The bill is ineffective because a 1 percent foreign ownership threshold will do little to eliminate foreign money from New York politics. The legislation is partisan and ignores the actual dark money loophole in the political system while imposing felony charges on businesses with minimal foreign investment.
The bill will create voter confusion by announcing new polling locations only four days before early voting begins, undermining public confidence in election stability. It will also impose costs on local municipalities or the state without improving affordability for New Yorkers, and raises unresolved questions about compliance with Article 265 gun-free zone requirements.
Argued the bill is an unfunded mandate and a solution in search of a problem, as counties did not request it. Raised concerns about who would pay for travel and training costs if the State Board determines in-person training is required.
The bill creates an improper benefit for wealthy New Yorkers by allowing them to vote at vacation homes rather than their primary residence. The explicit inclusion of "vacation home" in the bill demonstrates intent to enable double voting—voting in different elections at different residences—which undermines the principle that voters should vote where they actually live.
He raised concerns about the bill's vague definition of intimidation and how it could expose voters and election inspectors to civil suits for routine questioning or asking for identification. He questioned how address protections would allow validation of poll worker residency requirements and expressed concern about transparency in elections.
The bill grants the Attorney General broad powers to destroy small businesses lacking legal resources to defend themselves, extends jurisdiction nationwide without clear nexus requirements, and allows the AG to pick winners and losers in business disputes without meaningful oversight.
The bill removes incentives for PBMs to negotiate lower drug costs and may have the unintended consequence of increasing costs for employees, particularly those in school districts which opposed the bill. Concerns that costs will ultimately be passed to consumers and small business employees.
Criticized the bill as rushed legislation only three days old and questioned why redistricting was necessary without clear demographic analysis. Noted the Unified Court System and Onondaga County Bar Association urged deferral to the next session. Accused the majority of judge shopping and stacking courts, arguing that if they cannot win elections, they are forcing favorable courts to make decisions on elections.
Criticized the bill for stacking the Commission on Corrections with partisan appointments in violation of the Constitution, extending the statute of limitations for prisoner lawsuits, and failing to address staff shortages or officer safety concerns. Called for secure vendor programs, drug screening for visitors, HALT repeal, and listening to corrections officers.
Raised concerns about grid reliability and capacity, noting NYISO warnings about blackout risks. Questioned whether the bill adequately addresses the 514 current power outages and cited zero deaths from gas service loss versus 28 percent mortality increase during blackouts. Challenged the bill's definition of 'affordable' and who bears infrastructure costs.
Voted in opposition to the measure.
Voted against the bill; specific reasons for opposition not stated in transcript.
Voted in opposition to the measure.
Raised concerns about prefrontal cortex development at age 25 versus 18 eligibility, lack of required in-person physician visits, insufficient mental health evaluation, and potential for chronic conditions to qualify if treatment is refused.
Argued the bill could allow noise complaints from "jilted lovers" to trigger mandatory gun confiscation, potentially depriving New Yorkers of Second Amendment rights. Contended that existing law already allows police to arrest, separate, and protect victims, and expressed concerns the bill could remove firearms owned by victims or complainants themselves.
Questioned whether mental anguish and pain and suffering are adequately defined in the bill and whether every ratepayer experiencing bill shock could claim mental anguish. Argued the bill is part of an affordability package that won't actually reduce energy costs and that New York's high rates stem from regulatory environment and policies, not utility greed. Noted New York's residential electricity rates are 40 percent higher than Pennsylvania's.
The bill will spook the much larger U.S. corporate debt markets, is unilateral action on a global issue better suited for G20 forums, and could benefit hostile foreign actors like Russia and China. It contradicts the principle of honoring financial contracts and will force the financial sector out of state, costing New York $20 billion in annual revenue.
Raised concerns about food safety seals, PVC in water delivery systems, and Saran Wrap ban. Questioned whether markets for recycled materials will develop and noted 5-10 year USDA approval timelines for new packaging, making 12-year goals unrealistic.
He questioned the scientific basis for banning PFAS in paint, noting that fluoropolymers are considered low toxicity, non-bioavailable, and non-water soluble by the federal government. He raised concerns about economic impact on the $870 million paint market, potential consumer migration to neighboring states, and whether the ban would force use of older paint technology with higher emissions.
Opposed the bill on grounds that the New York State Board of Regents should not have authority to dictate which books local public libraries place on their shelves.
Criticized the Sustainable Futures Program as a $1 billion taxpayer investment that will not reduce energy bills and lacks clarity on megawatt output. Noted that highway funding programs (Extreme Winter Recovery, State Touring Route, PAVE NY, Pave Our Potholes, BRIDGE NY) remained flat while CHIPS received only $50 million increase. Argued the budget prioritizes NYC ($1 billion for City of Yes, $3 billion for MTA) over local roads and bridges.
Opposed the $700 million film tax credit continuation, citing poor return on investment of 31 cents per dollar. Argued the funds should be redirected to CHIPS, COLA increases for ARCs, soil conservation, EMS services, and other community programs.
Questioned the constitutional basis under Article VII Section 8 and Public Officers Law Section 74, noted the bill bypassed normal three-day aging requirements and was introduced only within the past week, and highlighted that the provision covers actions outside official employment with vague 'reasonably likely' standards for determining political motivation.
Opposed removal of nurse licensure compact and EMS essential services designation, noting 43 states have the compact and EMS services are critically understaffed.
Questioned how the bill would be enforced against foreign manufacturers and online retailers, noted that 30% of mattresses sold in the U.S. are foreign-made, raised concerns about international trade dumping issues, and criticized the lack of a defined consumer cost despite the bill's requirement that programs be 'free to the consumer.'
He argued the bill allows 25 customers to trigger investigations that could prevent utilities from collecting revenue for 15 months, exacerbating the $1.3 billion in existing arrears. He contended the real problem is state energy policy (CLCPA) driving up costs, not utilities, and questioned how utilities can function without collecting revenue.
Raised security concerns about applying the opt-out requirement to high-security facilities including data centers, chip manufacturers, nuclear power plants, airports, banks, and pharmaceutical research facilities. Questioned how security protocols could function if employees could opt out of biometric scanning.
Questioned whether private businesses, state-funded colleges, and major employers receiving government investment would be eligible locations, raising concerns about conflicts of interest. Noted that a bipartisan group of election commissioners does not support this bill and urged the chamber to listen to election officials rather than make frequent changes to election law.
College students with no other connection to a community should not oversee election integrity at poll sites. He raised concerns that the Board of Elections lacks mechanisms to verify citizenship, particularly given New York City's efforts to register noncitizens and reports of immigration lawyers requesting voter roll removals.
Destiny USA's 26 million annual visitors provide superior exposure for the Taste NY program and state agricultural products. The relocation process lacked input from Central New York municipalities and counties, and the move risks losing a valuable tenant partnership with the state. The Heritage Center does not receive comparable visitor traffic to justify the relocation.
Walczyk questioned whether the bill adequately defines abusive conduct and bullying, citing Governor Hochul's prior veto message on similar legislation. He pressed on whether the bill would require the Department of Corrections to separate violent inmates from staff and whether existing definitions in statute are sufficient.
Questioned the bill's funding source, noting that if RGGI funds are unavailable, NYSERDA might need to use systems benefit charges paid by ratepayers. Challenged the exclusion of corded electric devices and individual homeowners, arguing both are better for the environment than gas equipment and should be included if the goal is reducing emissions and noise pollution.
He cited the Comptroller and NYSERDA's $340 billion CLCPA cost estimate, calculating it as $177,000 per capita over 25 years. He characterized the bill as a joke regarding affordability.
Raised concerns about the expanded timeframe (2000-2024 vs. 2000-2018) increasing assessments, questioned exemptions for foreign government-owned entities like Saudi Aramco and PetroChina, and noted over 60% of NY electricity currently depends on fossil fuels.