR
CONCOURSE VILLAGE OR MITCHELL-LAMA RESIDENTS ARE WONDERING WHY
THERE'S SUCH MISMANAGEMENT, OR THE SISTER IS WONDERING WHY SHE GETS
DISRESPECTED, OR IMMIGRATION PARTNERSHIP WAS WONDERING WHY THERE'S
446
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
NOT ENOUGH FUNDING. I UNDERSTAND THE REASONS THAT YOU CAN BE
FRUSTRATED, COLLEAGUES, BUT I UNDERSTAND THIS: INDIVIDUAL DISPLEASURE
SHOULD NOT BE GREATER THAN THE GREAT CONSEQUENCES THAT WILL HAPPEN ON
TONIGHT FOR REFORM.
SO, TO AKEEM BROWDER AND THE BROWDER FAMILY,
HOPEFULLY WE MADE YOU PROUD TONIGHT. HOPEFULLY WE LIVED UP TO OUR
PROMISE OF SAYING THAT NO ONE SHOULD BE IN A CAGE PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY,
EMOTIONALLY. NO ONE SHOULD BE WONDERING IF YOU'LL STAND UP AND FIGHT
FOR THEM WHEN YOU HAVE A CHANCE FOR A BUDGET. WE CELEBRATE WHAT'S
HAPPENING ON THIS MORNING. DIVERSITY IN MEDICINE, SO THAT YOUNG
PEOPLE CAN GO TO SCHOOL AND GRADUATE FROM SCHOOL AND BECOME DOCTORS.
BECAUSE THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THAT NO, YOU WON'T BE A DRUG DEALER, BUT
YOU CAN PRESCRIBE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS FOR A YOUNG PERSON. MAYBE
YOU'LL SHOW THEM THAT YOU'LL CHANGE THE PROMISE OF MY BROTHER'S
KEEPER SO THAT YOU CAN BE IN A SPACE HERE IN NEW YORK, WHERE YOU
HAVE A BLACK SPEAKER AND A BLACK SPEAKER PRO TEM AND A LATINO CHAIR
OF LABOR, AND YOU HAVE A BROTHER NAMED HAKEEM IN DC THAT'S
DROPPING LYRICS WHILE DROPPING LEGISLATION. SOMETHING HAPPENS WHEN
YOU SHOW PEOPLE IT'S POSSIBLE, WITH THE PROMISE.
SO, WE COME HERE TONIGHT TO SAY, YES, THERE'S MORE
WORK TO BE DONE. WE RESPECT THAT, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. BUT ON THE
THIS FIRST DAY OF APRIL, LET'S BE CLEAR THAT WHILE SOME OF US MAYBE DIDN'T
GET TO GO TO CHURCH YESTERDAY, LET US APPRECIATE THAT IT IMPACTS PUBLIC
POLICY BY WHAT YOU'RE DOING EVERY SINGLE DAY. SPIRITUALLY EVANGELICAL
DOESN'T JUST MEAN YOU SIT IN THE PEW. IT'S THE APPRECIATION WHAT YOU DO
447
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THROUGH YOUR POLICY AND YOUR VOTES. JESUS WAS A MAN OF COLOR WHO
EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL INJUSTICE BY PONTIUS PILATE'S HANDS. SO MAYBE WE
RECOGNIZE THAT WE SHOULD SERVE THE LEAST OF THESE BY WHAT WE DO WITH
OUR HANDS. THINKING ABOUT WHY TO VOTE FOR THIS BUDGET BILL, IT'S AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR HOPE, JUSTICE, POSSIBILITY AND EQUITY. SO, IN THE WORDS
OF FORMER JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL, IN RECOGNIZING THE HUMANITY OF
OUR FELLOW BEINGS, WE PAY OURSELVES THE HIGHEST TRIBUTE. SO, I PAY THIS
TRIBUTE BY VOTING YES TONIGHT, ACHIEVING THE PROMISE OF SPEEDY TRIAL AND
OPEN DISCOVERY, THE PROMISE OF BAIL REFORM THROUGH CHARITABLE BAIL
ORGANIZATIONS AND ALL THAT COMES WITHIN IT. THE PROMISE OF SAYING YOU
WON'T HAVE TO WAIT ANY LONGER, A PROMISE OF UNDERSTANDING A BUDGET
SHOWS SOMEONE'S VALUES AND WHO THEY MAY BE. I'M NOT A PERFECT
VESSEL. NONE OF US ARE. BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE LIVE UP TO THE
PROMISE OF THE BROWDER FAMILY. IT DIDN'T END ON ONE DAY, IT WON'T END
TOMORROW, IT WON'T END THE DAY AFTER. BUT WE CAN SAY THAT JUSTICE ON
TONIGHT WILL ROLL DOWN LIKE WATERS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS LIKE A MIGHTY
STREAM.
MY SPEAKER AND COLLEAGUES, WE LIVE OUT THE HONOR OF
KALIEF BROWDER AND WE MAKE TRUE THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE. THAT'S WHY I
VOTE YES ON THIS BUDGET. THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
(APPLAUSE)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MOSLEY.
MR. MOSLEY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
448
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. MOSLEY: FIRST AND FOREMOST, I'D LIKE TO THANK
THE SPEAKER AND THE WAYS AND MEANS CHAIR AND THE MAJORITY LEADER
AND THE STAFFS FOR THEIR DILIGENT WORK DURING THIS BUDGET SEASON. I
REMEMBER WHEN I WAS FIRST RUNNING BACK IN 2012, AND I WAS ASKED TO
DO AN INTERVIEW DURING A CAMPAIGN DATE. THE EXIT POLLS WERE FAVORABLE
TOWARDS ME, AND THE REPORTER SAID, LET ME JUST DO A STORY ON YOU AT
YOUR SON'S SCHOOL AT PS 11. AND I VIVIDLY REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION.
BECAUSE HE ASKED ME, WHAT WERE YOUR -- WHAT WOULD BE YOUR
PRIORITIES IN ALBANY? AND I POINTEDLY POINTED OUT TO HIM, ONE, PUBLIC
EDUCATION; TWO, DEALING WITH THE ISSUES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
PRESERVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. NOW, I WILL BE GLAD TO NOTE THAT WE'LL
HAVE A ROBUST CONVERSATION ABOUT OUR RENT LAWS FOLLOWING THIS BUDGET
SEASON, WHERE WE WILL HAVE A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS BY WHICH COLLEAGUES
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WILL DEBATE BILLS THAT WILL LOOK TO STRENGTHEN
AND EMPOWER OUR TENANTS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PRESERVING AND
CREATING UNIVERSAL RENT REGULATION LAWS THAT WILL PRESERVE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING NOT ONLY IN NEW YORK CITY BUT THROUGHOUT NEW YORK STATE.
BUT I ALSO SAID TO THE REPORTER, I SAID, CERTAIN THINGS WON'T TAKE PLACE
WHEN I GET THERE IN 2013 BECAUSE OF THE DYNAMICS IN ALBANY. THE
DYNAMICS THAT PREVENTED US FROM MOVING CERTAIN PIECES OF PROGRESSIVE
LEGISLATION IN THE UPPER CHAMBER. BUT I STAND HERE TODAY STRUGGLING
WITH THE NOTION OF VOTING NO ON A BUDGET BILL FOR THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN
HERE, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THE DYNAMICS HAVE CHANGED, THE RESULTS STILL
REMAIN THE SAME. UNDERSTANDING THAT YOUR PRIORITIES ARE REFLECTIVE IN
THE BUDGET IN WHICH YOU PUSH, AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER THAT, ONE, WE
449
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO CLOSE THE TAP GAP, WE HAVE THE SAME
NUMBER IN WHICH WE GAVE TO OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN LIEU OF CAMPAIGN
FOR FISCAL EQUITY LAST YEAR THAT WE ARE DOING THIS YEAR. EVEN THOUGH
WE'VE CHANGED THE DYNAMICS IN THE UPPER CHAMBER IN ALBANY, THE
RESULTS REMAIN THE SAME. COUPLE THAT WITH A COMMISSION, A
COMMISSION THAT LOOKS TO DO WHAT WE'VE BEEN ELECTED TO DO: TO DEBATE
TOUGH ISSUES, TO HAVE DISCOURSE, TO TALK IN OUR RESPECTIVE CONFERENCES
AND TO COME ON THIS FLOOR IN AN EFFORT TO PASS LEGISLATION OUT OF THIS
BODY. BUT YET AGAIN, WE WANT TO GIVE IT TO A COMMISSION. WE DIDN'T
LEARN OUR LESSONS WITH THE MORELAND COMMISSION. THE PAY -- THE PAY
RAISE COMMISSION, AND ALL THE BLUE RIBBONS THAT CAME BEFORE IT. BUT
YET, WE WANT TO GIVE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO A GROUP OF NINE PEOPLE,
UNIDENTIFIED TO THIS POINT, ELECTED BY NO ONE, BUT YET, GIVING THE
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE WERE OBLIGATED TO PERFORM AS TRUSTEES OF THIS
RESPECTIVE BODY. NOW, I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT. MY CONSCIENCE CAN'T
SUPPORT THAT. I'LL TAKE 150 INDIVIDUALS OVER NINE ANY TIME. BUT
SOMETIMES IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S JUST NOT ABOUT BEING THE
PRINCIPAL, BUT IT'S ABOUT BEING PRINCIPLED. IT'S ABOUT BEING PRINCIPLED IN
THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE TO FIGHT AND STAND UP FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T TALK OR
SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. WE HAVE TO BE PRINCIPLED IN OUR THOUGHTS AND IN
OUR ACTIONS. AND WE HAVE TO BE PRINCIPLED TO DO THE RIGHT THING. THIS
OMNIBUS BILL, THIS BIG UGLY, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, MOST OF IT I
AGREE UPON; CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM, SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ALL BEEN
ADVOCATING FOR FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS IN THE --
IN SOME OF THE OTHER BILL PACKAGES, THE DREAM ACT, ALL THINGS THAT --
450
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CENSUS 2020 FUNDING, ALL THINGS THAT WE WANT. BUT IF WE DON'T DEAL
WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES OF WHY WE ARE HERE, UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE UNDERGIRD OF OUR DEMOCRACY IS THROUGH OUR REPRESENTATION, THEN
WHY ARE WE HERE? WHY NOT JUST CREATE A COMMISSION FOR EVERY
DOGGONE ISSUE THAT'S CONTROVERSIAL?
I DO THIS WITH A HEAVY HEART, BECAUSE IT IS NOT MY
INTENTIONS TO BE DIFFICULT. PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO A BUDGET
WHERE THERE IS PUBLIC POLICY IN PLACE, IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY THAT'S
GOING TO TRANSFORM LIVES, AS MY COLLEAGUE SO NOTED. BUT I GOTTA DO
WHAT'S RIGHT. I HAVE TO DO WHAT MY CONSCIENCE TELLS ME TO. AND AS
MUCH AS I WANT TO VOTE FOR 90 PERCENT OF IT, OF WHAT'S IN THIS BILL, THAT
TEN PERCENT IS PULLING ME TO -- TO VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE. BECAUSE, FOR ME
AND MY CONSTITUENTS, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR DEMOCRACY
RELIES UPON OUR DEMOCRACY. RELIES UPON PEOPLE HAVING A VOICE. RELIES
UPON PEOPLE HAVING THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES THROUGH THEIR
REPRESENTATION. AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS COMMISSION WILL -- WILL
UNDERSKIRT ALL OF THAT -- WILL UNDERSCORE ALL OF THAT, I SHOULD SAY. TO
ME, I BELIEVE THAT IF WE'RE TO DO RIGHT BY THE MEN AND WOMEN WE
REPRESENT THROUGHOUT THIS STATE, PUBLIC POLICY THAT GETS THROWN AT US AT
THE LAST MINUTE SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THIS PROCESS.
FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR DEMOCRACY, THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC
SCHOOL STUDENTS, NOT JUST IN NEW YORK CITY BUT ALL THROUGHOUT THIS
GREAT STATE, I HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
(APPLAUSE)
451
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
(PAUSE)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. ABINANTI.
(LAUGHTER)
AT TEN MINUTES TO 5:00.
MR. ABINANTI: I GOT IT.
(LAUGHTER)
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I WILL BE BRIEF. I'VE HEARD
ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES TALK ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS. I WANT TO EXPLAIN
WHY I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BILL THIS EVENING. FIRST, FROM THE REVENUE
POINT OF VIEW, THIS BILL GIVES US THE REVENUES WE NEED. NOT THE
REVENUES WE WANT, BUT THE REVENUES WE NEED TO RUN THIS GOVERNMENT.
THERE ARE INCREASES OVER WHAT WE HAD LAST YEAR. IT EXTENDS THE TOP
PERSONAL INCOME TAX RATE ON THE WEALTHY, IT FACILITATES THE COLLECTION OF
SALES TAX ON ALL INTERNET TRANSACTIONS, IT IMPOSES A TRANSFER TAX ON
HIGH-END REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND IT PUTS A
TAX ON VAPOR PRODUCTS. IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO DO EVERYTHING WE WANT TO DO,
BUT IT IS ENOUGH TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. WE SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED
THE ASSEMBLY PLAN, BUT WE COULDN'T GET PARTNERS TO DO THAT. SO, WE'RE
BASICALLY STUCK WITH SOMETHING THAT'S BETTER THAN WE HAD BEFORE, BUT NOT
ALL WE WANT. BUT IT DOES GIVE US THE MONEY TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
AND IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO SPEND ON THE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE TO MEET.
THERE'S EDUCATION MONEY. AGAIN, NOT ENOUGH. THERE'S TOO MUCH OF A
BURDEN ON OUR LOCAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS. THE STATE OF NEW YORK PAYS
FOR ONLY 41 PERCENT OF THE COST OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
BUT THIS BILL WILL ALLOW US TO CONTINUE AND TO DO A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN
452
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WE DID LAST YEAR. THERE'S NO MORE HELP IN HERE FOR PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL
NEEDS, BUT IT WILL CONTINUE THE PROGRAMS THAT PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
GET.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE STATE'S
LEADER, WHEN THE GOVERNOR FRAMES A BUDGET THAT SPEAKS LIKE A
PROGRESSIVE BUT GOVERNS LIKE A CONSERVATIVE; THAT LIMITS REVENUES UP
FRONT, AND SETS ARBITRARY SPENDING CAPS. THAT PREVENTS US FROM MEETING
ALL OF THE NEEDS WE NEED TO MEET. BUT PART OF THE PROBLEM IS OUR OWN.
WE ALLOWED THIS GOVERNOR TO SET THESE PARAMETERS. AND TONIGHT IS TOO
LATE TO MAKE A CHANGE. WE'VE GOT TO LOOK NOW TOWARDS NEXT YEAR. WE
CANNOT HURT OUR SCHOOLS, WE CANNOT HURT OUR COMMUNITIES. WE CANNOT
SHUT DOWN THE STATE OF NEW YORK BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN
EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED. SO, I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AND SAY, WHAT
ARE WE GOING TO DO DIFFERENT NEXT YEAR? AND I HOPE THAT WE GO BACK
ON A VACATION AND COME BACK IN -- IN THE END OF APRIL AND IN MAY AND
SAY, HOW ARE WE GOING TO CHANGE THIS SYSTEM SO WE'RE NOT PUT IN THIS
SITUATION AGAIN NEXT YEAR?
WE ALSO SEE THE POSITIVES AND NEGATIVES OF DOING
POLICY IN THE BUDGET. WE GOT CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM. WE'RE INSERTING
SOME JUSTICE INTO A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE.
WE'RE ADDRESSING THE SIGNIFICANT UNDERFUNDING OF THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE STATE THAT IS VITAL TO THE LIVES OF
ABOUT HALF OF THE PEOPLE IN OUR STATE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WE WERE EXTORTED. WE WERE
EXTORTED INTO DOING SOME VERY BAD THINGS. A PERMANENT TAX CAP, FOR
453
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
EXAMPLE. THAT'S A FALSE PROMISE. IT WON'T CUT TAXES, AND A TAX CAP
DOESN'T PAY FOR THE SERVICES IN THE SCHOOLS THAT WE NEED TO PAY FOR.
AND IT'S HYPOCRITICAL. IT'S HYPOCRITICAL TO ATTACK THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR AN ARBITRARY LIMIT ON TAXES THAT CAN BE DEDUCTED, BUT
THEN AT THE SAME TIME IMPOSE AN ARBITRARY LIMIT ON OUR LOCAL OFFICIALS
WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THEIR JOBS AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS. AND WE'RE BEING
FORCED TO SET UP THIS DANGEROUS COMMISSION WHICH PROMISES CAMPAIGN
RE -- FINANCE REFORM, BUT WILL GIVE US, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT. BUT IN THE
END, WE NEED TO PASS A BUDGET. WE CANNOT FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ABANDON OUR PEOPLE.
SO, AFTER I LOOK AT THE PROS AND THE -- AND THE CONS, I
LOOK AT MY RESPONSIBILITY - AND SOME OF YOU KNOW I'VE SPOKEN OUT
ABOUT ALL OF THE TERRIBLE THINGS IN THIS BUDGET - BUT WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT LATER TODAY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK
CONTINUES TO FUNCTION AND THAT THE SERVICES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
CONTINUE TO GET DELIVERED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE. THEREFORE, I VOTE
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PALUMBO FOR A
SECOND.
MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD
MS. WALKER YIELD JUST FOR A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS?
MS. WALKER: ME YIELD?
MR. PALUMBO: SHORT AND SWEET.
MS. WALKER: YES.
MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU, MS. WALKER.
454
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALKER YIELDS.
MS. WALKER: I YIELD.
MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU.
MS. WALKER: GOOD MORNING.
MR. PALUMBO: I JUMPED THE GUN. I JUMPED THE
GUN. PAGE 111, IF I MAY. NOW, RELEASE UNDER NONMONETARY CONDITIONS,
UNDER THAT BAIL STATUTE, INDICATES THAT A COURT RELEASES A PRINCIPAL WHEN
-- WHEN THEY QUALIFY, WHEN THERE IS SUCH CONDITIONS AREN'T -- THAT MAY
INCLUDE THAT THE PRINCIPAL BE IN CONTACT WITH PRETRIAL SERVICES, THE
PRINCIPAL, A, BE REASONABLE, ABIDE BY REASONABLE SPECIFIED RESTRICTIONS
ON TRAVEL THAT ARE REASONABLY RELATED TO AN ACTUAL RISK OF FLIGHT FROM A
JURISDICTION, AND THAT THEY REFRAIN FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM,
DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE OR OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPON. THOSE APPEAR TO BE THE
ONLY CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED BY THE COURT, AND THAT THERE IS
NO OTHER REALISTIC MONETARY CONDITION, OR SET OF NONMONETARY
CONDITIONS WILL SUFFICE TO REASONABLY ASSURE THAT PERSONS RETURN TO
COURT. COULD YOU DEFINE FOR US WHAT YOU MEAN BY NO OTHER REALISTIC
MONETARY CONDITION? WHAT'S REALISTIC MEAN IN THAT SENTENCE, PLEASE?
MS. WALKER: WELL, THE TERM REALISTICALLY IS NOT
SPECIFICALLY DEFINED WITHIN THIS BILL. IT DOES LEND TO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
JUDICIAL ADVOCACY. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I CAN SAY THAT IT IS THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE METHODS BE UTILIZED WITH
RESPECT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT
PEOPLE AREN'T STIGMATIZED BY THE USAGE OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING. NOW,
WE DON'T CHANGE MASS INCARCERATION AND REPLACE IT WITH E-INCARCERATION
455
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OR MASS SURVEILLANCE. AND SO THERE IS A -- A LEVEL OF DEFERENCE WITH
RESPECT TO THE TYPE OF PRETRIAL SERVICES OR CONDITIONS THAT ARE EMPLOYED,
AND WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE COURTS ARE UTILIZING THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE
MODES POSSIBLE.
MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU. AND AS FAR AS THOSE
CONDITIONS THAT THE COURT WOULD CONSIDER REGARDING POSSIBLY SETTING
SOMEONE WHO IS -- IS QUALIFIED TO BE RELEASED, THERE'S NO CONDITION THAT
INDICATES THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORY. IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT THAT'S NOT TO BE
A FACTOR THAT THEY CONSIDER?
MS. WALKER: IT'S -- UNLESS IT'S IN CONSIDERATION FOR
A RISK OF FLIGHT, IT'S -- IT'S NOT CONSIDERED.
MR. PALUMBO: BECAUSE I KNOW IN OUR OLD BAIL
STATUTE THAT EXISTED. AND WHEN WE GO OVER TO PAGE 113 --
MS. WALKER: THE STATUTE IS STILL AS IS.
MR. PALUMBO: I'M SORRY?
MS. WALKER: THE --
MR. PALUMBO: UNDER -- UNDER 510, 520, 530 --
MS. WALKER: IT DOES STILL CONSIDER.
MR. PALUMBO: OKAY, THEY DO. SO, CRIMINAL
HISTORY IS STILL A FACTOR?
MS. WALKER: FOR NONMONETARY CONDITIONS, YES.
MR. PALUMBO: OKAY. AND WHEN HAVE HERE, WHEN
WE LOOK AT A QUALIFYING... WHAT WAS IT, A QUALIFIED -- A QUALIFYING
OFFENSE, WE HAVE OVER ON PAGE 113, LINE 32, A CLASS A FELONY DEFINED
-- OR SOMEONE'S ELIGIBILITY IS -- IS A CLASS A FELONY OR -- OR EXEMPTS
456
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THEM FROM IT, WITH AN A FELONY OTHER THAN AN ARTICLE 220 CRIME. SO
THAT IS THE DRUGS -- THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE STAT -- ARTICLE. ISN'T THAT
ACCURATE?
MS. WALKER: RIGHT.
MR. PALUMBO: SO, IF SOMEONE'S CHARGED, FOR
EXAMPLE - AND THIS MAY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY SOME OF THE OTHER
SPEAKERS - BUT SOMEONE'S CHARGED WITH A CLASS A SALE OF HEROIN, THEY
MUST BE RELEASED FROM CUSTODY, RIGHT? IN A NONMONETARY SITUATION.
MS. WALKER: WELL, YOU CAN -- IT IS AN OPTION FOR
RELEASE ON YOUR OWN RECOGNIZANCE, BUT YOU CAN ALSO UTILIZE ELECTRONIC
MONITORING IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION. SO, THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS FOR
DRUG OFFENSES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE KINGPIN STATUTE.
MR. PALUMBO: GOTCHA. AND THAT'S SUBSECTION 77,
RIGHT?
MS. WALKER: YES.
MR. PALUMBO: SO, WHEN WE HAVE ALL THESE
MANDATORY RELEASE SITUATIONS, AND FOR NONVIOLENT FELONIES SUCH AS
MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE, IS A NONVIOLENT C FELONY, THAT'S STILL
SOMEONE ELSE WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE UNDER THIS PARTICULAR STATUTE. ISN'T
THAT ACCURATE?
MS. WALKER: WELL, LET ME SAY THIS. IT'S UP TO --
THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THAT A -- A JUDGE CAN -- CAN
LOOK AT WITH RESPECT TO RISK OF FLIGHT. ONE OF THOSE SUCH
RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE TO RELEASE THEM ON THEIR OWN RECOGNIZANCE, TO
UTILIZE PRETRIAL SERVICES OR SOME OTHER ELECTRONIC METHOD -- ELECTRONIC
457
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MONITORING METHOD IN ORDER TO SECURE THAT INDIVIDUAL'S RETURN TO COURT.
THE FACTORS THAT EXISTED WITH RESPECT TO THOSE PARTICULAR CHARGES,
HISTORICALLY WITH RESPECT TO BAIL AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAIL, STILL
EXISTS TODAY.
(PAUSE)
FURTHERMORE, MANSLAUGHTER IS RECKLESS CONDUCT, IT'S
NOT INTENTIONAL.
MR. PALUMBO: CORRECT. AND THAT IS THE CRIME --
IN FACT - NOT TO GET TOO FAR IN THE WEEDS, BUT THE ONLY -- THE INTENTIONAL
MURDER HAS -- HAS NEVER HELD UP THE HEIDGEN CASE, COURT OF APPEALS
HAS SAID YOU CANNOT CHARGE MURDER FOR A DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT THAT
KILLS PEOPLE. SO, IF SOMEONE IS DRIVING DRUNK - AND THIS HAS BEEN
REPEATED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS - THE MAXIMUM CHARGE IS
MANSLAUGHTER SECOND DEGREE -- I'VE HANDLED A TON OF THOSE CASES, I'VE
INDICTED CASES LIKE THAT -- THAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, THAT'S THE TOP COUNT.
IF SOMEONE DRIVES DRUNK THE WRONG WAY ON THE SOUTHERN STATE, LIKE THE
HEIDGEN CASE, AND KILLS PEOPLE COMING HOME FROM A WEDDING, THEY
MUST BE RELEASED UNDER THE STATUTE. THIS IS A MUST STATUTE. AND THIS IS
THE CONCERN THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS GIVEN TO ME. AND I'M
WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY WAY WE CAN RECONCILE THAT IN THE BILL. IF YOU
COULD POINT ME TO A PLACE WHERE THAT PERSON COULD BE HELD, CHARGED
WITH MAN 2, MANSLAUGHTER SECOND DEGREE AND DWI, WITH MULTIPLE
FATALITIES, THERE'S -- UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE CAN THEY HOLD THAT PERSON
UNDER THIS LANGUAGE.
MS. WALKER: WELL, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT
458
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INDIVIDUAL TO BE PLACED UNDER AN ELECTRONIC MONITORING SCENARIO, WHICH
IS, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, IN -- IN THE EYES OF -- OF MANY INDIVIDUALS, IS
IN AND OF ITSELF A TYPE OF INCARCERATION. JUST NOT WITHIN THE CONFINES
THAT WE KNOW OF.
MR. PALUMBO: WELL, UNDER -- ON PAGE 112, AT LINE
18, WE HAVE A SPECIFIC QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTRONIC MONITORING. A
PERSON CHARGED WITH A FELONY, A MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, A MISDEMEANOR DEFINED IN ARTICLE 130 OF THE PENAL LAW. IS
THAT WHERE YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT, AND A FEW OTHER, THAT THEY MAY -- FOR
THE PURPOSES OF -- IN CALCULATING SUCH FIVE-YEAR PERIOD -- HANG ON, I'M
SORRY, I'M CATCHING UP TO THIS LANGUAGE -- THAT PERSON WOULD BE ELIGIBLE
FOR ELECTRONIC MONITORING. IS THAT -- WOULD THAT APPLY?
MS. WALKER: ANY FELONY.
MR. PALUMBO: JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR? ANY
FELONY. SO THEY COULD ULTIMATELY CONSIDER THAT, BUT THEY COULD NOT
REMAND THE DEFENDANT PENDING TRIAL, OR SET ANY CASH BAIL. IS THAT
ACCURATE?
MS. WALKER: WELL, THAT BRINGS YOU -- BRINGS ME TO
THE SECOND PORTION OF THE LEGISLATION THAT YOU WERE GOING INTO. IF THEY
PERSISTENTLY AND/OR WILLFULLY FAILED TO APPEAR IN COURT WHILE THEY ARE AT
LIBERTY, OR THEY VIOLATED AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, INTIMIDATED A VICTIM OR
WITNESS, OR WERE RELEASED ON A FELONY CHARGE, COMMITS ANOTHER FELONY,
THEY MAY BE REMANDED IN THOSE PARTICULAR SITUATIONS.
MR. PALUMBO: BUT THEY -- THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO
BE RELEASED, THOUGH. AND THEY WOULD -- BECAUSE THEY - OF THE NATURE OF
459
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THAT BEING A NONVIOLENT FELONY, AND THEY'D BE RELEASED WITH ELECTRONIC
MONITORING. THAT'S THE MAXIMUM, I GUESS, SANCTION. RIGHT? UNDER
THIS LEGISLATION?
MS. WALKER: THAT'S -- INITIALLY, YES. BUT IF YOU
SORT OF REACHED A STEPPED-UP MODEL WHILE --
MR. PALUMBO: BUT IF -- IF THEY DID APPEAR,
THOUGH. --
MS. WALKER: -- YOU'RE OUT IN LIBERTY, YOU COMMIT
ANY OF THESE OTHER, A, B, C OR D, PERSISTENTLY AND WILLFULLY VIOLATED AN
ORDER OF PROTECTION, INTIMIDATED A WITNESS, WHILE RELEASED ON A FELONY
COMMIT ANOTHER FELONY --
MR. PALUMBO: LET ME ASK YOU THIS --
MS. WALKER: --THEN THAT'S REMAND.
MR. PALUMBO: AND THEN -- OR -- WHAT -- AND
WHERE WAS -- YOU -- BUT YOU HAVE TO -- WHERE WAS THAT SECTION? IF YOU
WOULDN'T MIND POINTING ME TO IT. BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT
THEY HAD TO EITHER NOT APPEAR, OR NOT OTHERWISE COMPLY. BUT IF THEY
SHOW UP FOR ALL THEIR COURT DATES WHILE BEING ELECTRONICALLY MONITORED,
GET DRUNK, KILL SOMEBODY ELSE, THEY'RE SILL ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE UNDER THE
STATUTE. THERE IS NO CRIMINAL HISTORY -- THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE
THAT I COULD FIND, AND IF YOU COULD PLEASE POINT ME THERE --
MS. WALKER: WELL, INITIALLY --
MR. PALUMBO: -- THAT -- THAT PERSON WHO'S NOW
REPEATEDLY OFFENDED, THERE'S NO SPECIFIC CONDITION, UNLESS THE COURT -- I
-- I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHERE THEY COULD SAY, AND ALSO, PLEASE DON'T GET
460
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ME ARRESTED. BECAUSE THERE -- THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT INDICATES A
SUBSEQUENT ARREST WILL BE A VIOLATION OF YOUR CONDITIONS OF BAIL.
MS. WALKER: WELL, INITIALLY, THE JUDGE STILL HAS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ANTILOCK DEVICE ON THE VEHICLE IN ORDER TO DO
WHAT IT CAN TO PREVENT ANOTHER VEHICULAR SITUATION. IN -- IN THE INSTANCE
WHERE THERE WAS ONE SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE, AND THERE'S ANOTHER FELONY THAT
GETS COMMITTED, THE JUDGE DOES HAVE THE OPTION OF REMANDING THAT
INDIVIDUAL. OR BAIL.
MR. PALUMBO: AND THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE THEY
VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS THAT THE JUDGE IMPOSED, TO NOT GET REARRESTED? I
GUESS -- BUT THEY'D HAVE TO AFFIRMATIVELY SAY THAT, I PRESUME.
MS. WALKER: THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE WHILE THEY
ARE AT LIBERTY AND THEY WERE RELEASED ON A FELONY CHARGE, THEY
COMMITTED ANOTHER FELONY CHARGE.
MR. PALUMBO: OKAY. WELL, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.
NOW, ONE -- JUST TWO MORE LITTLE -- TWO MORE AREAS,
QUICKLY. ON 116 AT THE BOTTOM, THE NONMONETARY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
SHALL BE INDIVIDUALIZED AND ESTABLISHED IN WRITING. AT FUTURE COURT
APPEARANCES THEY'LL CONSIDER LESSENING CONDITIONS. IN THE EVENT OF
ALLEGED NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF RELEASE IN AN IMPORTANT
RESPECT, PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION, ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS MAY BE
IMPOSED ON THE RECORD OR IN WRITING ONLY AFTER NOTICE OF THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES, SAID ALLEGED NONCOMPLIANCE, REASONABLE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, AFFORDING THE PRINCIPAL AND THE PRINCIPAL'S ATTORNEY
AND THE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT -- TO PRESENT RELEVANT
461
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, RELEVANT WITNESSES AND TO CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES, AND BY -- AND A FINDING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
THAT THE PRINCIPAL VIOLATED A CONDITION OF RELEASE IN AN IMPORTANT
RESPECT. SO, WE HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING IN ORDER TO FIND SOMEONE IN
CONTRAVENTION TO THE COURT'S RULES OF RECOGNIZANCE. SO, I'M ON
ELECTRONIC MONITORING FOR A MANSLAUGHTER, I COMMIT ANOTHER
MANSLAUGHTER OR AN A-1 FELONY DRUG SALE, SELL A HUGE PILE OF HEROIN TO
AN UNDERCOVER. I NOW HAVE TO PRESENT WITNESSES AS THE PROSECUTOR,
SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, JUST TO REVOKE BAIL UNDER THIS. WE NEED A
HEARING. AND I NOW HAVE TO EXPOSE MY WITNESSES AND LET THEM BE
CROSS-EXAMINED, WHICH IS FINE. BUT THIS ISN'T EVEN A PRELIMINARY
HEARING. WE -- I MEAN, WE'RE NOT EVEN HAVING A FELONY EXAM AT THIS
POINT, THIS IS SIMPLY TO ADDRESS BAIL. IS -- IS THAT ACCURATE?
MS. WALKER: THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. BUT I DID LIKE
YOUR ITERATION OF --
MR. PALUMBO: WELL, TELL ME WHAT THAT SECTION
MEANS. BECAUSE IT LOOKS AS THOUGH IT HAS TO BE A WRITTEN FINDING AFTER A
HEARING.
MS. WALKER: THIS IS ONLY --
MR. PALUMBO: TELL ME IF I'M --
MS. WALKER: THIS IS ONLY UPON TECHNICAL
VIOLATIONS. IF THERE'S A SECOND FELONY THAT GETS COMMITTED, THEN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY AND --
MR. PALUMBO: WELL, WOULD THE ALLEGATIONS OF
ARREST WOULD BE ENOUGH --
462
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WALKER: AND YOU WILL BE BAIL ELIGIBLE.
MR. PALUMBO: JUST THE ALLEGATIONS OF ARREST WOULD
BE ENOUGH UNDER THE STATUTE?
MS. WALKER: THE ARREST.
MR. PALUMBO: NOT A CONVICTION. I'M SAYING JUST
REARRESTED, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THEM TO FIX --
MS. WALKER: YES.
MR. PALUMBO: -- BAIL?
MS. WALKER: YES.
MR. PALUMBO: OKAY. GOOD. THANK YOU.
ONE LAST PART. 121 -- I'M MOVING QUICK, FOLKS.
MS. WALKER: 121, OKAY. I'M WITH --
MR. PALUMBO: I JUST FIND THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE --
MS. WALKER: -- PASTOR A. R. BERNARD.
(LAUGHTER)
MR. PALUMBO: THERE'S JUST -- I WON'T READ THROUGH
THE WHOLE THING, BUT GENERALLY, IT HAS THE SAME SITUATION WHERE IF IT'S --
IT NEEDS TO BE A QUALIFYING OFFENSE IN ORDER TO HOLD THAT PERSON, THEY
TALK ABOUT MANDATORY RELEASE. BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE BOTTOM, WHICH
IS THE END OF 530.20 SUBSECTION (2), WHICH IS THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 122,
LATRICE --
MS. WALKER: I'M WITH YOU.
MR. PALUMBO: WHEN THE DEFENDANT'S CHARGED
WITH SOMETHING LIKE AN A FELONY, IT SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE TO THE OTHER
PART. BECAUSE A LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT, YOU SEE SUBSECTION (2)(A), CITY
463
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
COURT, TOWN COURT OR VILLAGE COURT MAY NOT ORDER RECOGNIZANCE OR BAIL
WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH A CLASS A FELONY, OR, THE DEFENDANT
HAS TWO PREVIOUS FELONY CONVICTIONS. SO, IF SOMEONE IS CHARGED WITH
EVEN JUST A PLAIN OLD FELONY -- E FELONY OR D FELONY DRUG POSSESSION,
WHICH IS CLEARLY ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE IN THE REST OF THE STATUTE, THIS IS
CONTRARY TO THAT BECAUSE A VILLAGE JUSTICE OUT, SAY IN SOUTHAMPTON, A
TOWN JUSTICE, MUST REMAND THAT DEFENDANT, ACCORDING TO THE SECOND PART
OF 530.20. SO, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE RECONCILED
MAYBE WITH A CHAPTER AMENDMENT, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE INTENDED --
THE INTENDED RESULT.
MS. WALKER: COUNSELOR, TOWN AND VILLAGES --
TOWN AND VILLAGE JUSTICES DON'T -- DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THESE
TYPES OF CASES. THAT'S CURRENT LAW, AND THAT WE DID NOT CHANGE IN THIS
LEGISLATION.
MR. PALUMBO: FOR ARRAIGNMENT, THEY DO, MA'AM.
THEY DO. WE DO IT ALL THE TIME ON -- ON THE EAST END OF LONG ISLAND.
THEY --
MS. WALKER: THEY MUST BE --
MR. PALUMBO: -- THEY CAN ARRAIGN MURDER CASES.
THEY CAN ARRAIGN -- THEY CAN'T HAVE TRIAL JURISDICTION --
MS. WALKER: OKAY. THEY MUST REMAND UNTIL
THERE'S A SUPERIOR COURT THAT CAN ACTUALLY HEAR THE CASE.
MR. PALUMBO: RIGHT. RIGHT. AND THAT WAS MY
POINT, THAT THAT SEEMS TO BE COUNTERINTUITIVE TO THE BEGINNING -- TO THE
OTHER PART. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
464
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ON THE BILL VERY QUICKLY, PLEASE --
MS. WALKER: THANK YOU.
MR. PALUMBO: -- MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AND QUICK YOU BETTER
BE.
MR. PALUMBO: YES.
(LAUGHTER)
JUST -- MR. SPEAKER, THAT -- WE -- THIS ISN'T -- OF COURSE
WITHIN PUBLIC PROTECTION, BUT THIS SEEMS TO BE, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T
THINK THIS PROTECTS THE PUBLIC. BECAUSE REMOVING DISCRETION WHEN IT
COMES TO THE RELEASE AND ARRAIGNMENT AND EVALUATION OF CASES ON A
CASE-BY-CASE BASIS IS VERY DANGEROUS. SO, THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. THERE
HAS BEEN SOME JUST SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO THIS, JUST FOR THOSE
PURPOSES, THAT THE COURT WON'T BE ABLE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M ASKING EVERYONE TO VOTE
NO. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MS. GLICK TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. LAST YEAR WE
DID RAISE THE AGE, AND THIS YEAR IN THIS BILL WE ARE BUILDING ON THE
ESSENTIAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM NEEDED FOR OUR STATE. AND WHILE I
465
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SUPPORT BOTH CONGESTION PRICING AND PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS, I
DON'T SUPPORT A PANEL FOR ONE AND A COMMISSION FOR THE OTHER. I ALSO
RECOGNIZE THAT MANY NEW YORKERS DO NOT SUPPORT USING DOLLARS FOR --
TAX DOLLARS FOR CAMPAIGNS BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY CRITICAL NEEDS
WHICH WE HAVE YET TO FUND. I HOPE AT SOME POINT WE CAN ADDRESS THE
CITY'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE PIED-À-TERRE TAX, AND RAISE THE NEEDED
FUNDS FOR THINGS LIKE THE TAP GAP, AND ENSURING THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT
FUNDING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES.
BUT TODAY, I WILL SUPPORT THIS BILL, AND CAN'T BELIEVE
THAT IT'S CLOSE TO 24 HOURS WHEN I WALKED IN. SO, WITH THAT, I WITHDRAW
MY REQUEST AND VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. AS MANY OF
MY COLLEAGUES NOTED, THE COMMISSION DOES INDEED SEEM TO VIOLATE
MANY PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND I KNOW YOU WANTED TO KNOW
WHICH SECTIONS SO YOU COULD CHECK IT ON YOUR MONITOR RIGHT AFTER YOU
WAKE UP AND REVIEW OUR DEBATE. IT'S ARTICLE III, SECTION 13, WHICH IS
SOMETHING YOU ALL OUGHT TO APPRECIATE BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT YOU AND IT
SAYS, NO BILL, NO LAW SHALL BE ENACTED EXCEPT BY A BILL ADOPTED BY US.
WHAT A GREAT, GREAT NOVEL CONCEPT. AND AS MY COLLEAGUES NOTED, WE
DON'T REALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE TO SOMEONE ELSE THE POWER TO
MAKE LAWS, INCLUDING THE POWER BEING DELEGATED TO A HANDPICKED
COMMISSION TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE
466
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OURSELVES. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT, BY THE WAY, THAT THE CONSTITUTION
STATES THAT, NO DEBT SHALL BE BORROWED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
EXCEPT BY VOTER APPROVAL. THIS PARTICULAR BILL INCREASES OUR DEBT BY
$5.8 BILLION, WITH NO VOTER APPROVAL. AND SINCE THERE'S NO VOTER
APPROVAL, THE VOTERS SHOULDN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THAT $5.8
BILLION. BUT MANY OF YOU WILL NOTE THAT IF WE CONTINUE TO BORROW
WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL AND WE DON'T CONTINUE TO PAY WITHOUT VOTER
APPROVAL, PEOPLE WON'T ALLOW US TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION IN THE
FUTURE, AND THAT WOULD HAVE DEVASTATING IMPACTS, BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO
GO BACK TO OUR OWN VOTERS. SO, I HAVE GREAT CONFIDENCE IN THE VOTERS
THAT THEY HAVE SELECTED YOU TO REPRESENT THEM, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT IN
THE FUTURE, ALL OF US, HAVING BEEN ELECTED BY OUR COLLEAGUE -- BY OUR
CONSTITUENTS, WOULD EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY, AS SUGGESTED BY MANY OF
US, AND MAKE THE TOUGH DECISIONS RATHER THAN TO TRY TO PASS THEM OFF ON
A HANDPICKED COMMITTEE, AND THAT WE DON'T BORROW MORE MONEY AND
MORTGAGE THE FUTURE WITHOUT THAT VOTER APPROVAL.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE VOTING NO. THANK YOU,
MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MS. CRUZ.
MS. CRUZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. MY DECISION
TODAY WAS NOT EASY. I THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR HARD WORK TO
SECURE PROGRESSIVE POLICIES THAT ADDRESS LONGSTANDING NEEDS, LIKE $10
MILLION FOR IMMIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES, CONGESTION PRICING TO HELP FIX THE
467
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MTA, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM TO ADDRESS THE INEQUITIES OF OUR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, WHICH DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT COMMUNITIES
OF COLORS, AND HAVE BASICALLY CRIMINALIZED POVERTY.
BUT WE FAILED TO ADDRESS KEY CONCERNS THAT WOULD
MAKE NEW YORK A FAIRER STATE. WE NEEDED THE ULTRA-MILLIONAIRE'S TAX,
ALSO KNOWN AS PIED-À-TERRE. OTHERWISE, WE CAN'T KEEP ON COMPLAINING
THAT WE CAN'T FIND THE MONEY FOR THE THINGS THAT WE NEED AROUND HERE.
WE ALSO NEEDED TO FULLY FUND THE CENSUS COUNT, AND WE CHOSE TO
INSTEAD GIVE A COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS TO A FOOTBALL TEAM. WE FAILED
TO FULLY FUND OUR SCHOOLS TO MEET THE CFE FORMULA. THE FUNDING WE'RE
GETTING WILL NOT ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN. WE FAILED TO
ALLOCATE MUCH-NEEDED FUNDS TO CUNY AND SUNY. WE FAILED TO FUND
TAP, GAP AND SERVICES TO STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. WE MUST DO
BETTER FOR OUR PUBLIC COLLEGE STUDENTS. FOR MANY OF US, IT'S THE WAY OUT
OF POVERTY AND INTO THE MIDDLE CLASS. WE FAILED TO CREATE A SYSTEM OF
PUBLIC FINANCING FOR CAMPAIGNS, SOMETHING OUR COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN
ASKING. WE NEEDED TO CREATE A SYSTEM THAT WOULD ELEVATE THE VOICES OF
OUR PEOPLE ABOVE THE VOICES OF SPECIAL INTERESTS. THE SYSTEM WE HAVE
NOW IS EXACTLY THE REASON WHY WE COULDN'T PASS THAT TAX FOR THE ULTRA
RICH. INSTEAD, WE HAVE A COMMISSION THAT, FRANKLY, IS USURPING THE ROLE
OF THE LEGISLATURE. AND THAT PERHAPS, PERHAPS WE'LL COME UP WITH A
SYSTEM THAT TRULY UPLIFTS THE VOICE OF OUR PEOPLE.
BUT I WILL VOTE YES ON THIS BILL BECAUSE THE GOOD
OUTWEIGHS THE BAD. BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK BACK IN HISTORY, I WANT TO
KNOW THAT I WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THINGS, BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE
468
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
RIGHT NOW SITTING IN JAIL BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD BAIL. AND THAT
STOPS TODAY. I CONTINUE MY COMMITMENT TO FIGHT FULLY TO FULLY FUND OUR
SCHOOLS UNDER THE CFE FORMULA, TO FULLY FUND THE NEEDS OF CUNY AND
SUNY, AND TO KEEP A WATCHFUL EYE OVER THIS COMMISSION TO ENSURE THAT
IT DOES WHAT IT WAS ACTUALLY APPOINTED TO DO.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND I WILL VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU. MS.
CRUZ IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. FERNANDEZ.
MS. FERNANDEZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THIS WAS A HEFTY BILL, A BUSY BILL THAT
A LOT OF US AGREED ON AND A LOT OF US DISAGREED ON. BUT THERE'S ONE
THING THAT I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T SUPPORT THIS BILL, AND THAT IS
WHAT IT'S -- WHAT IT'S DOING TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. SINCE THE
BEGINNING OF THE SYSTEM, IT'S BEEN FLAWED. WE ARE THE COUNTRY WITH THE
HIGHEST INCARCERATION RATE, AND INDIVIDUALS, AT AN ALARMING AMOUNT OF
THEM INNOCENT. OUR SYSTEM TARGETS POOR MINORITY DEMOGRAPHICS AND
FOCUSES ON LOCKING THE MOST AMOUNT OF PEOPLE AWAY, INSTEAD OF
ESTABLISHING A FAIR SYSTEM WHERE INNOCENT CAN PREVAIL. THIS WAS
IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF WHAT WE SUCCEEDED IN GETTING SPEEDY TRIAL IN IT,
DISCOVERY JUSTICE, AND CASH BAIL REFORM. RIGHT NOW, THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE ARE SITTING IN JAIL, THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT COULD BE INNOCENT.
WHY? BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT AFFORD THE BAIL. THIS ANTIQUATED SYSTEM
STANDS AS A DIRECT ATTACK TO LOWER-INCOME INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LESS
469
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LIKELY TO AFFORD A CASH BAIL, AND WHO WOULD, INSTEAD, SPEND THEIR DAYS
IN DETENTION WHILE THEY MAY AS WELL BE INNOCENT. SUCH REFORMS ARE
NECESSARY TO PREVENT UNNEEDED SUFFERING. MENTIONED BEFORE TODAY,
KALIEF BROWDER, WHO DID NOT ACCEPT THE GUILTY PLEA, COULD NOT AFFORD
THE BAIL SYSTEM SET AGAINST HIM AND WAS NOT GRANTED A SPEEDY TRIAL, WAS
FAILED BY THE SYSTEM AND TOOK HIS LIFE. BUT NO MORE, NOT ONE MORE
PERSON WILL BE HURT, NOT ONE MORE PERSON WILL BE HELD AGAINST THEIR WILL
BY THIS SYSTEM. AND IT WILL NOT HURT THE MOST VULNERABLE.
THE PASSAGE OF THESE BILLS BRINGS A NEW DAY TO NEW
YORKERS, AND FOR THAT I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. FERNANDEZ IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. EPSTEIN.
MR. EPSTEIN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. AND HERE WE ARE ON APRIL 1ST, APRIL FOOL'S DAY,
REALIZING THAT THERE'S NO MONEY FOR NYCHA, FOR THE 400,000 RESIDENTS
THAT LIVE THERE. THAT FOUNDATION AID ISN'T ENOUGH. THE $4.3 BILLION
THAT WE OWE TO OUR STUDENTS, CUNY AND SUNY TEACHERS, TAP GAP,
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES NOT BEING TAKEN CARE OF. WHY ARE WE NOT
TAXING THE PEOPLE WHO CAN MOST AFFORD IT TO COVER ALL THESE NEEDS?
WHY DOES THE SYSTEM WORK FOR SO MANY -- DOES NOT WORK FOR SO MANY
NEW YORKERS? PEOPLE LIKE US. THE PEOPLE IN POWER IGNORING THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE POWERLESS.
FAIR ELECTIONS, WE SET UP FORWARD A COMMISSION. WE
MAY NOT EVER GET FAIR ELECTIONS. WE MAY NEVER GET A MATCHING SYSTEM.
470
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WHY? WE LOOK AT THE MTA. WE NEED MONEY FOR THE MTA, SO WE DO
CONGESTION PRICING. IT'S A GOOD WAY TO FIX THE SUBWAYS. BUT IT'S NOT
ENOUGH. REALLY DISAPPOINTED TO THINK ABOUT A PIED-À-TERRE TAX, WHICH
COULD BRING MORE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN. BUT THE WELL-CONNECTED REAL
ESTATE INDUSTRY LOBBIED TO MAKE THAT COLLAPSE. CLEARLY, THE INFLUENCE OF
REAL ESTATE AND BIG MONEY SHOWS ITS POWER. SHOWS HOW WITHOUT A
PUBLIC MATCHING SYSTEM, CORPORATE AND SPECIAL INTERESTS WILL TAKE OVER.
WHILE THIS BUDGET GOES IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, WE'VE
MISSED OUT ON SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES. CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IS
CRITICAL. AND WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS HERE AROUND
KALIEF BROWDER. WE SHOULD SAY HIS NAME, REMEMBER HIS NAME, AND
THOUGHT -- THINK ABOUT HIS STRUGGLE. THINK ABOUT PEOPLE. A FRIEND OF
MINE WHO WAS RECENTLY INCARCERATED WAS HELD ON BAIL, WAS SENT TO
RIKERS, A LEGAL SERVICES WORKER WHO IS AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF OUR
COMMUNITY, BUT JUST ANOTHER WOMAN OF COLOR TO THE SYSTEM.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. EPSTEIN, HOW DO
YOU VOTE?
MR. EPSTEIN: ON SO MANY ISSUES, I'M GOING TO BE
VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. EPSTEIN IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. WEPRIN.
MR. WEPRIN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I'M VERY
TORN BY THIS BILL, BECAUSE AS CHAIR OF CORRECTIONS, I'VE LONG ADVOCATED
FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IN THIS BILL. BAIL REFORM. DISCOVERY
471
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REFORM. SPEEDY TRIAL REFORM. ALL BILLS THAT WE VOTED FOR IN PREVIOUS
YEARS IN ONE-HOUSE BILLS AND I VOTED FOR. BUT I CANNOT VOTE FOR THIS BILL
BECAUSE I'VE BEEN FIGHTING VARIOUS CONGESTION PRICING PROPOSALS FOR
OVER TEN YEARS, GOING BACK TO MAYOR BLOOMBERG, AND OF ALL THESE
PROPOSALS, THIS IS BY FAR THE WORST. IT GIVES A TOTAL BLANKET CHECK --
BLANK CHECK TO THE TBTA. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH WE ARE GOING
TO BE TAXING OUR CONSTITUENTS, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE $10, $20, $30, IS
THERE A CAP ON IT? IS THE ZONE GOING TO BE CHANGED? HOW OFTEN WILL IT
GO UP? THERE'S SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN THIS. SO, EVEN IF I
WAS A SUPPORTER OF CONGESTION PRICING ALL THOSE YEARS, I COULD NOT VOTE
FOR THIS PROPOSAL WITH THE OPENNESS OF IT. AND I ACTUALLY REPRESENT
WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS A TRANSIT DESERT, WHERE YOU HAVE TO TAKE TWO BUSES
-- EASTERN PART OF MY DISTRICT YOU HAVE TO TAKE TWO BUSES AND A TRAIN TO
GET INTO MIDTOWN MANHATTAN, INTO THE ZONE. AND IT OFTEN TAKES MY
CONSTITUENTS TWO HOURS TO GET INTO THE ZONE, WHILE IF THEY'RE DRIVING
EVEN WITH CONGESTION, IT TAKES ABOUT AN HOUR.
SO, FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, I CANNOT IN GOOD
CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR THIS BILL. I VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. WEPRIN IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MR. PHILLIP STECK.
MR. STECK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I
CONGRATULATE CHAIRS WEINSTEIN AND BENEDETTO FOR CONTINUING OUR
COMMITMENT TO INCREASED AID FOR EDUCATION UNDER DIFFICULT
CIRCUMSTANCES. THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE 110TH DISTRICT DID WELL.
472
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THANK YOU. BUT THERE IS A POISON PILL IN THIS BUDGET. THAT IS THE
COMMISSION ON SO-CALLED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. I HAVE SPOKEN
AGAINST PAID COMMISSIONS' AGGRANDIZEMENT OF POWER. IT WOULD BE
HYPOCRITICAL OF ME TO ENDORSE THIS COMMISSION, AND HYPOCRISY DESTROYS
THE CREDIBILITY OF ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THE EYES OF THE VOTERS. THE
COMMISSION IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC. IT ALLOWS FIVE PEOPLE TO ENACT STATUTES,
THUS USURPING THE CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. ALSO, IT IS
NOT ABOUT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS. THERE IS A CLAUSE THAT WOULD
FACILITATE ABOLITION OF FUSION VOTING. ONE COULD HAVE A SERIOUS DEBATE
ON THE PROS AND CONS OF FUSION VOTING, BUT THAT DEBATE BELONGS HERE IN
THIS CHAMBER, NOT IN SECRET BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IN A COMMISSION
FORMAT. MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND SAID ABOUT A TAX ON DEMOCRACY AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL. SOME OF THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON RIGHT HERE UNDER OUR
NOSES. MORE AND MORE POWER IS BEING CONSOLIDATED IN THE HANDS OF THE
GOVERNOR. THAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ALLOW POLICY TO BE INSERTED
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IN THE BUDGET AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE, WITHOUT BEING
FULLY VETTED.
I CAME TO THIS CHAMBER BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN
DEMOCRACY. FOR THAT REASON, I CANNOT ABIDE THIS BILL. I VOTE IN THE
NEGATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. STECK IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MR. PALMESANO.
MR. PALMESANO: YES, THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
JUST FOR -- JUST TO LET MY COLLEAGUES KNOW, INITIALLY I WAS GOING TO GO
473
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FOR ANOTHER 15 MINUTES, BUT I KNEW --
(LAUGHTER)
-- I KNEW IF I SPOKE AS FAST AS I DID AT THE ONE-HOUSE
BUDGET I COULD GET ALL I WANTED DONE IN TWO MINUTES THERE FOR SURE. I
DON'T NEED TO BELABOR THE POINT ON THE STAR CONCERNS WE HAVE OR AIM
OR THE -- OR TAXPAYER-FUNDED CAMPAIGNS OR THE HOLLYWOOD FILM TAX
CREDIT. BUT JUST THE POINT I JUST WANT TO REITERATE ONE LAST TIME, IF I
COULD, IS ON A LOCAL -- LOCAL MATTERS, FOR SOME OF YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS,
SOME OF OURS, YOU KNOW, THOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT HAVE PENALTIES THAT
ARE COMING TO THEM, LET'S PLEASE PUT TOGETHER AN OMNIBUS BILL THAT WILL
FORGIVE THAT -- THOSE PENALTIES. SEND THEM UP TO THE GOVERNOR -- LET'S
PASS THEM, SEND THEM UP TO THE GOVERNOR, LET HIM USE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY TO VETO IT, WHICH HE WILL, BUT THEN LET'S USE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE THAT VETO. AND I'D ALSO JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT AGAIN
ON THOSE FOUR MORTGAGE -- FOUR COUNTIES THAT LOST MORTGAGE RECORDING
TAX REVENUE BECAUSE OF THE DELAYS WE DID IN PASSING THAT LEGISLATION
AND NOT DOING IT RIGHT AND PASSING IT LATE, I KNOW THERE IS NO INTENTIONAL
HARM, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS EVER A DELIBERATE INTENTION TO HURT THOSE
COUNTIES, BUT BECAUSE OF OUR INACTION, IT DID. I JUST HOPE WE COULD FIND
A WAY TO FIND THAT $790,000, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH LEGISLATION -- AGAIN, IF
THE GOVERNOR WANTS TO VETO IT, OVERRIDE IT OR FIND OTHER POTS OF MONEY
TO MAKE THIS RIGHT, LET'S RIGHT THIS WRONG.
SO, GIVEN SOME OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE AND HAVE BEEN
RAISED, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING IN THE OPPOSITION ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.
474
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PALMESANO IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MS. SIMON.
MS. SIMON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. TO EXPLAIN
MY VOTE. THIS IS THE BIG UGLY, AND IT IS BIG. AND IT IS IN GOOD WAYS
AND BAD WAYS. AND SOME OF THOSE BAD THINGS ARE PRETTY UGLY. I HATE,
IN PARTICULAR, THAT WE HAVE NOT FULLY FUNDED FOUNDATION AID, OR CLOSED
THE TAP GAP OR FUND DISABILITY SERVICES FOR SUNY AND CUNY
STUDENTS. I HATE THAT WE ARE SETTING UP A PUBLIC FINANCING COMMISSION.
BUT TO ADVOCATES -- ADVOCATES WHOSE PASSION FOR PUBLIC FINANCING I
SHARE, WE HAVE NO BILL TO PASS. WE HAVE NO SEPARATE CAMPAIGN FUNDING
BILL. THE EXECUTIVE'S PROPOSAL WAS NOT A BILL THAT WAS -- COULD WORK.
AND SO, THE COMMISSION WILL GIVE US TIME TO STUDY MODELS AND FASHION
A PLAN THAT WILL WORK FOR NEW YORK STATE.
AND THE GOOD IN THIS BILL IS TRULY TRANSFORMATIONAL.
OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WILL FINALLY BE TAKEN OUT OF KAFKA BY
REFORMING BAIL, DISCOVERY AND SPEEDY TRIAL. AND WE WILL FUND THE
MTA THROUGH CONGESTION PRICING AND PROVIDE A SUSTAINABLE REVENUE
SOURCE FOR THE MTA. AND WE HAVE NEEDED REFORMS TO MAYORAL
GOVERNANCE AND TO HOME -- THE HOME STABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM.
MY FIRST YEAR I HAD TO VOTE FOR A BUDGET THAT WAS VERY,
VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME. AND A FRIEND AND MENTOR OF MINE, FORMER
ASSEMBLYMEMBER JIM BRENNAN, SAID TO ME, JO ANNE, WHEN PUSH
COMES TO SHOVE, THE FIRST DUTY OF A LEGISLATOR IS TO PASS A BUDGET.
AND SO, I WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS BUDGET BILL. THANK
475
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. SIMON IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. THIELE.
MR. THIELE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO EXPLAIN
MY VOTE. I'M GOING TO BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL. AS HAS BEEN
STATED BY MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES, THERE'S MUCH IN THIS LEGISLATION TO
COMMEND IT, BUT I DO HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT MY VOTE TODAY SHOULD NOT
BE MISCONSTRUED AS SUPPORTING ALL OF THIS BILL. IT'S NOT CALLED THE BIG
UGLY FOR NOTHING. AND THE PROVISIONS THAT RELATE TO THE COMMISSION ON
PUBLIC FINANCING ARE SOMETHING THAT I FIND ABHORRENT. I SUPPORT PUBLIC
FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS COMMISSION. THE
MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE HAVE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH COMMISSIONS
THAT LOOK JUST LIKE THIS. AND TO QUOTE MARK TWAIN, "THERE IS NO
EDUCATION IN THE SECOND KICK OF A MULE." I DON'T KNOW WHY WE
CONTINUE TO SUBJECT OURSELVES TO THESE COMMISSIONS. AND IT IS MY
OPINION THAT THIS COMMISSION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WE ARE DELEGATING
AWAY OUR LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. I BELIEVE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WE
HAVE GIVEN THEM NO STANDARDS, NO GUIDANCE. NOTHING BY WHICH ANYONE
COULD SEE WHAT OUR INTENT IS WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC FINANCING. I HOPE
THAT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE THIS COMMISSION IS STRUCK DOWN,
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT SIMPLY CANNOT STAND. BUT OVERALL,
WHAT IS IN THIS -- THIS BILL AND WHAT IS IN THIS BUDGET IS GOOD. AND AS
MY -- MY -- THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, OUR FIRST DUTY IS TO PASS A
BUDGET.
476
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
I AM PROUD TO BE PART OF PASSING THAT BUDGET, AND I
VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. THIELE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. RODRIGUEZ.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU, TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE.
I REPRESENT A LOW-INCOME DISTRICT THAT IS HEAVILY RELIANT ON PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION AND MASS TRANSIT. THE MTA IS CLEARLY IN CRISIS. I
INTRODUCED LEGISLATION THREE YEARS AGO TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE BUILD A
SUSTAINABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING. THAT WAS CALLED MOVE NY WHERE WE
LOOK TO ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT WAYS TO HELP SUPPORT THE SYSTEM. IN THOSE
THREE YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN THE TRANSIT SYSTEM GET WORSE. LAST YEAR THE --
THE SYSTEM ALMOST SLOWED TO A CRAWL REQUIRING A MAJOR INFUSION OF
CAPITAL THAT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR NOW, FORGETTING ABOUT THE COMMITMENTS
THAT WE HAVE TO OUR -- TO OUR NEXT GENERATION TO HAVE A WORLD-CLASS
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SO THAT NOT JUST MY RESIDENTS, BUT ALL THE RESIDENTS
OF THE STATE CAN GET TO WORK, CAN GET TO THEIR APPOINTMENTS, AND TO LEAD
THE LIVES THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR NEW YORK TO BE SUCCESSFUL. IN ORDER TO
DO THAT, WE HAVE A PLAN HERE THAT PUTS TOGETHER CHANGING THE WAY THAT
WE THINK ABOUT TRANSIT. IT IS NO LONGER MANHATTAN-CENTRIC. WE ARE
LOOKING TO ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY THE TRANSIT DESERTS FIRST. ALSO MAKING
SURE THAT WE FIX THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN
BUILD THINGS ON TIME WITH THE REFORMS THAT ARE NECESSARY. WE CAN'T SEE
A CRISIS AND THEN NOT ACT. WE CAN'T SAY THAT WE NEED MONEY TO FIX
THINGS AND TAKE NO ACTION, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ENOUGH. WE ARE RAISING
477
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ALMOST $28 BILLION, $2 BILLION TO BEGIN TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT EXIST
IN OUR MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM TODAY, AS WELL AS IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY TO
BOTH LONG ISLAND RAILROAD AND MTA AS PART OF THIS PLAN --
METRO-NORTH. THIS IS A PLAN THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THOSE THINGS, PUTS IN
LOCKBOXES AND PROTECTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BUILD A BETTER SYSTEM
MOVING FORWARD FOR THE NEXT GENERATION. BUT TO DO NOTHING WILL ONLY
ENSURE THAT WE'RE CREATING A SYSTEM THAT WILL FAIL AND CONTINUE TO
DECLINE. THAT'S NOT WHAT NEW YORKERS DESERVE.
SO, AS A RESULT, I WILL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND
ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES DO THE SAME.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RODRIGUEZ IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. ORTIZ.
MR. ORTIZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR ALLOWING
ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I'VE BEEN HERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE, AND I HAVE
BEEN FACED WITH SO MANY OF THESE BIG UGLIES AND UGLIES AND UGLY, BUT
I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN UGLY LIKE THIS. BUT LET ME JUST -- LET ME JUST SAY
THAT THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT STUFF THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR BILL. YOU KNOW, IT
WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM. THAT'S A -- A STEP
FORWARD FOR WHAT WE HAVE SEEN MANY YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. THE
CONGESTION PRICING. WHEN YOU LOOK AT MY DISTRICT, I HAVE THE R TRAIN
THAT COMES FROM QUEENS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO BAY RIDGE, PASSING PARK
SLOPE AND SUNSET PARK. EVERY TIME THAT YOU TRYING TO TAKE THE R TRAIN
TO GET TO ANY DESIGNATION, IT'S DOWN, IT'S DELAYED. PEOPLE GET TO WORK
LATE. THEREFORE, THE CONGESTION PRICING HOPEFULLY WILL HELP NOT JUST TO
478
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
STRENGTHEN THE R TRAIN, BUT TO STRENGTHEN OUR MTA TRANSPORTATION
THROUGH ALL THE CITY OF NEW YORK. FURTHERMORE, I DO HAVE RED HOOK.
RED HOOK IS A PARTICULAR PIECE OF MY DISTRICT THAT HAD NO MODE OF
TRANSPORTATION; ONLY TWO BUSES. SO, THEREFORE, I HOPE THAT WILL BE
ACCOUNTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME KIND OF BETTER
TRANSPORTATION TO THE PEOPLE OF RED HOOK TO TRANSPORT BACK AND FORTH TO
THEIR DESTINATION.
YES, IT IS A LOT OF STUFF HERE THAT WE DON'T LIKE, AND IT'S
A LOT OF STUFF THAT WE MIGHT LIKE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE SOCIAL
WORKERS IN EVERY SCHOOL IN OUR -- IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. WHY?
BECAUSE WE HAVE A VERY -- A CRISIS OF SUICIDAL. WE HAVE A CRISIS, WE
HAVE AN EPIDEMIC OF MENTAL HEALTH IN OUR SCHOOLS. WE NEED MORE
GUIDANCE COUNSELORS IN OUR SCHOOLS, FROM PRE-K KINDERGARTEN, ALL THE
WAY THROUGH COLLEGE. WE DID NEED MORE MONEY FOR THAT. BUT WE ARE --
ONLY HAVE WHAT WE HAVE. THE COMMISSION IS COMPLETELY SOMETHING
THAT I CALL "THE HOSTAGE," AND THEY'RE HANDCUFFED TO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF
US. I THINK THE COMMISSION IS SOMETHING THAT WE GIVING TO SOMEONE
ELSE TO CONTROL WHAT WE NEED TO DO HERE IN THIS BODY.
BUT, THEREFORE, MR. SPEAKER, THE POINT OF THE MATTER IS
THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE A CHANCE TO VOTE ON A BUDGET, AND THIS BUDGET IS
VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT AND I WILL BE VOTING IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. ORTIZ IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. WALKER.
479
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WALKER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WANT TO SAY REALLY
JUST HOW HONORED I WAS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FAITH AND THE CONFIDENCE
OF OUR CONFERENCE AND, OF COURSE, OF OUR SPEAKER, BY WHICH TO
PARTICIPATE IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET CONVERSATIONS. IT WAS A LOT OF FUN, IT
WAS MY HONOR. I'M A LITTLE GIRL THAT GREW UP IN THE PROJECTS IN
BROWNSVILLE. AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO RESIDE WITHIN OUR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM, THEY'RE FROM A FEW ZIP CODES WITHIN OUR STATE. AND
THESE BILLION-DOLLAR BLOCKS. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS MY MOMENT, MY
HARRIET TUBMAN MOMENT, IF YOU WILL, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT SAYS THAT SLAVERY IS ABOLISHED EXCEPT IN THE
CASE OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT. OR THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, WHICH SAYS
THAT BAIL SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED AS PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME. AND WE HAD
OUR PART TODAY TO HAVE OUR LEGACY MOMENT TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING
ON BEHALF OF 84 PERCENT OF NEW YORKERS WHO ARE RESIDING WITHIN OUR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WHO HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME, AND
FOR THAT I AM IMMENSELY PROUD.
AND IT IS FOR THAT REASON I AM PROUD TO CAST MY VOTE IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE, BECAUSE I RECOGNIZED THAT OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
AND THE LAWS THEREIN HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED IN 55 YEARS. BUT TODAY
WE'VE HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY, AND I PROUDLY PARTICIPATE IN IT AND I PROUDLY
VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALKER IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. HYNDMAN.
480
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. HYNDMAN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. WHILE I AM THOROUGHLY DISAPPOINTED
IN THE MONIES THAT WE HAVE PUT INTO FOUNDATION AID AND CUNY AND
SUNY, I AM STILL COMMITTED TO THIS -- TO THIS BODY AND TO THE PEOPLE OF
NEW YORK. AND I THANK THE SPEAKER FOR HIS STEADFASTNESS IN MAKING
SURE THAT WHEN IT COMES TO CONGESTION PRICING, THAT WORKING WITH THE
OUTER BOROUGH TO MAKE SURE WE GET THOSE COMMITMENTS DONE WHICH IS
VERY HARD BECAUSE WE KNOW IN QUEENS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LIVE IN
SOUTHEAST QUEENS, YOU HAVE TO TAKE A BUS TO -- TO A TRAIN, OR YOU CAN GET
ON THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD. SO I THANK THE SPEAKER FOR DOING THAT.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR LEADING THIS OUT OF
MISDEMEANOR LAND AND WORKING TOWARDS A NEW DAY OF REDUCING CASH
BAIL, UPDATING OUR DISCOVERY LAWS AND SPEEDY TRIAL, BECAUSE I -- I DON'T
WANT MY COLLEAGUES TO WORRY ABOUT DOUBLE-BUNKING WHEN IT COMES TO
THEIR FACILITIES AS WE REDUCE THE POPULATIONS THAT ARE GOING INTO OUR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
WITH THAT, I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND VOTE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. HYNDMAN IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. FAHY.
MS. FAHY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE, AND I WANT TO SHARE THE SENTIMENTS OF A NUMBER OF MY
COLLEAGUES IN TALKING ABOUT WHAT A -- A SERIES OF TRADE-OFFS THIS BILL IS,
AND THAT IN THE END IT TRULY IS A COMPROMISE. BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTING
481
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
IT, BECAUSE IN THE END A NUMBER OF THE GOOD THINGS IN THIS BUDGET
OUTWEIGH -- IN THIS BILL OUTWEIGH SOME OF THE -- THE NEGATIVE. AND THAT
INCLUDES -- WHILE EDUCATION DIDN'T GO AS FAR -- INCLUDING HIGHER
EDUCATION -- DIDN'T GO AS FAR AS WE'D LIKE, IT IS THERE AND WE ARE MOVING
FORWARD. WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, WE'VE MADE ANOTHER MASSIVE
INVESTMENT IN MAKING SURE WE HAVE OUR CLEAN WATER AND IMPROVING THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES, AND THE UPSTATE TRANSIT
IS MAKING SOME SERIOUS GAINS. WE ARE RESTORING THE AIM FUNDING, AS
WELL AS ALBANY'S -- FILLING ALBANY'S STRUCTURAL DEFICIT WITH THE $12
MILLION. AND THEN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED
SO MUCH TONIGHT, WE ARE MAKING A SERIOUS STEP FORWARD WHERE YOUR
WALLET WON'T DICTATE THE LEVEL OF JUSTICE YOU RECEIVE WITH THE
OVERRELIANCE ON BAIL. THAT SAID, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF TRADE-OFFS,
INCLUDING, FOR ME, THE OPIOID TAX, ALTHOUGH I'M SUPPORTING THE VAPING
TAX. PRE-K TRANSPORTATION, I HOPE WE WILL TAKE IT UP IN FUTURE YEARS.
AND THEN I, TOO, SHARE A WHOLE HOST OF THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE
BINDING COMMISSION ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, AND I WORRY THAT
WE HAVE ABDICATED SOME OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A LEGISLATURE.
FINALLY, I THINK WE HAVE KEPT IN CHECK THE GROWTH OF
OUR BUDGET, AND AGAIN, I COMMEND THE SPEAKER, THE -- THE CHAIR AND A
WHOLE HOST OF OTHERS IN MOVING US FORWARD ON WHAT IS TRULY A VERY
DIFFICULT BUDGET YEAR, KNOWING THAT SOME OF THE MOST -- THE MOST
DIFFICULT NEWS THIS YEAR WAS THE $2.6 BILLION SHORTFALL THAT REALLY CAST
APPALL OVER THE ENTIRE BUDGET.
WITH THAT, AGAIN, I SUPPORT THIS BUDGET. THANK YOU,
482
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. FAHY IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. LINDA ROSENTHAL.
MS. ROSENTHAL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD IN THIS BUDGET
AND THERE'S A LOT OF BAD. I'M NOT GOING TO GO OVER WHAT MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE -- HAVE SAID, BUT THERE ARE TWO ITEMS IN HERE THAT ARE NOT GREAT.
THE COMMISSION TO RESEARCH AND RECOMMEND SOMETHING PERHAPS ABOUT
PUBLIC FINANCING, OR PERHAPS NOT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD DO. WE SHOULD NOT BE OFF-LOADING IT ON A
COMMISSION. WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE IN THIS MATTER, IT APPEARS. BUT I
THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO TACKLE. ANOTHER
PARTICULARLY ODIOUS PART OF THIS BUDGET IS THE OPIOID TAX. LAST YEAR THERE
WAS A TAX IN THE BUDGET THAT WAS SEEN AS A PUNISHMENT ON
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND A WAY TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE OPIOID
OVERDOSE CRISIS. THIS YEAR THERE IS A TAX THAT IS NOT ON THE
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, WHICH ARE LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK,
BUT INSTEAD, IT'S A TAX THAT WILL BE PASSED ON TO PHARMACISTS, TO
CONSUMERS, TO PATIENTS WHO NEED CERTAIN DRUGS IN ORDER TO MAKE IT
THROUGH THE DAY, AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HOOKED ON OPIOIDS FOR
VARIOUS REASONS. IT IS -- IT IS IMMORAL TO TAX THOSE PATIENTS. THERE ARE
NO SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THAT IT CANNOT BE LEVIED ON PATIENTS, EVEN
THOUGH SOME SPOKESPEOPLE HAVE SAID IT WOULDN'T BE. THE PEOPLE ARE
NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM. NEW YORK SHOULD NOT BALANCE THE OPIOID
483
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BUDGET ON THEIR BACKS. IN ADDITION, THE $100 MILLION WILL NOT BE AN
ADDITIONAL $100 MILLION FOR OPIOID PREVENTION, EDUCATION AND
TREATMENT. IT WILL SUPPLANT $100 MILLION THAT IS DEDICATED TO THAT
BUDGET.
SO, ALL IN ALL, IT'S A BAD TAX. I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE,
HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE BETTER THINGS IN THE BUDGET.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. ROSENTHAL IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. KIM.
MR. KIM: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I'M SUPPORTING
THIS BUDGET BILL BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL AND RACIAL JUSTICE,
WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS BY PROVIDING MEANINGFUL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORM. AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. IT TOOK YEARS OF EFFORT BY
MY COLLEAGUES HERE, AND I'VE SEEN THEM WORK TIRELESSLY TO GET US HERE.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO ECONOMIC JUSTICE, I AM NOT CERTAIN IF WE'RE
MAKING ANY PROGRESS. YOU KNOW, WHEN I FOUGHT AGAINST THE AMAZON
DEAL LAST YEAR AGAINST THE GOVERNOR, INSTEAD OF LISTENING, INSTEAD OF
COMING TO THE COMMUNITY AND LISTENING TO THE CONCERNS OF ADVOCATES
AND GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS, HE STARTED PITTING GROUPS AGAINST EACH
OTHER; BLAMING, VILIFYING, DEMONIZING ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND INSTEAD OF
COLLABORATING, IT'S SO CLEAR THAT ALL HE CARES ABOUT IS CONSOLIDATING HIS
POWERS. IT'S EVIDENT IN THIS BILL BY STRIPPING AWAY THE ONE PLACE OF
PUSHBACK THAT WE HAVE AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY IN THE PACF BOARD. AND
IT'S ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT WE NEED TO DO A LOT MORE IN PUSHING BACK
AGAINST THE GOVERNOR. AND I KNOW THAT NOW WE ARE 150 PERCENT SURE
484
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OF THE KIND OF EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP WE HAVE, WE KNOW WHAT WE HAVE TO
DO TO ACHIEVE ECONOMIC JUSTICE. WE NEED TO HOLD EVERY DOLLAR
ACCOUNTABLE. WE CANNOT LET THIS PERSON CONSOLIDATE HIS POWERS AND CUT
THESE MEGA DEALS BEHIND OUR BACKS. I FOUGHT AGAINST AMAZON BECAUSE
I DON'T BELIEVE IN SUBSIDIZING THE GROWTH OF THESE MEGA MONOPOLIES
THAT ARE FUNDAMENTALLY ABUSIVE AND PREDATORY BY NATURE, AND WE NEED
TO DO A LOT MORE AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY, HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. KIM IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. FALL.
MR. FALL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, MADAM
CHAIRWOMAN AND THE WAYS AND MEANS STAFF FOR ENSURING THAT WE DO
HAVE AN ON-TIME BUDGET. ONE OF THE THINGS I'M EXCITED ABOUT IN THIS
BUDGET IS THE FACT THAT THE RESIDENTIAL TOLLS ON STATEN ISLAND WILL REMAIN
FROZEN FOR A COUPLE YEARS. YOU KNOW, WITH CONGESTION PRICING COMING
DOWN THE ROAD, IT IS MY EXPECTATION THAT WE WILL HAVE A BUS RAPID
TRANSIT FUNDED AND WE ALSO WILL SEE MORE NEW BUSES AND RENOVATED
TRAIN STA -- RENOVATED TRAIN STATIONS AS A RESULT OF CONGESTION PRICING.
I'M ALSO HAPPY TO SEE FUNDING FOR EARLY VOTING, CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WILL MAKE A
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN OUR STATE, AND THAT IS WHY I WILL BE VOTING IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. FALL IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
485
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. SAYEGH.
MR. SAYEGH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.
I WANTED TO JUSTIFY MY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ALTHOUGH THIS IS A
DIFFICULT BUDGET, AND VERY OFTEN MANY OF US ARE NOT USED TO VOTING ON
BUDGETS WHERE THERE'S SO MANY TOPICS; SOME THAT WE SUPPORT AND SOME
THAT WE DON'T SUPPORT. AND THAT BECOMES A DIFFICULT TASK, WHERE WE
HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR RESPONSIBILITY, THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE
GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO FUNCTION, AND MORE IMPORTANT, TO FOCUS ON
AND LOOK TO SEE WHETHER THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE NEGATIVES. AND AS
AN ATTORNEY, WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE TODAY IS HISTORICAL WITH REGARDS TO
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM. AND WITH REGARDS TO EDUCATION, ALTHOUGH WE
DID NOT GET THE MONEY THAT WE HAD HOPED TO, I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT
THAT THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE DID PROPOSE A $1.2 MILLION BUDGET,
AND THAT IN ITSELF -- $1.2 BILLION -- AND THAT IN ITSELF WAS REALLY AN
INDICATION OF THE INTENT. I HOPE TO SEE THIS EFFORT CONTINUE, WHEREAS IN
MID-APRIL, IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE, THAT WE MAKE A
COMMITMENT TO PUT THOSE FUNDS INTO EDUCATION, SUPPORT DISTRICTS LIKE
YONKERS AND MANY AROUND THE STATE THAT HAVE BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY
THE INEQUITABLE FUNDING FORMULA. AND I REALLY BELIEVE THAT NEW YORK
STATE IS DUE TO A CHANGE IN HOW WE FUND EDUCATION, ESPECIALLY WITH A
PERMANENT TAX CAP. THIS IS THE TIME TO PUT EACH AND EVERY DISTRICT
ACROSS THE STATE ON AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD, AND THEN FROM THAT POINT ON,
WE CAN BEGIN TO MONITOR WHAT TAKES PLACE WITH REGARDS TO FUNDING.
SO I REALLY BELIEVE IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THE
RIGHT THING, AND TODAY, ALTHOUGH DIFFICULT, WE SUPPORT THIS BUDGET.
486
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. SAYEGH IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. FRONTUS.
MS. FRONTUS: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. YOU
CAUGHT ME DOZING OFF. I RISE TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I'M VOTING IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE FOR THIS BILL, BUT I'D LIKE TO SHARE THAT I'M DOING SO VERY,
VERY GRUDGINGLY, AND WITH A VERY HEAVY HEART. YOU KNOW, PUBLIC
EDUCATION IS THE CORNERSTONE OF OUR DEMOCRACY. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW
I CAN LOOK AT MY CONSTITUENTS WHEN I GET HOME, AND WHAT AM I GOING TO
SAY WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT THE $17 MILLION THAT THE SCHOOLS IN MY
DISTRICT ARE OWED. EVERY TIME WE PASS A BUDGET, WE CONVEY THE VALUES
THAT WE BELIEVE IN. YOU KNOW, I'M A FIRM BELIEVER THAT TALK IS CHEAP.
WHEN WE PAY WOMEN LESS, WE'RE SENDING A MESSAGE THAT WOMEN AREN'T
IMPORTANT AS MEN. THAT'S JUST THE BOTTOM LINE. WHEN WE PASS A BUDGET
THAT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR OUR SCHOOLS, IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT
WE INTELLECTUALIZE IT AND THAT WE SAY THAT WE COULDN'T FIND THE MONEY.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE SENDING A MESSAGE. AND THAT'S VERY HURTFUL TO
ME, AS A WOMAN WHO HAS HAD EDUCATION PLAY SUCH A STRONG ROLE IN HER
LIFE FROM K THROUGH 12, COLLEGE AND HIGHER EDUCATION. AND SO FOR US TO
COME UP SHORT WITH THE TAP GAP, FOR US TO COME UP SHORT FOR OUR
CUNY AND SUNY STUDENTS WHERE WE HAVE STUDENTS SITTING AT A CITY
UNIVERSITY WITH THE CEILINGS CRUMBLING, IT'S JUST REALLY DISGRACEFUL. I
REALLY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO SPEAK, BUT I SAID I HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING.
AND I'M JUST VERY, VERY HEAVY-HEARTED AND DISAPPOINTED THAT WE CAME
487
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
UP SHORT FOR FOUNDATION AID, FOR MONEY FOR OUR SCHOOLS. AND, YOU
KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT WE'RE CELEBRATING
OUR VICTORY FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT. BUT
TO ME, IT DOESN'T OUTWEIGH WHERE WE CAME UP SHORT.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. FRONTUS IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, COULD YOU
PLEASE CALL THE RULES COMMITTEE IN THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
IMMEDIATELY?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: RULES COMMITTEE IN
THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM IMMEDIATELY.
THE HOUSE WILL STAND AT EASE.
(WHEREUPON, THE HOUSE STOOD AT EASE.)
********
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, WOULD YOU
PLEASE CALL THE HOUSE BACK TO ORDER?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL COME
TO ORDER.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU.
488
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: WE SHOULD TURN OUR
ATTENTION NOW TO PAGE 5, RULES REPORT NO. 53. IT IS A BUDGET BILL, AND
THERE ARE SEVERAL AMENDMENTS, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: A02007-C, RULES REPORT NO. 53.
BUDGET BILL. AN ACT INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART A); TO AMEND THE
PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING AND ENHANCING THE
MEDICAID DRUG CAP AND TO REDUCE UNNECESSARY PHARMACY BENEFIT
MANAGER COSTS TO THE MEDICAID PROGRAM (PART B); TO AMEND THE SOCIAL
SERVICES LAW, IN RELATION TO EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL DIABETES
PREVENTION PROGRAM (PART C); TO AMEND CHAPTER 59 OF THE LAWS OF
2011 AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO
KNOWN AND PROJECTED DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATE FUND MEDICAID
EXPENDITURES, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE MEDICAID GLOBAL CAP (PART
D); TO AMEND CHAPTER 505 OF THE LAWS OF 1995, AMENDING THE PUBLIC
HEALTH LAW RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
FACILITIES, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS THEREOF; TO AMEND
CHAPTER 56 OF THE LAWS OF 2013, AMENDING THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW
RELATING TO ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 884 OF THE LAWS OF 1990, AMENDING THE
PUBLIC HEALTH LAW RELATING TO AUTHORIZING BAD DEBT AND CHARITY CARE
ALLOWANCES FOR CERTIFIED HOME HEALTH AGENCIES, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING
THE PROVISIONS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 303 OF THE LAWS OF 1999,
AMENDING THE NEW YORK STATE MEDICAL CARE FACILITIES FINANCE
489
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AGENCY ACT RELATING TO FINANCING HEALTH FACILITIES, IN RELATION TO THE
EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 109 OF THE LAWS OF 2010,
AMENDING THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION COSTS, IN
RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 58 OF THE LAWS
OF 2009, AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW RELATING TO PAYMENT BY
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES FOR GENERAL HOSPITAL INPATIENT SERVICES, IN
RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 56 OF THE LAWS
OF 2013, AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW RELATING TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC HEALTH WORK PROGRAM, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF;
TO AMEND CHAPTER 59 OF THE LAWS OF 2011, AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH
LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO KNOWN AND PROJECTED DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH STATE FUND MEDICAL EXPENDITURES, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE
PROVISIONS THEREOF; TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO
HOSPITAL ASSESSMENTS; TO AMEND CHAPTER 474 OF THE LAWS OF 1996,
AMENDING THE EDUCATION LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO RATES FOR
RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF;
TO AMEND CHAPTER 58 OF THE LAWS OF 2007, AMENDING THE SOCIAL
SERVICES LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO ENACTING THE MAJOR
COMPONENTS OF LEGISLATION NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE HEALTH AND
MENTAL HYGIENE BUDGET FOR THE 2007-2008 STATE FISCAL YEAR, IN
RELATION TO DELAY OF CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS; TO AMEND CHAPTER 81
OF THE LAWS OF 1995, AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND OTHER LAWS
RELATING TO MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT AND WELFARE REFORM, IN RELATION TO
THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 56 OF THE LAWS OF 2013,
AMENDING CHAPTER 59 OF THE LAWS OF 2011 AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH
490
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO GENERAL HOSPITAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ANNUAL RATES, IN RELATION TO RATES OF PAYMENTS; TO AMEND THE PUBLIC
HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO REIMBURSEMENT RATE PROMULGATION FOR
RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES; TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN
RELATION TO RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY, AND CERTIFIED HOME HEALTH
AGENCY SERVICES PAYMENTS; TO AMEND CHAPTER 81 OF THE LAWS OF 1995,
AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO MEDICAL
REIMBURSEMENT AND WELFARE REFORM, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS
THEREOF; TO AMEND CHAPTER 56 OF THE LAWS OF 2013 AMENDING CHAPTER
59 OF THE LAWS OF 2011 AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND OTHER
LAWS RELATING TO GENERAL HOSPITAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANNUAL RATES, IN
RELATION TO EXTENDING GOVERNMENT RATES FOR BEHAVIORAL SERVICES AND
ADDING AN ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT METHODOLOGY REQUIREMENT; TO AMEND
CHAPTER 111 OF THE LAWS OF 2010 RELATING TO INCREASING MEDICAID
PAYMENTS TO PROVIDERS THROUGH MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS AND
PROVIDING EQUIVALENT FEES THROUGH AN AMBULATORY PATIENT GROUP
METHODOLOGY, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING GOVERNMENT RATES FOR BEHAVIORAL
SERVICES AND ADDING AN ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT METHODOLOGY REQUIREMENT;
TO AMEND SECTION 2 OF PART H OF CHAPTER 111 OF THE LAWS OF 2010,
RELATING TO INCREASING MEDICAID PAYMENTS TO PROVIDERS THROUGH
MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS AND PROVIDING EQUIVALENT FEES THROUGH AN
AMBULATORY PATIENT GROUP METHODOLOGY, IN RELATION TO TRANSFER OF FUNDS
AND THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 649 OF THE LAWS
OF 1996, AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW
AND THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW RELATING TO AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT
491
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF (PART E);
TO AMEND CHAPTER 266 OF THE LAWS OF 1986, AMENDING THE CIVIL
PRACTICE LAW AND RULES AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO MALPRACTICE AND
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT, IN RELATION TO APPORTIONING PREMIUM FOR
CERTAIN POLICIES; TO AMEND PART J OF CHAPTER 63 OF THE LAWS OF 2001
AMENDING CHAPTER 266 OF THE LAWS OF 1986, AMENDING THE CIVIL
PRACTICE LAW AND RULES AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO MALPRACTICE AND
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT, RELATING TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF SUCH CHAPTER, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS
CONCERNING THE HOSPITAL EXCESS LIABILITY POOL; AND TO AMEND PART H OF
CHAPTER 57 OF THE LAWS OF 2017, AMENDING THE NEW YORK HEALTH CARE
REFORM ACT OF 1996 AND OTHER LAWS RELATING TO EXTENDING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS RELATING THERETO, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING PROVISIONS RELATING
TO EXCESS COVERAGE (PART F); TO AMEND THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, IN
RELATION TO FISCAL INTERMEDIARY SERVICES FOR THE CONSUMER DIRECTED
PERSONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM; TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN
RELATION TO PAYMENTS TO HOME CARE AIDES; TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL
HEALTH CARE FACILITIES CASE MIX ADJUSTMENT WORKGROUP; AND TO REPEAL
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW RELATING THERETO (PART G);
TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO WAIVER OF CERTAIN
REGULATIONS; TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO CERTAIN
RATES AND PAYMENT METHODOLOGIES; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
SUCH LAW RELATING THERETO (PART H); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART I); TO
AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO
GUARANTEED AVAILABILITY AND PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS; AND TO REPEAL
492
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INSURANCE LAW RELATING THERETO (SUBPART A);
TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO ACTUARIAL VALUE
REQUIREMENTS AND ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS (SUBPART B); TO AMEND THE
INSURANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE (SUBPART C);
AND TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO DISCRIMINATION BASED
ON SEX AND GENDER IDENTITY (SUBPART D) (PART J); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC
HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO THE MEDICAL INDEMNITY FUND; TO AMEND
CHAPTER 517 OF THE LAWS OF 2016 AMENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW
RELATING TO PAYMENTS FROM THE NEW YORK STATE MEDICAL INDEMNITY
FUND, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF; AND TO AMEND THE STATE
FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO THE NEW YORK STATE MEDICAL INDEMNITY
FUND ACCOUNT (PART K); TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO
IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION (PART L); TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW, IN RELATION
TO REQUIRING MEDICAL, MAJOR MEDICAL, OR SIMILAR COMPREHENSIVE TYPE
COVERAGE HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO INCLUDE CERTAIN REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH COVERAGE; AND CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION
PROCEDURES AND OVER-THE-COUNTER CONTRACEPTIVE PRODUCTS (PART M);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART N); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN
RELATION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC HEALTH WORK PROGRAM (PART O); TO
AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO LEAD LEVELS IN RESIDENTIAL
RENTAL PROPERTIES (PART P); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION
TO THE HEALTHCARE FACILITY TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM STATE III
AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL AWARDS FOR STATEWIDE II APPLICATIONS (PART Q);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART R); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART S); TO AMEND
THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO CODIFYING THE CREATION OF NY
493
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
STATE OF HEALTH, THE OFFICIAL HEALTH PLAN MARKETPLACE WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (PART T); TO AMEND THE ELDER LAW, IN RELATION TO
THE PRIVATE PAY PROGRAM (PART U); TO AMEND THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW,
IN RELATION TO COMPLIANCE OF MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS AND PROVIDERS
PARTICIPATING IN THE MEDICAID PROGRAM (PART V); TO AMEND PART D OF
CHAPTER 111 OF THE LAWS OF 2010 RELATING TO THE RECOVERY OF EXEMPT
INCOME BY THE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR COMMUNITY RESIDENCES AND
FAMILY-BASED TREATMENT PROGRAMS, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS
THEREOF (PART W); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART X); TO AMEND PART C OF
CHAPTER 57 OF THE LAWS OF 2006, RELATING TO ESTABLISHING A COST OF
LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR DESIGNATED HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS, IN RELATION
TO THE INCLUSION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS
(PART Y); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND THE MENTAL HYGIENE
LAW, IN RELATION TO INTEGRATED SERVICES (PART Z); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
(PART AA); TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO MENTAL HEALTH
AND SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER HEALTH INSURANCE PARITY; TO AMEND THE
PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS;
AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INSURANCE LAW RELATING THERETO
(SUBPART A); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO GENERAL
HOSPITAL POLICIES FOR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER TREATMENT (SUBPART B);
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (SUBPART C); TO AMEND THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW,
IN RELATION TO COURT-ORDERED SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER TREATMENT (SUBPART
D); AND INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (SUBPART E)(PART BB); INTENTIONALLY
OMITTED (PART CC); INTENTIONALLY OMITTED (PART DD); TO AMEND THE
PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO DIRECT OBSERVATION AND EVALUATION OF
494
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
CERTAIN TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES (PART EE); TO AMEND CHAPTER 495 OF THE
LAWS OF 2004, AMENDING THE INSURANCE LAW AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH
LAW RELATING TO THE NEW YORK STATE HEALTH INSURANCE CONTINUATION
ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS
THEREOF (PART FF); TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO PROGRAMS PROVIDING OPIOID
TREATMENT, RECOVERY AND PREVENTION AND EDUCATION SERVICES OPERATED BY
THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF ALCOHOLISM AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
SERVICES OR CERTAIN AGENCIES (PART GG); TO AMEND THE ELDER LAW, IN
RELATION TO GRANTS AWARDED FOR CLASSIC NORC PROGRAMS (PART HH); TO
AMEND CHAPTER 141 OF THE LAWS OF 1994, AMENDING THE LEGISLATIVE
LAW AND THE STATE FINANCE LAW RELATING TO THE OPERATION AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING SUCH
PROVISIONS (PART II); TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO
AUTHORIZING THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER CERTAIN FUNDS REPAID BY
BORROWERS RELATING TO RESTRUCTURING POOL LOANS (PART JJ); AND DIRECTING
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO CONDUCT A STUDY IN RELATION TO STAFFING
ENHANCEMENT AND PATIENT SAFETY (PART KK).
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MS.
WEINSTEIN, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS
ADVANCED. GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: I HEREBY CERTIFY TO AN IMMEDIATE VOTE.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
495
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. DIPIETRO TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT WHILE
THE CHAIR EXAMINES IT.
PROCEED, MR. DIPIETRO.
MR. DIPIETRO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER
THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT, WAIVE ITS READING, MOVE FOR ITS IMMEDIATE
ADOPTION AND ASK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN IT. AND I KNOW IN
YOUR INFINITE KINDNESS AND SENSE OF FAIR PLAY, YOU WILL GRANT THAT
REQUEST.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CHAIR HAS
EXAMINED YOUR AMENDMENT AND FOUND IT GERMANE TO THE BILL BEFORE THE
HOUSE.
ON THE AMENDMENT, MR. DIPIETRO.
MR. DIPIETRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. THIS
AMENDMENT PREVENTS TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTIONS IN THREE
CIRCUMSTANCES: WHEN THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS AT RISK; WHEN THE
PREGNANCY WAS THE RESULT OF RAPE; AND WHEN THE PREGNANCY IS A RESULT OF
INCEST. WITH THE RECENT EXPANSION OF ABORTION RIGHTS IN THE STATE, THOSE
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MORALLY OPPOSED TO ABORTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
REQUIRED TO FOOT THE BILL FOR ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. THIS MEASURE WOULD
NOT STOP ANYONE OBTAINING AN ABORTION UNDER THE NEW EXPANSION, BUT IT
WOULD GIVE TAXPAYERS FREEDOM FROM PAYING FOR ABORTIONS THAT ARE
ELECTIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE AMENDMENT,
THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.
496
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
EXCUSE ME.
MS. GLICK ON THE AMENDMENT.
MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WHILE I
APPRECIATE THAT THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO, OUT OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS,
ARE OPPOSED TO ABORTION, ABORTION IS ACTUALLY HEALTH CARE, AND MEDICAID
COVERS HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN WHO ARE POOR AND FOR WOMEN, MANY OF
WHOM WHO ARE YOUNG. WITHOUT ACCESS TO THOSE MEDICAID FUNDS,
WOMEN WHO ARE UNWILLING TO BECOME PARENTS, A MOTHER, SHOULD NOT BE
FORCED TO CARRY A PREGNANCY THAT THEY DO NOT WISH TO CARRY. ABORTION IS
HEALTH CARE, AND MEDICAID COVERS HEALTH CARE, AND WE SHOULD CONTINUE
TO DO SO.
I URGE A NO VOTE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. DIPIETRO.
MR. DIPIETRO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WHILE
THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE, THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE. AND THERE ARE -- THERE
IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IN THE SENSE OF
TAXPAYER, WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH A LOT OF BUDGET DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
WHETHER TAXPAYERS SHOULD BE FUNDING MONEY FOR CERTAIN THINGS. WE'VE
ARGUED BACK AND FORTH, AND THIS DEFINITELY FITS INTO THAT CATEGORY WHERE
IF SOMEONE DOES NOT WANT TO PAY FOR AN ABORTION, JUST LIKE THEY DON'T
WANT TO PAY FOR ELECTIONS AND CAMPAIGN FUNDING, THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT
RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME WHO CAN'T AFFORD IT, I
UNDERSTAND ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT IN THAT RESPECT, THAT'S ALSO THEIR
CHOICE. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CHOICE, THEY HAVE THEIR CHOICE. BUT
THEY ALSO HAVE OUR RIGHT NOT TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR CHOICE.
497
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SO WITH THAT, I WOULD URGE A YES VOTE. THANK YOU,
MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS DEFEATED.
ANOTHER AMENDMENT AT THE DESK. MS. MELISSA MILLER
TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT WHILE THE CHAIR EXAMINES IT.
MS. MILLER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENT, WAIVE ITS READING AND MOVE FOR ITS IMMEDIATE
ADOPTION AND ASK FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN IT.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE HAVE EXAMINED
YOUR AMENDMENT AND HAVE FOUND IT GERMANE TO THE BILL BEFORE THE
HOUSE.
ON THE AMENDMENT, MS. MILLER.
MS. MILLER: THIS AMENDMENT AMENDS THE
BILL-IN-CHIEF TO PREVENT CUTS TO THE CONSUMER DIRECTED PERSONAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY DEFINING HOW THE REDUCTIONS
WILL BE ACHIEVED. YEAR AFTER YEAR, THE GOVERNOR HAS IGNORED CALLS TO
PROTECT THE STATE'S MOST VULNERABLE POPULATION. FOR ONCE, HE NEEDS TO
GET OUT AHEAD OF A PROBLEM INSTEAD OF REACTING WITH HAPHAZARD,
PATCHWORK SOLUTIONS. THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH A SIMPLE ANSWER: CUT
SPENDING ON WASTEFUL, INEFFECTIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
498
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AND FUND PROGRAMS COMMENSURATE TO THE TREMENDOUS VALUE THAT THEY
BRING TO THEIR COMMUNITIES AND TO THE REST OF THE NEW YORK STATE. ONE
SUCH PROGRAM IS THE CONSUMER DIRECTED PERSONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM,
OR CDPAP. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO GIVE THOSE IN NEED THE CARE
OF THE FREEDOM AND FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE PROFESSIONALS OF THEIR CHOOSING,
ONES THAT THEY TRUST TO HANDLE DELICATE AND CRITICAL DAY-TO-DAY TASKS IN
THEIR HOMES, LOOKING AFTER THEM. IT'S COST-EFFECTIVE AND, MORE
IMPORTANTLY, COMPASSIONATE. FOR MANY, THE IDEA OF WAKING UP TO ANY
STRANGER, LET ALONE ONE WHO HAS SO MUCH IMPACT ON THEIR WELL-BEING IS
FRIGHTENING AND UNFAIR. THESE ARE PERSONAL INTERACTIONS AND THEY
SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH. THESE SKILLS THAT THEY PERFORM CAN INVOLVE
DAILY HYGIENE, TOILETING, EVEN DIAPER CHANGING. DIGNITY MUST BE
CONSIDERED HERE. THE ABILITY TO FEEL COMFORTABLE AND FAMILIAR WITH WHO
IS TAKING CARE OF YOU OR YOUR LOVED ONE CANNOT BE MINIMIZED. IT IS
PARAMOUNT IN THE SUCCESS OF CARING FOR THESE POPULATIONS; THE
DEVELOPMENTALLY- AND MENTALLY-DISABLED, THE MEDICALLY-COMPLEX AND
SENIOR CITIZENS AT HOME. ANY CUTS TO THE CDPAP PROGRAM SHOULD BE
FULLY OUTLINED AND NOT DONE BEHIND THE SCENES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND THE DIVISION OF BUDGET. AS WE HAVE LEARNED, NEW YORK
STATE OVERBILLED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR CLAIMS WITHIN THE CDPAP
PROGRAM, AND TO REPAY BACK THESE FUNDS, THE GOVERNOR HAS DECIDED TO
HIDE THE TRUE MEANING OF THESE REDUCTIONS. OUR MOST VULNERABLE IN
NEW YORK STATE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED BECAUSE OF THE INEFFICIENCIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH BY CUTTING FUNDING TO THE CDPAP
PROGRAM.
499
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ON MARCH 27TH, IT WAS RELEASED THROUGH REGULATION
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WOULD BE CHANGING RATES FOR PAYMENT TO
THIS PROGRAM TO A PER-MEMBER, PER-MONTH STRUCTURE. NO MATTER WHAT IS
BEING SAID, THIS RATE CHANGE WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CDPAP
PROGRAM. CHANGING THE RATES TO A PER-MEMBER, PER-MONTH STRUCTURE
WILL ONCE AGAIN IMPACT THE VERY VULNERABLE POPULATION OF PEOPLE WHO
NEED THE MOST HELP. HIGH-NEEDS INDIVIDUALS CANNOT BE BOXED INTO A
CAPITATED AMOUNT. THEIR NEEDS CHANGE. BELIEVE ME, SPEAKING FROM
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, MANY WISH THEY HAD THAT STABILITY OF A LIMITED
NUMBER OF HOURS PER MONTH AND THE KNOWLEDGE TO KNOW WHAT THAT
WOULD BE. WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE BIG PROBLEM: THE DECISIONS THAT
AFFECTS SO MANY ARE BEING MADE BEHIND OUR BACKS BY WHO? PEOPLE
WHO AREN'T LIVING THIS. I CAN TELL YOU THAT. THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS
CUTTING FUNDING WITHOUT DEFINING EXACTLY WHERE, WHY AND HOW IS GOING
TO HURT OUR POPULATION AND IT ISN'T NECESSARY.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE AMENDMENT IS DEFEATED.
WE HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT AT THE DESK. MS. WALSH
TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT WHILE THE CHAIR EXAMINES IT.
MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER THE
500
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FOLLOWING AMENDMENT, WAIVE ITS READING, MOVE FOR ITS IMMEDIATE
ADOPTION AND ASK FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN IT.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CHAIR HAS
EXAMINED YOUR AMENDMENT, MS. WALSH, AND FOUND IT GERMANE TO THE
BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE.
ON THE AMENDMENT.
MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS
AMENDMENT REFERS TO THE DIRECT CARE WORKER WAGE ADJUSTMENT THAT IS IN
THE -- THIS BILL. AS YOU KNOW, THE HUMAN SERVICES COLA WAS
DEFERRED, THAT WAS PROMISED IN 2017, AND THIS YEAR WAS SCHEDULED TO BE
2.9 PERCENT. AND INSTEAD OF THAT, THE DIRECT CARE WORKER WAGE
ADJUSTMENT WAS PUT INTO THIS BILL WHICH PROVIDES AN OVERALL AVERAGE OF
2 PERCENT TO INCREASE TOTAL SALARIES FOR DIRECT CARE STAFF AND DIRECT
SUPPORT PROFESSIONALS. TWO PERCENT FOR JANUARY 1ST, 2020, AND ANOTHER
2 PERCENT FOR APRIL 1ST, 2020. OUR AMENDMENT WOULD GIVE 3.25
PERCENT, EFFECTIVE TODAY, APRIL 1ST, 2019, AND 3.25 PERCENT EFFECTIVE
APRIL 1ST OF 2020.
DIRECT CARE PROFESSIONALS HAVE ONE OF THE HARDEST AND
MOST DEMANDING JOBS IN NEW YORK. THEY WORK TIRELESSLY TO ENSURE THE
WELL-BEING OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY CARING FOR THEMSELVES. WHILE
THEY HAVE WATCHED GOVERNOR CUOMO FLAUNT HIS SUPPORT FOR CRIMINALS,
FAST-FOOD WORKERS AND HOLLYWOOD ELITES, THEIR WAGES HAVE FLAT-LINED.
FUNDING FOR THEIR PROGRAMS REMAINS FAR SHY OF WHAT'S NEEDED, AND THEY
MUST FIGHT AND SCRAP FOR RECOGNITION AT EVERY TURN. MEMBERS OF OUR
CONFERENCE HAVE CONTINUED TO SUPPORT THE "# BFAIR2DIRECTCARE"
501
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INITIATIVE, WHICH HAS FOUGHT FOR MORE FUNDING AND BETTER PAY FOR DIRECT
CARE PROFESSIONALS. WITHOUT ADEQUATE FUNDING, THE DISABILITY
COMMUNITY IS AT SERIOUS RISK OF A DEVASTATING LABOR SHORTAGE. FAILING TO
ADJUST THE PAY OF DIRECT CARE WORKERS WILL PUT AN ENORMOUS STRAIN ON
THIS STRUGGLING INDUSTRY AND CREATE AN INCENTIVE FOR SKILLED AND
EXPERIENCED WORKERS TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE. SIMPLY PUT, THEY
CAN MAKE MORE MONEY DOING LESS BY WORKING IN A LESS DEMANDING
FIELD. THIS LEGISLATION PROVIDES CRITICAL FUNDING TO BE USED FOR
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF DIRECT CARE STAFF, DIRECT SUPPORT
PROFESSIONALS AND CLINICAL STAFF.
JUST THIS PAST WEEK, THERE WAS OUTRAGE AT PROPOSED
FEDERAL CUTS TO THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS PROGRAM, YET THE BILL THAT WE ARE
DEALING WITH TODAY IS A SAD INDICATION OF HOW OUR STATE IS FAILING TO
LEAD. AND I FIND THAT COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. A WEEK OR SO AGO,
THERE WAS A BIG RALLY UP IN THE WAR ROOM THAT MANY OF US ATTENDED.
WHILE I WAS THERE, SEVERAL PARENTS HANDED ME LETTERS AND TALKED TO ME A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN. HERE'S WHAT ONE OF THEM SAYS: "OUR
DAUGHTER IS 48 YEARS OLD AND HAS LIVED FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS IN AN
INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE. WE ARE IN OUR 70S, AND DUE TO HER
INCREASING PHYSICAL NEED WE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO HAVE HER VISIT US AT
HOME. THE STAFFING AT HER HOME IS IN CRISIS. THERE ARE CURRENTLY
SEVERAL SHIFTS THAT HAVE NO STAFF ASSIGNED. THE STAFF REMAINING MUST
WORK OVERTIME AND EXTRA SHIFTS. THEY ARE ALSO USING RELIEF STAFF, BUT
THERE IS NEVER ENOUGH STAFF TO DO THE JOB THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. THE
RELIEF STAFF DO NOT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE WITH THE RESIDENTS TO DO THE BEST
502
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
JOB POSSIBLE. PART OF THE REASON IS THAT THE PAY IS SO LOW. ONE OF OUR
WONDERFUL STAFF PEOPLE JUST LEFT TO WORK AT A HOSPITAL WHERE SHE WILL GET
$7.50 MORE AN HOUR. WE CANNOT BLAME HER. IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, MY
DAUGHTER HAS BEEN HURT IN THREE SEPARATE INCIDENTS, WHICH I FEEL ARE
DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE STAFFING CRISIS AND THE LOW HOURLY WAGE OFFERED
TO DIRECT SUPPORT PROFESSIONALS. THE DSPS ARE PROVIDING NEEDED
SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AND ARE NOT
RECEIVING A LIVING WAGE. IT IS CLOSE TO IMPOSSIBLE TO RECRUIT NEW STAFF,
ESPECIALLY SINCE THE FAST-FOOD WORKERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN A LIVING WAGE.
WHEN NEW STAFF ARE HIRED, THEY OFTEN STAY ONLY FOR A SHORT TIME AND
EITHER LEAVE FOR A STATE DSP POSITION OR LEAVE THE FIELD ENTIRELY, DUE TO
THE DIFFICULT WORK AND LOW WAGE."
AT THIS YEAR'S RALLY, AFTER THE GOVERNOR'S STAFF CAME
AND ADDRESSED THE CROWD, SEVERAL WISE CONSUMERS IN THE BACK OF THE
ROOM SAID, HOW MUCH? HOW MUCH ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE? AND I
THINK THIS BILL, AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, PROVIDES THE ANSWER 2 PERCENT NEXT
YEAR IN JANUARY, AND 2 PERCENT THEN IN APRIL OF NEXT YEAR. AND THIS
AMENDMENT, WHICH I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER, WOULD GIVE 3.25 PERCENT
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, AND ANOTHER 3.25 PERCENT EFFECTIVE NEXT APRIL. I
BELIEVE THAT IT'S THE LEAST THAT WE CAN DO TO HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE
STRUGGLING IN THIS REALLY CRITICAL, CRITICALLY-IMPORTANT PROFESSION, AND I
ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
503
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: COLLEAGUES, I JUST
WANTED TO REMIND US THAT THIS IS A THREE-WAY BUDGET DEAL THAT HAS BEEN
AGREED UPON, AND THAT THERE ARE -- IS INCLUDED IN THIS BUDGET $80
MILLION FOR THIS POPULATION OF WORKERS WHO ARE DOING A FABULOUS JOB.
AND OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, MANY OF US HAVE BEEN VERY PROUD TO
SUPPORT THE #BFAIR2DIRECTCARE MOVEMENT. AND WHILE IT'S NEVER
ENOUGH AND IT WASN'T ENOUGH FOR ANY PARTS OF OUR BUDGET TODAY, MR.
SPEAKER, WE THINK THAT WE'VE MADE A GOOD EFFORT HERE. AND IT'S A GOOD
FINANCIAL PLAN, AND IT'S A GREAT INVESTMENT INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO
DESERVE MUCH, MUCH MORE. BUT SO DO MANY OF THE OTHER PEOPLE IN OUR
BUDGET TODAY THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO TOTALLY FULLY FUND. SO I THINK
WE'VE MADE A GOOD STRIDE WITH THIS ONE, AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
COMING FROM OUR COLLEAGUE, AND I THINK, HOWEVER, THIS AMENDMENT
SHOULD BE DEFEATED.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ANNOUNCE THE
RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE AMENDMENT IS DEFEATED.
ON THE BILL.
MR. RAIA.
MR. RAIA: GOOD MORNING, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: GOOD MORNING, SIR.
HOW ARE YOU?
504
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. RAIA: THE SUN'S COMING UP, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY.
I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS AS QUICK AND PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE. WILL THE
CHAIRWOMAN, WHO HAS DONE A WONDERFUL JOB FOR THE LAST 24 HOURS,
YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE. BE HAPPY TO.
MR. RAIA: THANK YOU. WE'LL TRY AND KEEP IT ALL IN-
HOUSE SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO SOME OF THE OTHER CHAIR PEOPLE. I'LL
START WITH THE MOST OBVIOUS: WHY ON EARTH IS THE LEGISLATIVE PAY
COMMISSION EXTENDER IN THE HEALTH BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE IS JUST A TECHNICAL ISSUE THAT
RELATES TO -- IT'S BASICALLY A POP-UP OF THIS LEGISLATION THAT IF SOMETHING
WERE TO HAPPEN IN THE -- IN THE COURT CASE FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT'S IN --
IN THE PAST IT WAS IN THE UNCONSOLIDATED LAWS. IT ENDED UP IN THE
HEALTH BUDGET -- HEALTH BILL YEARS BACK, AND WE'RE JUST HAVING THAT IN AS
A --IN CASE THERE'S AN ADVERSE RULING THAT IT WOULD RESTORE THOSE ITEMS.
MR. RAIA: GOTCHA. NOT SURE I GET THAT, BUT I REALLY
DON'T CARE RIGHT NOW.
(LAUGHTER)
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE FIDELIS, CENTENE
SETTLEMENT? IS THE -- IS THE SETTLEMENT MONEY STILL GOING TO HOSPITALS
AND NURSING HOMES FOR THE CONTRACTUAL RATE INCREASES?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. MOVING RIGHT ALONG. UNDER
505
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LONG-TERM CARE-RELATED MRT RECOMMENDATIONS. THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL
HEALTH CARE FACILITY WORKGROUP THAT'S GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED TO DEAL
WITH CASE MIX ADJUSTMENTS AND MEDICAID. MY CONCERN IS, THE
WORKGROUP IS SUPPOSED TO GET TOGETHER AND COMPLETE ALL THEIR WORK BY
JUNE 30, 2019, AND THE CUTS OR WHATEVER CHANGES TO THE MEDICAID RATES
OF PAYMENTS WILL HAPPEN ON JULY 1, 2019. YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN
KICKING AROUND HERE FOR SOME 28 YEARS IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, AND I
CAN'T THINK OF ONE COMMISSION OR ONE WORKGROUP OR WHATEVER THAT'S
EVER DONE THEIR WORK ON TIME. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHEN THEY DON'T
FINISH THEIR WORK ON TIME, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THOSE NEW RATES
THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE EFFECT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO, THE -- THE RATES THAT THE --
FROM THE WORKGROUP WILL BE PERSPECTIVE, SO NOT UNTIL JANUARY 1. SO
THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. ACA CODIFICATION.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. RAIA: THERE'S A SECTION IN HERE, WE'RE CODIFYING
IN STATE LAW PROVISIONS OF THE ACA WHICH PROHIBIT INSURANCE
COMPANIES FROM IMPOSING ANY PREEXISTING CONDITIONS. THIS HAS
ALREADY BEEN THE LAW IN NEW YORK STATE FOR A WHOLE LOT OF YEARS, RIGHT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YES, BUT WE'RE JUST MERELY
-- WE'RE CODIFYING IN CASE THINGS CHANGE IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE COURT
DECISIONS --
MR. RAIA: OKAY. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT
FOR -- FOR THOSE THAT MIGHT BE VOTING AGAINST THE BUDGET THAT THIS IS IN
506
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FACT ALREADY --
MS. WEINSTEIN: OKAY.
MR. RAIA: -- THE LAW IN NEW YORK STATE.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST.... LET'S SEE. WELL, WHY ARE WE
DEFERRING THE HUMAN SERVICES COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: JUST A LACK OF REVENUES.
MR. RAIA: OKAY. I'M OUT. THANK YOU VERY --
MS. WEINSTEIN: THANK YOU.
MR. RAIA: -- MUCH.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THANK YOU, MR. RAIA.
MR. RAIA: EVERYBODY GET A GOOD REST.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. MELISSA MILLER.
MS. MILLER: HI. I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, IF THE
SPONSOR WILL YIELD.
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURE.
MS. MILLER: ON -- ON THE CDPAP PORTION AGAIN.
SO IS THERE -- HAS THERE BEEN ANY LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SAY IS THERE A
MAXIMUM LIMIT SET PER-MEMBER, PER-MONTH? LIKE A CAP PER-MONTH,
PER-MEMBER.
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.
MS. MILLER: SO, NO LANGUAGE, NOTHING HAS BEEN
SAID? OR IS THAT JUST UP TO THEM TO -- TO BE DETERMINED?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE IS NO CAP.
MS. MILLER: NO CAP. AND IS THERE ANY
CONSIDERATION FOR THE HIGHER-NEEDS POPULATION OR UNSTABLE POPULATION
507
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
FOR THOSE THAT CAN'T FIT INTO THE NICE LITTLE SILO OF A FLAT AMOUNT THAT
CHANGES CONSTANTLY?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, I THINK THE AMOUNT WOULD
BE SCALED BASED ON THE -- THE AMOUNT OF NEED.
MS. MILLER: SO THEY WOULD AVERAGE IT.
MS. WEINSTEIN: NO, I THINK THERE WOULD BE
DIFFERENT LEVELS BASED ON NEED.
MS. MILLER: YES. IT WOULD DEFINITELY -- IT WOULD --
AS USUALLY IS. BUT WILL THERE BE -- IF -- IF SOMEBODY IS A HIGHER-NEEDS,
THEY WOULD HAVE A HIGHER NUMBER OF -- WELL, OKAY. NEVER MIND. IS
THERE A -- ANY STATUTORY FRAMEWORK TO ENSURE THE CONTINUED SUCCESS OF
THIS PROGRAM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YES.
MS. MILLER: OKAY. AND ARE THEY STILL REDUCING THE
-- TAKING THE $75 MILLION FROM THE CDPAP PROGRAM? THAT'S STILL
BEING...
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE'VE KEPT IT AT $75 MILLION.
MS. MILLER: SO THE -- THE RATE CHANGE
IMPLEMENTATION THAT'S TAKING PLACE TODAY, ACTUALLY, TO THE PER-MEMBER,
PER-MONTH IS ESTIMATED TO SAVE THE STATE $14 MILLION. WHERE IS THE
REMAINING SAVINGS COMING FROM?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SO THE $14 MILLION I'M TOLD IS
ONLY FOR FEE-FOR-SERVICE MEDICAID.
MS. MILLER: RIGHT. BUT THEY'RE -- THEY'RE TAKING
$75 MILLION FROM THE PROGRAM.
508
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE $75 MILLION ALSO INCLUDES
MANAGED CARE.
MS. MILLER: OKAY. I JUST ALSO HAVE -- WELL, ONE
MORE QUESTION ON THE CDPAP. IS THERE ANY REASSURANCE OR GUARANTEE
THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY DISRUPTION OR LAPSE IN SERVICES TO THE
CONSUMERS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE IS A -- A -- IN THE LAW THERE
IS A TRANSI -- THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A TRANSITION PLAN, THERE'S A
WORKGROUP SET UP.
MS. MILLER: AND WHO APPOINTS PEOPLE ON TO THAT
WORKGROUP?
MS. WEINSTEIN: THE -- THE COMMISSIONER.
MS. MILLER: WHICH COMMISSION?
MS. WEINSTEIN: DOH, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMISSIONER.
MS. MILLER: OKAY. NOW I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON
THE COLA. I KNOW THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE SUPPORTING. IS
THAT JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT THEY COULDN'T COME TO A MUTUAL
AGREEMENT?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE -- WE COULDN'T COME TO AN
AGREEMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUES AND WE
COULDN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT ABOUT INCREASED REVENUES. YOU KNOW,
THAT WE DID -- YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED -- I DISCUSSED WITH
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WALSH, AND I BELIEVE OTHERS, THAT WE DO HAVE THE
#BFAIR 2 PERCENT THAT IS GOING TO BE STARTING IN JANUARY.
509
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. MILLER: RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU.
MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL.
MS. MILLER: ON THE CDPAP, I MEAN, AS A -- AS A
CONSUMER WITH A CHILD WHO IS UTILIZING THIS, I DO HAVE STRONG CONCERNS
THAT THERE'S MUCH THAT'S STILL VAGUE, THAT'S NOT VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHERE
THE CUTS ARE COMING OUT OF, AND HOW THIS PER-MEMBER, PER-MONTH IS
GOING TO AFFECT INDIVIDUALS WITH HIGHER NEEDS AND HOW THE TRANSITION
OVER FROM THE FISCAL INTERMEDIARIES THAT WERE NOT IN PLACE BEFORE 2012
HAVE TO REREGISTER. SO I DO HAVE STRONG CONCERNS OVER THAT, BUT WAS
HAPPY THAT THEY MADE SOME COMPROMISE. AS FAR AS THE COLA, I JUST --
I CANNOT FATHOM HOW WITH A $175.5 BILLION BUDGET, WE CANNOT FIND ANY
MONEY FOR COLA. IF THE PARTIES THAT CONTROL NOW BOTH HOUSES AND THE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ARE PARTIES OF WOMEN, JUSTICE, PEOPLE OF COLOR,
WHY IS IT THAT THEY COULDN'T FIND $20 MILLION TO FUND THE HUMAN SERVICES
COLA WHOSE WORKERS ARE 81 PERCENT WOMEN AND 46 PERCENT PEOPLE OF
COLOR. ARE THEY NOT WORTH THE .01 PERCENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE
BUDGET? THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH CHILDREN, PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SPECIALISTS. HOW DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES WHEN THEY'VE HAD NO
RAISE IN ALMOST TEN YEARS? NEW YORK STATE IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
THEM. SHAME, SHAME ON THEM.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOTTFRIED.
MR. GOTTFRIED: YES, MR. SPEAKER, I WANT TO READ
510
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
INTO THE RECORD THE TEXT OF A LETTER THAT IS BEING SENT TO ME AS CHAIR OF
THE ASSEMBLY HEALTH COMMITTEE AND SENATOR GUSTAVO RIVERA AS CHAIR
OF THE SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE FROM DONNA FRESCATORE, THE MEDICAID
DIRECTOR OF NEW YORK. THIS LETTER WAS NEGOTIATED AS PART OF THE BUDGET
NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS BILL AND -- AND IS PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF
THIS BUDGET LEGISLATION AND SHOULD BE REGARDED IN -- IN THAT CONTEXT.
AND THE TEXT OF THE LETTER GOES AS FOLLOWS, AND I APOLOGIZE IF THIS WILL
BE A LITTLE INCOMPREHENSIBLE. IT'S A LOT EASIER TO MAKE SENSE OF WHEN
YOU'RE READING IT, BUT I NEED TO GET IT INTO THE RECORD.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO CONFIRM THAT RELATED TO
THE 2019-20 BUDGET DIALOGUE, THE OFFICE OF HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM
-- PROGRAMS AT THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WILL CONTINUE
TO SUPPORT ROBUST CONSUMER PROTECTIONS FOR RECIPIENTS OF PERSONAL CARE
SERVICES. THE DEPARTMENT WILL PROPOSE REGULATIONS UNDER THE NEW
YORK STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT TO IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE
REASONS OR FACTORS TO BE DOCUMENTED IN AN INDIVIDUAL'S SERVICE PLAN FOR
DENYING, REDUCING OR DISCONTINUING PERSONAL CARE SERVICE -- SERVICES
THAT ARE NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY. THE PROPOSED REGULATION --
REGULATIONS WILL NOT ALTER THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING OR TO
HAVE SUCH SERVICES CONTINUE UNCHANGED UNTIL THE FAIR HEARING DECISION
IS ISSUED, PARENTHESIS, (AID-CONTINUING) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE
LAWS.
NEXT, PROMOTING ASTHMA PRACTICES -- ASTHMA PROJECTS
AND MEDICALLY-TAILORED MEALS AS PROMISING DELIVERY SERVICE REFORM
INCENTIVE PAYMENT PROGRAM (DSRIP) PRACTICES AND INTERVENTIONS WITH
511
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PERFORMING PROVIDER SYSTEMS AND THEIR NETWORK PROVIDERS, INCLUDING
HEALTH PLANS.
RELATED TO THE TRANSITION OF MEMBERS OF INDEPENDENCE
CARE SERVICES [SIC] (ICS), MEDICAID MANAGED CARE PLAN TO VNS
CHOICE, INCREASE IN NETWORK ENHANCEMENT FEE -- FEE PAID BY VNS
CHOICE TO PROVIDERS THAT HAVE MAINTAINED STATUS AS A PARTICIPATING
PROVIDER IN THE ICS NETWORK THROUGH MARCH 31, 2019; AND HAVE EITHER
(1) JOINED THE VNS CHOICE NETWORK ON OR BEFORE APRIL 1, 2019 AND
REMAIN IN THE NETWORK FOR THREE YEARS FROM THAT DATE; OR (2) ENTERED
INTO A CASE PAYMENT AGREEMENT WITH VNS CHOICE ON OR BEFORE APRIL
1, 2019; BY $24 MILLION (GROSS), PAYABLE ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, OVER THE
THREE-YEAR PERIOD STARTING ON APRIL 1, 2019. IN ORDER TO RECEIVE SUCH
FUNDING, THE PROVIDER MUST ENTER INTO A RELEASE AGREEMENT WITH ICS
AND VNS CHOICE BY THE DATE REQUIRED BY SUCH RELEASE.
REFRAIN FROM TAKING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION -- ACTIONS
INTENDED TO CARVE OUT MEDICARE TRANSPORTATION FROM THE ADULT DAY
HEALTHCARE CARE PROGRAMS THAT HAVE ELECTED TO SELF-MANAGE
TRANSPORTATION FOR THEIR MEMBERS.
UPDATE/MODIFY THE METHODOLOGY USED BY THE
DEPARTMENT TO RISK ADJUST THE PREMIUMS PAID TO MANAGE LONG-TERM
CARE PROGRAMS TO BETTER RECOGNIZE THE ACUITY OF CERTAIN
MEDICALLY-COMPLEX POPULATIONS. THE DEPARTMENT WILL CONTINUE TO
ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS VIA ITS ALREADY ESTABLISHED RISK ADJUSTMENT
METHODOLOGY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.
INCORPORATE INTO MONTHLY MEDICAID REDESIGN TEAM
512
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
BRIEFINGS WITH THE LEGISLATURE THE STATUS OF THE DEPARTMENT'S EFFORTS TO
ENSURE MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS AND PROVIDERS ARE MEETING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL AND STATE LABOR LAWS AND REGULATIONS
REGARDING THE WORKFORCE -- REGARDING WORKFORCE RECRUITMENT, RETENTION
AND MINIMUM WAGE. THIS INCLUDES CHARGES -- CHANGES IN LAWS AND/OR
POLICY THAT MAY IMPOSE NEW REQUIREMENTS ON PLANS AND PROVIDERS.
THE DEPARTMENT IS COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE LEADERS HAVE FULL ACCESS TO VITAL INFORMATION AND
COMMITMENTS PROVIDED IN THIS LETTER TO BUILD OFF PREVIOUS EFFORTS TO
ENSURE MEDICAID PROGRAM TRANSPARENCY. WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH YOU AND YOUR STAFF TO MAKE THE MEDICAID PROGRAM MORE COST-
EFFECTIVE IN THE MONTHS AND YEARS TO COME.
SINCERELY, DONNA FRESCATORE.
I REALIZE THAT IS KIND OF GIBBERISH, BUT I ASSURE YOU IT
RELATES TO IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE WITH THE
HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN THE MEDICAID
NEGOTIATIONS THAT PRODUCED THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MR. ABINANTI TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
513
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
(JEERS/BOOING)
MR. ABINANTI: ALL RIGHT, GUYS. I DIDN'T SAY THAT
WHEN YOU WE'RE TALKING, SO SHUT UP AND LISTEN.
(LAUGHTER/JEERS)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. ABINANTI, THE
CHAIR WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT,
MR. ABINANTI: THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: YOU DON'T NEED TO DO
THAT, PLEASE. IT IS FIVE OR SIX IN THE MORNING --
MR. ABINANTI: I UNDERSTAND.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: -- AND WE'VE ALL BEEN
UP, SO...
MR. ABINANTI: SO HAVE I.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO APOLOGIZE AND WE
CAN GO ON.
MR. ABINANTI: I'VE HEARD MY COLLEAGUES TALK
ABOUT THE DEFECT IN THIS BILL, AND I AGREE WITH THEM. THE WORD SHOULD
GO FORWARD VERY CLEARLY: THIS GOVERNOR IS NO FRIEND OF PEOPLE WITH
SPECIAL NEEDS. HE SET A SPENDING LIMIT, HE OPPOSED ADDING REVENUES TO
OUR BUDGET BY TAXING RICH NEW YORKERS. SO OUR STAFF, WHO WORKED
VERY HARD, WAS NOT ABLE TO CURE THE DEFECTS THAT THE GOVERNOR BUILT INTO
THIS BUDGET. WE DID WHAT WE COULD. I'M VOTING FOR THIS, BUT PEOPLE IN
THE STATE OF NEW YORK ARE GOING TO GET HURT BECAUSE OF THIS GOVERNOR.
AND MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED IT,
BUT THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO AS LONG AS WE LET THIS GOVERNOR SET A
514
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SPENDING LIMIT AND PREFER WEALTHY PEOPLE TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF
NEW YORK WHO NEED HELP.
I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. ABINANTI IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MS. SIMOTAS TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. SIMOTAS: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS BUDGET BILL REMOVES A
BARRIER TO HEALTH CARE THAT HAS EXISTED IN NEW YORK FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS.
SINCE 1990, INSURANCE POLICIES HAVE PROVIDED CERTAIN COVERAGE TO NEW
YORKERS WHO ARE DEALING WITH INFERTILITY. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF AN
OUTDATED PROVISION IN THE LAW, MOST PATIENTS ARE DENIED ACCESS TO THE
SAFEST, MOST EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR THIS DISEASE. I SPEAK SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT IVF, WHICH HAS LONG BEEN CONSIDERED THE GOLD STANDARD OF CARE
FOR PEOPLE GRAPPLING WITH THIS HEARTBREAKING MEDICAL CONDITION. SINCE
IVF IS EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED FROM THE TYPE OF TREATMENT THAT MOST
INSURANCE POLICIES COVER, NEW YORKERS HAVE TO MAKE THE
HEART-WRENCHING DECISION OF CHOOSING BETWEEN NOT HAVING CHILDREN OR
INCURRING EXORBITANT OUT-OF-POCKET FEES TO CREATE THE FAMILIES THAT THEY
WANT. NOT ANYMORE. WITH THIS VOTE, WE FINALLY REMOVE THE ARCHAIC
RESTRICTION FROM LARGE GROUP INSURANCE POLICIES AND REQUIRE THEM TO
COVER IVF. ALTHOUGH THIS BUDGET DOES NOT REMOVE THIS RESTRICTION FOR
ALL POLICIES, IT IS A FIRST STEP. CHOOSING THE BEST COURSE OF TREATMENT FOR
INFERTILITY SHOULD BE A DECISION BETWEEN A DOCTOR AND THEIR PATIENT, AND
IT SHOULD BE MADE WITHOUT THE OBSTACLES OF RESTRICTIVE INSURANCE
515
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
POLICIES.
THANK YOU. THIS BUDGET BILL WILL ELIMINATE THESE
OBSTACLES FOR -- FOR MANY NEW YORKERS, AND I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. SIMOTAS IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF WE GO TO
PAGE 4, RULES REPORT NO. 52, BUDGET BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02004-D, RULES
REPORT NO. 52, BUDGET BILL. AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT. (CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MS.
WEINSTEIN, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS
ADVANCED. GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: I HEREBY CERTIFY TO AN IMMEDIATE VOTE.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BARCLAY.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I
WONDER IF THE CHAIRWOMAN WOULD YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN, WILL
516
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YOU YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: SURELY. IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE
WE SPOKE.
MR. BARCLAY: IT HAS, CHAIRWOMAN. I THINK
YOU'VE BEEN SPEAKING A LOT MORE THAN I HAVE RECENTLY. JUST FOR THE --
COULD YOU ENLIGHTEN THE BODY JUST WHERE WE ARE IN THIS BUDGET PROCESS
RIGHT NOW?
MS. WEINSTEIN: OH, IN THE BUDGET PROCESS? YES,
WE HAVE THIS CAPITAL PROJECTS BILL AND WE HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE --
LEGISLATURE/JUDI BILL, AND -- JUDICIARY -- AND THAT'S THE BILLS REQUIRED FOR
THE -- TO COMPLETE THE BUDGET.
MR. BARCLAY: I SEE ON MY DESK I HAVE THE
FINANCIAL PLAN.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. YES.
MR. BARCLAY: MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, THAT'S GOOD.
THAT GIVES US A FULLER PICTURE. JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THIS BILL. IN
THE HOUSING PART OF THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, YOU HAVE $72 MILLION FOR
THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF STORM RECOVERY. COULD YOU TELL ME HOW THIS
WORKS? IS THIS FOR FUTURE STORMS THAT MAY HIT, OR DOES THIS COVER PAST
STORMS?
MS. WEINSTEIN: IT'S AN EXISTING PROGRAM TO HELP
WITH DISASTERS -- HELP PEOPLE WITH DISASTERS THAT HAPPENED AROUND THE
STATE.
MR. BARCLAY: IN THE TRANSPORTATION PART OF THIS
BUDGET, WE HAVE LEFT OUT THE EXTREME WINTER RECOVERY, WHICH WAS
517
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MONEY PROVIDED FOR UPSTATE LOCALITIES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
MR. BARCLAY: COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY WE
HAVE $72 MILLION FOR THE OFFICE OF STORM RECOVERY, BUT WE GET RID OF
THE EXTREME -- EXTREME STORM RECOVERY -- OR EXCUSE ME, THE EXTREME
WINTER RECOVERY MONEY IN THIS BUDGET?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WELL, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET
AGREEMENT ON THE -- ON THE OTHER, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HOPING THAT
THERE'LL BE CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS CAPITAL. THIS IS BASICALLY THE -- THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL WITH TWO VERY SMALL -- THIS BILL BEFORE US WITH JUST
TWO VERY SMALL CHANGES --
MR. BARCLAY: SO JUST --
MS. WEINSTEIN: -- ADDITIONS.
MR. BARCLAY: I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT LAST PART
YOU SAID? I'M SORRY.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THERE ARE JUST TWO SMALL
ADDITIONS TO THIS BILL OTHER THAT WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US AS THE
GOVERNOR ORIGINALLY PRESENTED.
MR. BARCLAY: SO YOUR -- YOUR HOPE IS OUTSIDE
THIS BUDGET, THE EXTREME WINTER RECOVERY MAY GET SOMEHOW PUT BACK
IN BEFORE NEXT YEAR?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE'RE -- WE ARE -- YOU KNOW,
TRADITIONALLY WE HAVE CAPITAL DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE ADDED TO THE -- THAT --
THAT RESULTS IN ADDITIONS TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET PRESENTED TO US
BY THE GOVERNOR; THAT DID NOT HAPPEN AS OF YET IN TERMS OF ADDITIONS.
518
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SO WE'RE -- CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CAPITAL ARE ONGOING, AND WE'LL CONTINUE
AND I'M HOPEFUL WE CAN GET SOME AGREEMENTS.
MR. BARCLAY: OKAY. I HOPE SO, TOO. THANK YOU,
CHAIRWOMAN. THANKS FOR YOUR COURTESIES.
MS. WEINSTEIN: THANK YOU.
MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PALMESANO.
MR. PALMESANO: YES, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. PALMESANO: I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THE FACT -- I KNOW IT WAS JUST DISCUSSED THAT THERE IS NO
$65 MILLION IN EXTREME WINTER RECOVERY FUNDING OR $150 MILLION -- OR
ANY TYPE OF INCREASE IN THE CHIPS BASE AID WHATSOEVER. I JUST WANT --
AND I -- AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS BY THE CHAIRWOMAN SAYING THAT
THEY WANT TO TRY AND FIND ADDITIONAL CAPITAL FUNDING IN THE FUTURE, BUT AS
OF RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THAT. SO I JUST KIND OF WANT TO SAY TO MY
COLLEAGUES, PARTICULARLY MY COLLEAGUES FROM UPSTATE NEW YORK, MY
COLLEAGUES FROM LONG ISLAND, AND YES, EVEN MY COLLEAGUES FROM NEW
YORK CITY, SO WHEN YOU'RE -- WHEN YOU'RE VOTING ON THIS BUDGET BILL
THAT HAS NO CHIPS INCREASE AND CUTS $65 MILLION FOR LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES FOR LOCAL ROADS AND BRIDGES THROUGH THE WINTER
RECOVERY PROGRAM, I HOPE YOU KEEP IN MIND THAT 87 PERCENT OF THE
ROADS IN NEW YORK ARE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY OUR LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES. FIFTY-TWO PERCENT OF THE 18,000 BRIDGES IN NEW YORK
ARE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY OUR LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES. FORTY-EIGHT
519
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PERCENT OF THE MILES DRIVEN ARE DRIVEN ON LOCAL ROADS. ALSO, AS YOU
MAKE -- CAST THIS VOTE TO CUT $65 MILLION IN ASSISTANCE TO OUR LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES, I HOPE YOU KEEP IN MIND THERE ARE
STILL BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN UNMET NEEDS ON OUR LOCAL ROADS, BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS. AS YOU CAST THIS VOTE TO CUT $65 MILLION IN LOCAL FUNDING FOR
LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE, I HOPE YOU KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS MORNING
THOUSANDS OF KIDS ARE GETTING PLACED ON SCHOOL BUSES ACROSS THE STATE
THAT ARE TRAVELING OVER LOCAL ROADS AND BRIDGES. THAT FIRST RESPONDERS
ARE RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY IN YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES, GOING OVER
LOCAL ROADS AND BRIDGES. THAT WHEN YOU CAST THIS VOTE NOW TO CUT $65
MILLION FOR OUR LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE WINTER RECOVERY PROGRAM
THAT YOU ARE PLACING MORE OF A BURDEN ON THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAXPAYER.
WHEN YOU CAST THIS VOTE TO CUT $65 MILLION FOR LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
TODAY, I HOPE YOU KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU -- YOU VOTED TO SPEND
$100 MILLION ANNUALLY FOR A TAXPAYER-FUNDED CAMPAIGN SYSTEM. WHEN
YOU CAST THIS VOTE TO CUT $65 MILLION FOR LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE TODAY, I
HOPE YOU KEEP IN MIND YOU VOTED TO SPEND $100 MILLION ANNUALLY FOR A
TAXPAYER-FUNDED CAMPAIGN SYSTEM. WHEN YOU CAST THIS VOTE TO CUT $65
MILLION FOR LOCAL ROADS AND BRIDGES FOR LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES, YOU ARE
CASTING A VOTE TO ALSO SPEND $2.5- -- $2.4 BILLION ON THE SAM PROGRAM.
WHEN YOU CAST THIS VOTE TO CUT $65 MILLION FROM OUR LOCAL ROADS AND
BRIDGES, YOU HAVE ALREADY CAST A VOTE TO GIVE A $420 MILLION TAX CREDIT
TO HOLLYWOOD FOR THE FILM TAX CREDIT. WHEN YOU CAST THIS VOTE TO CUT
$65 MILLION FROM OUR LOCAL ROADS AND BRIDGES AND CULVERTS THROUGH THE
WINTER RECOVERY PROGRAM, YOU HAVE ALREADY VOTED TO FREEZE THE STAR
520
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SAVINGS FOR OUR SENIORS AND OTHER SCHOOL TAXPAYERS, WHICH WILL RESULT IN
A CUT WHEN FULLY PHASED-IN OVER THE NEXT YEAR OF $119 MILLION CUT -- A
TAX INCREASE FOR OUR SENIORS AND FOR OTHER SCHOOL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS
BECAUSE OF THIS FREEZE. WHEN YOU MAKE THIS VOTE TO CUT $65 MILLION IN
LOCAL FUNDING FOR OUR ROADS, BRIDGES AND CULVERTS, I HOPE YOU KEEP IN
MIND THAT YOU'RE VOTING TO SPEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE MTA
DOWNSTATE. WHEN YOU MAKE THIS CUT -- THIS VOTE TO CUT $65 MILLION
FROM OUR LOCAL ROADS AND BRIDGES, I HOPE YOU KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU
HAVE ALREADY PASSED AN UNFUNDED MANDATE ON TO OUR LOCAL COUNTIES
WITH THE -- AGREEING TO THE CHANGES TO THE AIM PROGRAM THAT TAKES THAT
MONEY FROM OUR COUNTIES RATHER THAN PUTTING THE DIRECT SUPPORT BACK.
YOU'VE ALREADY DONE THAT. AND WHEN YOU MAKE THIS VOTE TO CUT $65
MILLION FROM THE LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OUR WINTER RECOVERY PROGRAM,
I HOPE YOU REALIZE THAT, MY COLLEAGUES, YOU OWN THIS CUT. YOU CAN'T
BLAME IT ON THE GOVERNOR. YOU ARE VOTING FOR IT. YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN
IT. YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY, IT'S YOUR CUT.
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW VERY DISAPPOINTED I AM IN THIS
BUDGET, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO -- TO OUR LOCAL ROADS AND BRIDGES.
IT'S VERY DISAPPOINTING. IT'S VERY, VERY WRONG, AND YOU KNOW IT'S
WRONG.
FOR THOSE REASONS AND MANY OTHERS, I'M GOING TO BE
VOTING NO ON THIS BILL AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. THANK
YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. DIPIETRO.
521
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. DIPIETRO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
SPONSOR YIELD?
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN
YIELDS.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES. BE HAPPY TO.
MR. DIPIETRO: JUST ONE QUESTION ON THE LIBRARY
AID. I WAS UNDER -- I GUESS I HAD TALKED TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE BOTH UP
IN THE SENATE AND HERE ON -- ON YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE WHO WERE -- WHO
WERE SUPPORTING THE LIBRARY FUNDING, SO I WAS -- I REALLY THOUGHT THE
LAST MINUTE IT WAS GOING TO BE PUT IN, BACK INTO THE BILL AND IT'S NOT.
CAN YOU TELL ME, JUST HONESTLY, WAS THAT A GOVERNOR -- GOVERNOR CUT, OR
WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAME OUT OF OUR -- OUR -- OUR CONFERENCE ON
YOUR SIDE?
MS. WEINSTEIN: WE -- YOU KNOW, AS I MENTIONED,
THIS IS THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. WE -- HE CUT
LIBRARY -- HE CUT LIBRARY CAPITAL. WE TRIED RESTORING AND WE WERE NOT
SUCCESSFUL. BUT AS I SAID TO MR. BARCLAY, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
CAPITAL WILL CONTINUE AFTER THIS BUDGET IS ADOPTED.
MR. DIPIETRO: OKAY, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
ON THE BILL, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. DIPIETRO: I TOLD LIBRARY -- MY LIBRARY PEOPLE
AND ANYONE ELSE IN THE LIBRARY SYSTEM LAST YEAR AFTER THEY GOT A -- A
NOMINAL INCREASE, SAID THE GOVERNOR AFTER HIS ELECTION IS GOING TO CUT
522
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
YOU AGAIN AND IT WAS PROVEN RIGHT. HIS MODUS OPERANDI IS VERY STRONG
WHEN IT COMES TO THE DISABLED, OUR MOST NEEDY COMMUNITY, AND ALSO
LIBRARIES, FOR SOME REASON. HE HAS SOMETHING IN HIS HEAD THAT HE DOES
NOT WANT TO FUND THEM. AND AGAIN, WE PREDICTED THIS LAST YEAR. NOT
THAT I'M A SOOTHSAYER, BUT I TOLD THEM TO WATCH THEIR PENNIES BECAUSE
HE'S GOING TO CUT THEM AGAIN. AND HE DID, AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.
LIBRARIES ARE THE -- ESPECIALLY OUT -- I THINK IN EVERY DISTRICT THEY'RE THE
HUB OF YOUR COMMUNITY, THEY ARE THE LIFEBLOOD OF YOUR COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHERE EVERYBODY GATHERS, THAT'S WHERE THE TECHNOLOGY IS, THAT'S
WHERE PEOPLE GO. THEY'RE MORE THAN JUST BOOKS, AND THEY'RE VERY
IMPORTANT. AND I'M JUST SAD TO SEE THAT FOR A LOUSY $14 MILLION IN THIS
BUDGET, IT'S NOT EVEN -- NOT EVEN A -- A DROP IN THE OCEAN THAT WE
COULDN'T STAND TALL, WE COULDN'T PUT OUR BACKS UP AGAINST THE WALL TO THE
GOVERNOR AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS, GOVERNOR,
WE'RE NOT GOING TO CAPITULATE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BACK DOWN, AND IT'S
NOT A BARGAINING CHIP. PUT THE MONEY BACK IN. AND I'M REALLY
DISAPPOINTED IN OUR GOVERNOR AND ON SOME OTHER PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T
HAVE THE BACKBONE TO STAND UP FOR THE LIBRARIES. SO I'M -- I'M -- THAT'S
ONE THING I'M DISAPPOINTED.
AND I JUST WANT TO REITERATE MY -- MY COLLEAGUE'S
COMMENTS ALSO ON THE CHIPS FUNDING. WE SIT HERE EVERY YEAR AND WE
TRY TO -- WE TRY TO BEG FOR CRUMBS FOR OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. CAN WE GET A
COUPLE MILLION MORE DOLLARS ON A $175 MILLION BUDGET WHEN EVERYONE
USES THE ROADS. IT'S OUR -- OUR MAJOR FORM OF SAFETY. THERE'S NO REASON
OUR ROADS SHOULD BE IN THE -- IN THE SHAPE THEY ARE, ESPECIALLY UP IN
523
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WESTERN NEW YORK. AND I WOULD -- I PUT IN A BILL AND I'D LIKE TO SEE IT
NEXT YEAR THAT WE JUST SAY NO TO THE GOVERNOR, AND WE'RE GOING INCREASE
OUR CHIPS FUNDING TO $1 BILLION. WE'RE GOING TO DOUBLE THE CHIPS
FUNDING AND GET THESE ROADS RIGHT, BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE -- THE
INSURANCE CLAIMS ON JUST THE POTHOLES, AS YOU SEE THE COMMERCIALS.
POTHOLES ARE SO BAD THAT THEY'RE DOING THOUSAND -- $100,000
COMMERCIALS ON THEM. SO THAT -- THAT SHOULD TELL YOU ALL YOU NEED TO
KNOW. SO I'D LIKE TO SEE OUR -- OUR CHIPS FUNDING GO TO $1 BILLION
NEXT YEAR AND END THIS SO THAT OUR -- OUR PEOPLE CAN FINALLY HAVE THE
MONEY TO FIX THE ROADS AND START -- START GETTING THEM RIGHT.
BETWEEN THAT AND THE LIBRARY FUNDING, THAT'S A MAJOR
DISAPPOINTMENT. I'LL BE VOTING NO AND I'D -- I'D ENCOURAGE ALL MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MR. RA TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. RA: JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THIS IS NOT
WHAT WE MEANT WHEN WE SAID WE SHOULD PASS A BUDGET IN THE LIGHT OF
DAY. I VOTE NO.
(LAUGHTER)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: POINT WELL-TAKEN, MR.
RA.
524
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MR. EPSTEIN TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. EPSTEIN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I'M REALLY DISTRESSED THAT WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT
CAPITAL WHEN WE HAVEN'T DEALT WITH THE ISSUES OF NYCHA. NYCHA
NEEDS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND WE HAVE NOTHING IN THE BUDGET FOR
NYCHA. SUNY, CUNY NEEDS ALL OUR MONEY AND THERE'S NOTHING IN
THE BUDGET. AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE RAN OUT OF TIME, BUT I CAN'T IN
GOOD CONSCIENCE GO FORWARD WITH A CAPITAL BUDGET WITHOUT THE
PRIORITIES.
I'LL BE VOTING NO ON THIS.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. EPSTEIN IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MR. OTIS TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. OTIS: WELL, I'M SUPPORTING THIS CAPITAL PROJECTS
BUDGET, BUT OUR UNDERSTANDING IS AS IT RELATES TO THE ISSUE MY COLLEAGUE
MENTIONED AND OTHERS, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE FURTHER CAPITAL BUDGET
DISCUSSION AFTER THIS BUDGET IS ADOPTED HERE LATER IN SESSION, SO THERE'S
HOPE ON A LOT OF ISSUES. ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE
BUDGET BILL THAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY INCLUDES THE $500 MILLION FOR
CLEAN WATER PROJECTS AROUND THE STATE. THE FIRST PAYMENT ON $2.5
BILLION OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR EVERYBODY
HERE IN THIS ROOM, AND SOMETHING WE CAN BE HAPPY ABOUT.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ARE THERE ANY OTHER
VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
525
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF WE
COULD GO TO RULES REPORT NO. 51, IT IS A BUDGET BILL, A LEGISLATURE AND
JUDICIARY BUDGET.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02001-A, RULES
REPORT NO. 51, BUDGET BILL. AN ACT -- AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT, LEGISLATURE AND JUDICIARY BUDGET.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MS.
WEINSTEIN, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS
ADVANCED. GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: I HEREBY CERTIFY TO AN IMMEDIATE VOTE,
ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MR. PHILLIP STECK TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. STECK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER. I
DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT USING THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION'S
526
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
OWN DATA THAT COURT FILINGS HAVE DECREASED 41 PERCENT FROM 2008 TO
2017 AND, YET, DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD WE'VE INCREASED THE
JUDICIARY BUDGET BY $700 MILLION. I DON'T FIND THIS PARTICULARLY
APPROPRIATE, GIVEN ALL THE HUMAN NEEDS THAT WE HAVE. MUCH HAS BEEN
WRITTEN ON THE JUDICIARY BUDGET. SOME HAVE SAID THAT IT'S THE MOST
EXPENSIVE JUDICIARY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. I WOULD POINT OUT, TOO, THAT
THE -- THAT THE -- WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN SCHENECTADY, WHERE FILINGS HAVE
BEEN DOWN, THE MAYOR HAS TRIED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF JUDGES FROM
FOUR TO THREE IN CITY COURT, AND WE GET RESISTANCE FROM OCA FOR
ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON IN THE JUDICIARY. I
THINK THIS BODY NEEDS TO GIVE THIS TOPIC A LITTLE MORE SCRUTINY. THE
NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL REPORTED THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS HEARD
THE FEWEST CRIMINAL CASES IN THE LAST 15 YEARS. IN OUR 3RD JUDICIAL
DISTRICT, THE SEVEN COUNTY AREA, WE TYPICALLY HAVE ABOUT 15 CIVIL TRIALS A
YEAR. AND I DID LOOK AT SOME OF THE STATISTICS FOR SOME OF THE OTHER
COUNTIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF CONGESTION, RESEARCH
DONE BY A FORMER BAR PRESIDENT, SHOWED THAT FELONY FILINGS, EVEN IN THE
BRONX, WERE SUBSTANTIALLY DOWN OVER THAT SAME TIME PERIOD, AS WERE
CIVIL FILINGS.
I WOULD URGE THAT WE NOT GIVE THIS -- THIS TOPIC IN THE
FUTURE JUST COMPLETE LEEWAY WITHOUT SCRUTINY. THERE'S A LOT THERE TO BE
LOOKED AT, AND I HOPE WE WILL UNDERTAKE THAT TASK. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
527
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MS. WEINSTEIN TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. WEINSTEIN: YES, THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
SO, WHEN WE STARTED OUR LAST WAYS AND MEANS MEETING, WE HAD A LITTLE
MUSICAL INTERLUDE WHERE I PLAYED US SOME BARS OF A HARD DAY'S NIGHT.
WELL, OVER THESE PAST WEEKS I'VE HEARD THROUGH THE -- WHERE THE WAYS
AND MEANS STAFF ARE SUNRISE -- THE LYRICS OF SUNRISE SUNSET. SUNRISE
SUNSET. SWIFTLY FLOW THE DAYS. BECAUSE OUR STAFF -- OUR WAYS AND
MEANS STAFF, OUR P&C STAFF, OUR CENTRAL STAFF HAVE WORKED SO HARD
OVER THESE PAST WEEKS TO BRING US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. WE HAVE
THANKED THEM AT VARIOUS TIMES, BUT I -- I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT
TO THANK ALL OF THE STAFF JUST -- IT WOULD TAKE US -- IF IT WAS A LITTLE EARLIER
IN THE DAY, I MIGHT NAME THEM ALL, BUT I'LL JUST NAME -- JUST HIGHLIGHT THE
LEADERS. OUR SECRETARY, BLAKE WASHINGTON.
(APPLAUSE)
AND HIS TWO DEPUTIES, PHIL FIELDS AND --
(APPLAUSE)
AND SEAN O'KEEFE.
(APPLAUSE)
AND ALL OF -- YOU KNOW, ONE DAY WE'LL TAKE SOME TIME
AND I'LL READ THROUGH ALL THE NAMES OF -- OF THESE -- THE WAYS AND
MEANS STAFF WHO WORKED SO HARD TO BRING US WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
AND, OF COURSE, I WANT TO THANK MR. BARCLAY
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, BEGINNING AT THE HEARINGS AND THROUGH THE
DEBATES ON THE -- ON THE BILLS. WE'VE --
(APPLAUSE)
528
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
-- REALLY APPRECIATE HIS SUPPORT.
(APPLAUSE)
AND, MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE YES ON THIS
BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WEINSTEIN IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. IF WE CAN FINALLY GO TO PAGE 3, RESOLUTIONS, ASSEMBLY NO.
243, COMMITTEE ON RULES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: PAGE 3, RULES REPORT
-- ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 243. THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 243,
COMMITTEE ON RULES. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND
ASSEMBLY FIXING THE SALARIES OF OFFICES OF THE GOVERNOR AND THE
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 AND 6 OF ARTICLE IV OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
(LAUGHTER)
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
529
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: SINCE THIS WILL BE THE
LAST VOTE OF THE DAY AND THE MORNING, SO IF WE COULD PROPERLY TAKE A
VOTE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD --
(LAUGHTER)
-- I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
SPEAKER HEASTIE: ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.
SO, I KNOW THE DAY HAS BEEN LONG, WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR
ALMOST 24 HOURS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY A -- A COUPLE OF THINGS. YOU
KNOW, WHEN -- WHEN WE ALL RUN FOR OFFICE, WE ALL SAY THAT WE WANT TO
CHANGE THE WORLD, AND WE TELL THAT TO OUR CONSTITUENTS, THAT WE'RE GOING
TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BUT I ALWAYS FEEL LIKE THE REAL JOB FOR US, AS I'VE
SAID MANY TIMES BEFORE, IS JUST TRY TO MAKE THE WORLD A LITTLE BIT BETTER
WHEN WE OCCUPY THESE SEATS THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE BY
OUR CONSTITUENTS TO -- TO GIVE US.
AND I KNOW SOMETIMES IT MAY SEEM LIKE WE DIDN'T DO
ENOUGH. IT REMINDS OF THE TIME I WOULD COME HOME WITH A 97 ON MY
REPORT CARD AND MY FATHER WOULD SAY, WELL, HOW COME YOU DIDN'T GET A
100? BUT BACK THEN, I REMEMBERED WHY MY FATHER SAID THAT. HE DIDN'T
SAY THAT TO ME BECAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK I DIDN'T DO GOOD ENOUGH, HE SAID
THAT TO ME BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT ME TO SETTLE AND HE WANTED ME TO
CONTINUE TO TRY HARDER.
AND SOMETIMES WE DO TRY HARD, AND SOMETIMES WE
530
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DON'T GET EXACTLY TO WHERE WE WANT TO GET. AND I'LL BE THE FIRST ONE TO
SAY THAT THIS IS NOT A GREAT BUDGET. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF HAPPINESS IN THIS
BUDGET. THERE'S A LOT THINGS THAT ARE MISSING IN THIS BUDGET. BUT WE
DID THE BEST THAT WE COULD. AND I WANT TO THANK THE MEMBERS, WHO
EVEN KNEW -- EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THE BEST
BUDGETS THAT WE DID, THAT YOU DID THE BEST THAT YOU COULD FOR YOUR
CONSTITUENTS, AND EVEN HELD -- HAD TO HOLD YOUR NOSE AND VOTE ON SOME
PARTS OF THIS BUDGET. IT WAS A TOUGH ONE. THERE WASN'T A LOT OF GOOD
THINGS IN HERE. BUT I'VE GOT TO SAY, ONE OF THINGS THAT IS -- BECAUSE
PARTICULARLY FOR ME WHEN I FIRST BECAME SPEAKER, I SAID THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING, I COULD DO ANY OTHER THING, I SAID BUT I FELT LIKE MY
SPEAKERSHIP WOULD BE IN VAIN IF WE DIDN'T REFORM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
(APPLAUSE)
AND SO, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES AND, YOU
KNOW, TO -- TO THE SPEAKER PRO TEM, JEFF AUBRY, WHO I'VE ALWAYS
CALLED THE -- THE GODFATHER OF -- OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM, AND THEN I
CALL UNCLE JOE, UNCLE JOE LENTOL, WHO, AS I SAID, WAS A LEADER ON MANY
OF THESE ISSUES BEFORE ANYBODY KNEW WHAT THESE ISSUES WERE ABOUT,
EVEN BEFORE I KNEW HOW IMPORTANT THESE ISSUES WERE, JOE LENTOL WAS
LEADING THE WAY ON THIS.
(APPLAUSE)
SO, I WANT TO THANK, OF COURSE, AND SHE WAS A ROCK STAR
TODAY, THAT ASSEMBLYWOMAN FROM BROOKLYN WHO DID A WONDERFUL JOB
TALKING ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS TO REFORM THE BAIL SYSTEM. AND WE
531
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
STILL HAVE WORK TO DO, BECAUSE WE GOT "THIS CLOSE" TO IT BEING A CASHLESS
SYSTEM, BUT WE ARE GOING TO GET TO THE FINISH LINE TO MAKE IT A -- A
COMPLETELY CASHLESS BAIL SYSTEM.
SO, LATRICE, I WANT TO THANK YOU. YOU DID A HELL OF A
JOB ON WHAT YOU DID TODAY.
(APPLAUSE)
AND JUST ONE OTHER THING, AND I KNOW MANY OF US
DIDN'T LIKE HOW WE GOT THERE AND -- BUT IT WAS AN IMPORTANT THING, I
THINK, FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS. AND I HAD SAID TO OUR MEMBERS IN THE
CONFERENCE THAT IF WE HAD LEFT THIS BUDGET SESSION -- THIS BUDGET
SESSION WITHOUT GIVING THE MTA A LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE ABILITY TO
FUND AND REPAIR THE SYSTEM, THAT IT WOULD HAVE LOOKED BADLY UPON US.
AND I KNOW IT WAS TOUGH FOR SOME PEOPLE. AND I KNOW SOME PEOPLE
STILL DON'T LIKE IT. BUT AT LEAST WE CAN GO HOME AND SAY WE GAVE THE
MTA THE OPPORTUNITY TO RIGHT ITSELF. BECAUSE WHEN WE GO HOME, WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET TO WORK
AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DELAYS, AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE
TRAIN BEING STUCK, OR THE SIGNALS NOT WORKING. SO, I WANT TO THANK
EVERYBODY FOR -- AGAIN, IT WAS A TOUGH ISSUE. TEN YEARS AGO, I THINK IT
WAS JUST EIGHT OF US IN THE ASSEMBLY WHO SUPPORTED CONGESTION
PRICING, AND SO I KNOW IT TOOK A LONG AND HARD WAY TO GET THERE, BUT AT
LEAST THE MTA HAS THE ABILITY TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS.
SO, I JUST, LASTLY, WANT TO THANK, AGAIN, OUR WONDERFUL
CHAIR OF WAYS AND MEANS, HELENE WEINSTEIN, WHO STOOD UP HERE AND
-- AND DEBATED --
532
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
(APPLAUSE)
YOU KNOW I LIKE TO USE SPORTS METAPHORS, BUT SHE
LOOKED LIKE A GREAT QUARTERBACK OUT THERE HANDING IT OFF TO EVERYBODY
ELSE WHO NEEDED TO DEBATE ON DIFFERENT PARTS OF -- OF THE BUDGET.
AND, AGAIN, OUR -- SHE'S STILL NEW, BUT SHE'S ALREADY
ACTING LIKE A VETERAN, OUR MAJORITY LEADER, CRYSTAL PEOPLES-STOKES.
(APPLAUSE)
AND ALL THE COMMITTEE CHAIRS, IT -- IT'S TOO NUMEROUS
TO NAME THEM, BUT I LOVE YOU ALL, YOU -- YOU MAKE US PROUD. YOU DO
WHAT -- YOU DO GREAT WORK. YOU REPRESENT YOUR -- YOUR COMMITTEES
WELL, YOU REPRESENT THE ASSEMBLY MAJORITY WELL.
AND I WANT TO SAY TO MINORITY LEADER BRIAN KOLB AND
WILL BARCLAY AND OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, LIKE I SAID,
ALL -- ALTHOUGH WE HAVE PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES, SOME OF YOU ARE
GOOD GUYS -- NO, I'M KIDDING --
(LAUGHTER)
-- ALL OF YOU -- NO, I'M KIDDING. IT'S -- BRIAN,
PARTICULARLY WITH YOU, I -- I COULDN'T IMAGINE A BETTER RELATIONSHIP WITH
SOMEONE WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN -- AN ADVERSARY. AND I REALLY COULD
SAY, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE OF THE OTHER PARTY, I TRULY CONSIDER YOU A
FRIEND.
(APPLAUSE)
AND THEN FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO RUN THROUGH -- AND I
KNOW HELENE STARTED TO MENTION THE WONDERFUL STAFF, BUT I JUST REALLY
WANT TO RUN THROUGH IT AGAIN AND -- AND POOR BLAKE, HE HASN'T HAD ANY
533
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
SLEEP IN -- IN THREE DAYS. BUT BLAKE WASHINGTON, THE DEDICATED WAYS
AND MEANS STAFF, LOUANN CICCONE, AND THE ENTIRE PROGRAM AND COUNSEL
STAFF, OUR COUNSELS, KATHLEEN O'KEEFE, HOWARD VARGAS AND JOANNE
BARKER, BRIAN COYNE AND OUR ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE SERVICES TEAM, RANDY
BLUTH IN THE BILL DRAFTING, OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL PRESS OFFICE, CIS,
WAYNE JACKSON --
(APPLAUSE)
-- AND OUR SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.
(APPLAUSE)
JOHN WELLSPEAK AND HIS TEAM AND -- AND ALL OF THE --
THE STAFF THAT ARE WITH ME HERE IN ALBANY --
(APPLAUSE)
-- AND IN THE DISTRICT. I KNOW WE HAVE PAUL UPTON
HERE AND WE HAVE ISA LEAVING, I HAVE RAVEN BROWN, WHO CAME UP FROM
THE -- THE OFFICE IN THE -- IN THE CITY, AND ALL THE ASSEMBLY SUPPORT
STAFF, THANK YOU FOR REALLY MAKING THE ASSEMBLY WHO WE ARE AND WHAT
WE ARE. AND LIKE I SAID, I ALWAYS GET A -- A BIG KICK OUT OF ALWAYS THE
WEEKEND BEFORE WE HAVE TO GET TO A BUDGET, I DO LIKE TO COME UP AND
VISIT THE STAFF AND -- AND ACTUALLY SURPRISE THEM AND JOKE AROUND WITH
THEM, BUT REALLY LET THEM KNOW THAT -- HOW MUCH THEY MEAN TO US
BECAUSE WITHOUT THEM, THE ASSEMBLY WOULD NOT BE THE GREATEST
INSTITUTION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
(APPLAUSE)
SO, THANK YOU ALL. GO HOME, GET SOME REST.
(APPLAUSE)
534
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
AND I WILL NOW SAY AND CALL ON OUR WONDERFUL
MAJORITY LEADER, CRYSTAL PEOPLES-STOKES.
(APPLAUSE)
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER
--
SPEAKER HEASTIE: OH, NO. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY,
CRYSTAL. I NEED TO CALL ON --
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. KOLB.
SPEAKER HEASTIE: DEALER'S CHOICE.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: WELL, SINCE I'M ALREADY
STANDING --
SPEAKER HEASTIE: OKAY.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I WANT TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY, MR. SPEAKER, TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS MAJORITY LEADER. ONE NEVER WOULD'VE THOUGHT
THAT I WOULD'VE ENDED UP HERE, NOT ANYBODY IN MY CURRENT BACKGROUND
OR MY LONG-TERM BACKGROUND. AND SO, FOR ME IT'S BEEN A GREAT
PLEASURE. I WILL SAY, THOUGH, IT'S BEEN TRIAL BY FIRE. FROM DAY ONE, WE
CAME INTO THESE CHAMBERS AND STARTED PASSING LEGISLATION THAT WE HAD
BEEN WORKING ON FOR YEARS AND HAD IT PASSED IN THE SENATE AND HAD IT
SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, AND SO IT'S JUST BEEN A VERY FAST-PACED
OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE, ONE THAT I REALLY RELISH IN.
AND THIS WHOLE BUDGET PROCESS, I WANT TO COMMEND
YOU ON THE WAY YOU TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY GOT INCLUDED WHEN
THERE WAS NOT A LOT TO BE SHARED. I -- I THINK THAT OUR MEMBERS SHOULD
535
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP FOR THAT, BECAUSE IT WOULD'VE BEEN VERY EASY
JUST TO SAY NO TO SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT WERE NECESSARY. IT'S VERY
HARD TO DO A LOT WITH A LITTLE. I KNOW THAT FROM MY -- MY FAMILY
GROWING UP, I KNOW THAT FROM MY OWN BACKGROUND. EVERY NOW AND
THEN YOU'D LIKE TO SEE MORE IN YOUR LIFE, AND -- BUT YOU JUST DON'T HAVE
THE RESOURCES TO DO IT. SO, I WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS
THERE.
IT'S BEEN A TRUE PLEASURE TO WORK WITH MR. KOLB AND
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. FOLKS KNOW I GREW UP
WITH REPUBLICANS SITTING AT MY DINNER TABLE, IT WAS MY MOTHER. AND
IT'S -- IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A DELIGHTFUL EXPERIENCE, MY FATHER WAS ALWAYS A
DEMOCRAT. SO, I -- I THINK THAT IT'S EASY TO DEVELOP RELATIONSHIPS WITH
PEOPLE WHEN YOU CAN JUST UNDERSTAND THAT WE ALL WANT THE SAME THING,
WE WANT THE BEST FOR OUR CONSTITUENCY. SO, I THINK WE'VE DONE A GREAT
JOB HERE.
AND I CAN'T SPEAK ENOUGH ABOUT THIS GENTLEMAN SITTING
HERE, RIGHT HERE ON MY LEFT, BRIAN COYNE. I MEAN, TALK ABOUT BEING A --
THE CAPTAIN OF A SHIP.
(APPLAUSE)
THIS GUY -- THIS GUY AND THE AWESOME STAFF THAT HE
WORKS WITH ARE -- ARE PHENOMENAL. THEY DON'T ALLOW YOU TO MISS A
BEAT, AND FOR THAT I AM ETERNALLY GRATEFUL.
IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO SERVE YOU IN THIS POSITION, MY
COLLEAGUES. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY FOR
YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH ME AS I WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF
536
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
LEARNING HOW TO BE THE MAJORITY LEADER IN THE NEW YORK STATE
ASSEMBLY.
THANK YOU, SIR.
(APPLAUSE)
SPEAKER HEASTIE: THANK YOU.
AND NOW WE CALL ON MR. KOLB.
MR. KOLB: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. GOOD
MORNING, EVERYONE.
MEMBERS: GOOD MORNING.
MR. KOLB: OKAY. A COUPLE OF PARTS, I SHOULD BE
ABLE TO WRAP THIS UP BY 8:00, SO BEAR WITH ME.
(LAUGHTER)
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO EXTEND A GENUINE THANK YOU AND
APPRECIATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT STARTING WITH OUR BRAND NEW WAYS
AND MEANS RANKER, WILL BARCLAY, WHO I THINK DID AN ABSOLUTE
AWESOME JOB LEADING OUR CONFERENCE.
(APPLAUSE)
SECOND OF ALL, MR. BARCLAY AND OUR CONFERENCE COULD
NOT DO WHAT WE DO IN TERMS OF CARRYING ON WHAT I -- I REALLY BELIEVE IS
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY DEBATE, WE'RE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO AGREE, THAT'S
OBVIOUS, YOU COULD TELL THAT BY THE DEBATE, OUR QUESTIONS AND -- AND THE
GOING BACK AND FORTH, BUT PART OF WHAT MAKES US WHO WE ARE AS A
CONFERENCE AS MEMBERS, IS HAVING A DEDICATED, LOYAL, HARDWORKING,
INTELLIGENT, WONDERFUL GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WE REFER TO COMMONLY AS
OUR "STAFF", NOT -- IN WAYS AND MEANS, BUT IN THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY
537
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE, I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE EACH AND EVERY
ONE OF THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT HAVE DONE SUCH A TERRIFIC JOB FOR US.
THANK YOU, AND WE LOVE YOU.
(APPLAUSE)
A COUPLE OF THINGS I'D LIKE TO MENTION ON THE POLICY
FRONT, AND THEN I'LL CLOSE WITH A COUPLE OTHER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
FIRST OF ALL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS NOT THE WAY
TO DO THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S DIFFICULTIES,
TRYING TO GET AGREEMENTS WITH BOTH HOUSES OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
GOVERNOR, IN PARTICULAR THE GOVERNOR. WE GET THAT. BUT I WOULD ALSO
TELL YOU THAT I WAS HOPING THAT WE WOULD LEARN THAT DOING BUSINESS IN
THE LIGHT OF DAY, ALL DAY, IS THE WAY TO CRAFT $170 BILLION BUDGET THAT
AFFECTS SO MANY LIVES IN OUR STATE. AND THE POINT BEING IS FORGET
WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR DON'T LIKE IT, BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE
THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK STATE, EVERY GROUP, EVERY INDIVIDUAL THAT
COMES TO VISIT OUR OFFICES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, AND YOU ALL HAVE
EXPERIENCED IT, HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE FLOODED
THE HALLWAYS OF ALBANY, THE ELEVATORS, THE -- THE STEPS, THE ESCALATORS
THAT ARE NOT WORKING - SORRY ROANN - IT'S REAL. BUT THEY NEED 72 HOURS
AS A MINIMUM TO DIGEST, UNDERSTAND, REFLECT AND, BY THE WAY, CALL EACH
AND EVERY ONE OF US TO SAY, LIKE IT, DON'T LIKE IT. COULD BE BETTER, COULD
YOU CHANGE THIS? AND WHETHER OR NOT WE CHANGE IT IN THE END, EACH
AND EVERY ONE OF US, WE STILL SHOULD GIVE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THE MOST IMPORTANT
DOCUMENT THAT WE CRAFT AS A LEGISLATURE. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT
538
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
WE SPEND OR DON'T SPEND ON A VARIETY OF TOPICS, WHETHER IT'S EDUCATION,
TRANSPORTATION, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, IT DOESN'T MATTER. WHAT MATTERS MOST
IS THE PEOPLE WANT TO BELIEVE AND FEEL THAT THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
WEIGH ON IN THE CHOICES THAT WE'RE MAKING.
SO, THIS IS NOT REPUBLICAN, IT'S NOT DEMOCRAT. IT'S
ABOUT, DO I HAVE A VOICE? YES, WE'RE ALL ELECTED, BUT SHOULDN'T WE GIVE
THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON EVERY PIECE OF THIS BUDGET,
WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR DON'T LIKE IT, JUST TO SAY, HEY, WAIT A MINUTE,
COULD YOU JUST ONE MORE TIME LOOK AT THIS? AND I THINK THE FACT - AND I
JUST SAY - BY THE WAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THIS YEAR,
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME, WHERE WE'RE DOING BUDGETS AT 2:00, 3:00,
4:00, 5:00 IN THE MORNING, AND NOW HERE WE ARE AT 7:30 IN THE MORNING
FINISHING UP, CLOSING UP, WHERE ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS, HOPEFULLY, WERE
IN BED SLEEPING WHILE WE WERE CRAFTING A SPENDING PLAN THAT'S GOING TO
AFFECT THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES. WHETHER IT'S A TEACHER, WHETHER IT'S A POLICE
OFFICER, WHETHER IT WAS A PSYCHIATRIST, WHETHER IT WAS A -- A MENTAL
HEALTH PROVIDER, THE FACT THAT WE'RE WRAPPING UP SOMETHING SO
IMPORTANT TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM WITHOUT THEM JUST HAVING
THREE DAYS TO LOOK AT IT, WE CAN DO BETTER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I KNOW WE CAN'T CHANGE IT NOW, BUT I'M GOING TO JUST
SAY TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, HOW ABOUT WE HOLD ALL OF US MORE
ACCOUNTABLE? AND THIS IS BOTH HOUSES, THIS IS THE GOVERNOR. YOU
KNOW, IT'S -- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. WE DID NOT GET
ELECTED TO COME DOWN HERE TO BE RUBBER STAMPS OR TO BE ROLLED OVER OR
TO BE JUST BULLIED INTO DOING THINGS THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FEEL
539
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
VERY STRONGLY ABOUT. AND PLEASE NOTICE, THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARTISAN STUFF.
THIS IS JUST ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, OPENNESS, COMMUNICATION.
SO, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE -- I'M JUST
USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, GREAT TOPIC THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT. GREAT TOPIC THAT WE SHOULD HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS
ABOUT. GREAT TOPIC THAT WE SHOULD BANTER ALL ACROSS THE STATE ABOUT THE
RIGHT THINGS WE SHOULD DO, WHETHER YOU'RE A VICTIM OR WHETHER YOU'RE A
CRIMINAL. TO STICK IT IN A BUDGET BILL IS UNCONSCIONABLE. REALLY? I'M
NOT SAYING THAT WHAT WE'VE DONE IS AWFUL, I'M JUST SAYING HOW ABOUT
WE -- WE REALLY TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE LIGHT OF DAY WHEN WE SHOULD.
AND ANY OTHER PROVISION THAT WAS THROWN IN THIS BUDGET, PUBLIC
FINANCING, FINE, LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. LET'S HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THAT'S
ALL I'M REALLY SAYING ON SOME OF THESE THINGS. AND IT'S NOT ABOUT SAYING
WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING. AND I KNOW THERE'S PASSION WITH OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ABOUT THESE TOPICS. I RESPECT
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU AND YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT HOW WE CAN DO
BETTER, HOW WE CAN DELIVER JUSTICE. SO, WHY NOT TALK ABOUT IT IN PUBLIC.
ONE OTHER THING ON THIS BUDGET, AND WE'VE DEBATED IT,
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT. AND I'M JUST SAYING PERSONALLY, AND PLEASE
FORGIVE ME, BUT EVERY DAY, EVERY WEEK, ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES IN
GOVERNMENT TRAVELS WITH HER FAMILY TO BRING HER SON HERE AND HER
HUSBAND HERE EVERY DAY SO SHE CAN SERVE GREAT PEOPLE OF HER DISTRICT
AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND MAKE SACRIFICES EVERY SINGLE DAY AND
TRYING TO FIND A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER. AND WHAT DO WE DO? WE GET
CHEAPSKATE ON 2 PERCENT VERSUS 3 PERCENT TO HELP THOSE DIRECT CARE
540
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
PROVIDERS THAT DO GOD'S WORK --
(APPLAUSE)
SO, YEAH, I GET A LITTLE IRISH IN ME, A LITTLE PASSIONATE
ABOUT THIS STUFF. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE DON'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK
ABOUT THIS FROM A HUMAN ELEMENT. ENOUGH. AFTER THE VOTES ARE CAST, I
THINK IT'S BETTER THAT WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION SO YOU DON'T THINK IT'S
ABOUT A VOTE. BUT IT'S ABOUT PRIORITY. YOU KNOW, AND WE TALK ABOUT --
ABOUT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE, AND WE INCREASE THE MINIMUM
WAGE, OKAY, I GET IT. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? I MET WITH THE HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS IN MY DISTRICT, THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES THAT WE PUT FORTH
AND EVERYBODY SAID WE'RE GOING TO LIFT PEOPLE UP FROM POVERTY, OKAY.
THE MONEY THAT WE'VE PROVIDED, THE DIRECT CARE -- THE "#
BFAIR2DIRECTCARE" WORKERS, DO YOU REALIZE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT
THE MONEY THAT WE'VE PROVIDED ARE STILL A-DOLLAR-AN-HOUR SHORT OF WHAT
THE MINIMUM WAGE IS INCREASED IN OUR STATE. SO, EVEN THE MONEY AT 2
PERCENT THAT WE'RE PUTTING FORTH THIS YEAR, THEY'RE STILL NOW $2 BEHIND TO
TRY TO COMPETE WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO WORK FOR MCDONALD'S OR
ANY OTHER FAST FOOD ESTABLISHMENT. AND WE'RE STILL BE -- BEHIND THE
EIGHT BALL.
SO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DOLLARS AND CENTS, I JUST WANT
YOU TO JUST THINK ABOUT THIS AS WE GO DOWN THE ROAD. IT BREAKS MY
HEART, IT BREAKS MY HEART, WHEN I SEE A MAN, A WOMAN, A CHILD CONFINED
TO A WHEELCHAIR AND THEY HAVE TO STRUGGLE TO -- TO FIND A PROVIDER THAT'S
WILLING TO GIVE THEIR HEART AND SOUL, TO LIFT THEM OUT OF A WHEELCHAIR, TO
PUT THEM IN A BED, TO GET THEM OUT OF BED, AND THEN THEY'RE STRUGGLING
541
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO TO HELP THAT INDIVIDUAL, AND THEN
WE TALK ABOUT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WITH NO
TRANSPARENCY, NO ACCOUNTABILITY. THAT'S WHAT GETS TO ME.
SO GOING FORWARD, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M HOPING IF
WE CAN REVISIT SOME OF THESE THINGS THIS YEAR, AND WITH -- YOU COULD
CITE ANY NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS IN OUR COMMUNITIES, LIKE LIBRARIES. MR.
PALMESANO, WHO, IF YOU CAN'T TELL, GETS A LITTLE ANIMATED ABOUT CHIPS
AND ROADS AND BRIDGES, HE DOES THAT BECAUSE HE CARES. HE CARES ABOUT
THE CONSTITUENTS THAT HE SERVES. AND THIS IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. AND
I'M NOT TRYING TO BE ON A BANDBOX, I'M JUST TRYING TO BRING A REAL
PERSPECTIVE THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, IT'S
ABOUT HOW TO MAKE LIVES BETTER IN NEW YORK STATE, REGARDLESS OF WHERE
YOU LIVE.
SO, WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, A COUPLE OF FINAL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
FIRST OF ALL, HELENE, GOD BLESS YOU. LONG DAY, LONG
DAY-AND-A-HALF. THANK YOU FOR NOT ONLY TAKING EVERY QUESTION,
WHETHER YOU KNEW THE ANSWER OR NOT, IT'S IMMATERIAL, BUT WHAT I
APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT EVERY ONE OF MY MEMBERS OR OUR MEMBERS THAT
ASKED YOU A QUESTION, YOU TREATED THEM WITH RESPECT AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, AND THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE)
MR. SPEAKER, I KNOW I'M GOING A LITTLE LONGER THAN YOU
WOULD LIKE ME TO, BUT I'VE JUST GOT A COUPLE MORE.
MADAM MAJORITY LEADER, YOU COMMUNICATED THE OTHER
542
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DAY WHEN YOU SEE MR. KOLB -- I WAS A LITTLE ANIMATED THE OTHER DAY
ABOUT SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. HOWEVER, I GOT THE
MESSAGE COMMUNICATED TO ME THAT MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES, WHEN YOU GET
A CHANCE, WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A HUG. AND SO I'M HERE TO SAY, I LOVE
YOU, TOO.
(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)
MR. SPEAKER, YOU KNOW, IT'S -- I LOVE YOU, MAN.
(LAUGHTER)
YOU NEED SOME AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT, BUT JUST A
COUPLE OF THINGS. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN --
SPEAKER HEASTIE: YOU'D LIKE ME TO MOVE TO THE
RIGHT A LITTLE BIT, RIGHT? THAT'S --
MR. KOLB: NO, NO, YOU'RE GOOD.
(LAUGHTER)
YOU'RE GOOD.
SPEAKER HEASTIE: OKAY, GOOD, BECAUSE THAT
WASN'T HAPPENING.
MR. KOLB: IN THIS BUSINESS THAT WE'RE IN, IT'S NOT
EASY. MR. SPEAKER AND ALL OF YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, GOT
YOUR JOB, GOT YOUR ROLES, GOT YOUR CONSTITUENTS. ON THE FLIP SIDE, MY
MEMBERS HAVE OUR ROLES, HAVE OUR JOBS, HAVE OUR CONSTITUENTS, AND WE
CAN DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY, WE CAN ARGUE ON THE FLOOR, BUT ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT THE SPEAKER SAID, WHICH I TOTALLY AGREE WITH, THAT IN THE END,
AS LONG AS WE KEEP IT TO THE POLICY DISAGREEMENTS, BUT RECOGNIZE THAT
WE'RE HUMAN BEINGS AND FRIENDS, WHICH I DO ALSO AGREE WITH, THAT
543
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
DOESN'T MAKE US BAD DEMOCRATS OR BAD REPUBLICANS, IT MAKES US SOLID
HUMAN BEINGS.
MR. SPEAKER, THANK YOU FOR BEING YOU.
(APPLAUSE)
SPEAKER HEASTIE: THANK YOU, BRIAN. THANK
YOU, EVERYBODY.
MR. KOLB: I HAVE ONE MORE, MR. SPEAKER, BEFORE
WE WRAP UP. I KNOW, I KNOW, I DON'T GET THIS VERY OFTEN --
(LAUGHTER)
-- SO I'M TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF IT. I WOULD NOW LIKE
TO RECOGNIZE, MY FINAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT, TO MY UTMOST, ABSOLUTE
FAVORITE DEMOCRAT, WHO WE COULDN'T EVEN RUN THIS PLACE WITHOUT. I
LOVE YOU, WAYNE JACKSON.
(APPLAUSE)
OKAY. I'M DONE.
(APPLAUSE)
SPEAKER HEASTIE: BEFORE I CALL ON MRS.
PEOPLES-STOKES, I JUST WANT TO SAY TO EVERYBODY, PLEASE GO HOME AND
GET SOME REST.
BUT WITH THAT SAID, MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, DO WE
HAVE ANY FURTHER HOUSEKEEPING OR RESOLUTIONS?
SPEAKER HEASTIE: NO -- NO HOUSEKEEPING, NO --
NO FURTHER RESOLUTIONS.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I'LL NOW MOVE THAT THE
544
NYS ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2019
ASSEMBLY STAND ADJOURNED UNTIL THE CALL OF THE SPEAKER, WHICH WILL
HAPPEN RIGHT AWAY.
(LAUGHTER)
SPEAKER HEASTIE: LET THE HOUSE STAND
ADJOURNED.
(WHEREUPON, AT 7:40 A.M., THE ASSEMBLY STOOD
ADJOURNED UNTIL THE CALL OF THE SPEAKER.)
545