[ THEME MUSIC ] >> WELCOME TO THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "NEW YORK NOW."

I'M SHANTEL DESTRA.

THE NEW YORK PROTECT OUR COURTS ACT IS A STATE LAW THAT PROHIBITS FEDERAL IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS FROM MAKING COURTHOUSE ARRESTS WITHOUT A JUDICIAL WARRANT.

BUT A NEW LAWSUIT BY THE FEDERAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS ATTEMPTING TO CHALLENGE THAT STATE LAW.

THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLEGING THAT THE STATE, QUOTE, PURPOSELY SHIELDS IMMIGRANTS FROM BEING LAWFULLY DETAINED AND IMPOSES UNLAWFUL CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS.

MEANWHILE, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL TISH JAMES MAINTAINS THAT THE STATE LAW PROTECTS VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES AND IS ACTIVELY WORKING TO DEFEND IT IN COURT.

WE SAT DOWN WITH STATE SENATOR BRAD HOYLMAN-SIGAL WHO SPONSORED THE ORIGINAL BILL TO UNPACK THE IMPENDING LAWSUIT AND THE STATE'S APPROACH TO IMMIGRATION RIGHTS.

HERE'S THAT CONVERSATION.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US HERE TODAY, SENATOR.

>> NICE TO SEE YOU.

NOW CAN YOU GIVE OUR VIEWERS SOME INSIGHT INTO WHAT THE NEW YORK PROTECT OUR COURTS ACT IS AND WHY IS THE LAW SO IMPORTANT TO NEW YORK?

>> NEW YORK STATE PROTECT OUR COURTS ACT, WHICH WE PASSED IN 2022, ENSURES THAT ICE, WHEN ENTERING COURTHOUSE GROUNDS HAVE A JUDICIAL WARRANT IF THEY SEEK TO ARREST AN UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT.

THAT IS WHOLLY WITHIN NEW YORK STATE'S JURISDICTION TO ENSURE THAT NEW YORKERS, WHETHER THEY BE UNDOCUMENTED OR CITIZENS HAVE DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS AND A RIGHT TO THEIR DAY IN COURT WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE BY ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

>> AND THE FEDERAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED A LAWSUIT TO CHALLENGE THE STATE LAW.

SO CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE BASIS OF THAT CHALLENGE, AND WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO THE LAWSUIT?

>> WELL, I WAS EXTREMELY ALARMED THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS ATTEMPTING TO USE SHAM, SELF-EXECUTING WARRANTS BY ICE TO ARREST NEW YORKERS WITHOUT THEIR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BEING FULLY EXECUTED IN THE COURT SYSTEM.

>> AND WHAT HAVE YOU HEARD FROM YOUR OWN CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THIS CHALLENGE?

IS THERE A SENSE OF WORRY THAT YOU'RE HEARING?

>> THERE'S CERTAINLY WORRY AMONG IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENT MANY OF THESE UNDOCUMENTED NEW YORKERS.

WE'RE CONCERNED THAT BY ICE ENTERING COURTHOUSES OR COURTHOUSE GROUNDS AND PICKING OFF INDIVIDUALS WHO THEY THINK ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW SENDS A CHILLING EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE IMMIGRATION COMMUNITY, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STATE OF NEW YORK AND WOULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN MANY INDIVIDUALS NOT COMING FORWARD.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE ARE WITNESSES TO A CRIME OR IN SOME INSTANCES, VICTIMS TO A CRIME.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DISPUTES.

>> AND AS CHAIR OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE STATE'S RESPONSE SHOULD BE TO THE CHALLENGE IN THIS MOMENT?

>> WELL, I'M VERY PROUD THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE RECOGNIZED THIS THREAT, ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHEN WE PASSED THIS LAW.

NOBODY KNEW THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS GOING TO BE ELECTED AGAIN AND USE ICE AS A CUDGEL TO SEEK WARRANTLESS ARRESTS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS AND, IN EFFECT, DISAPPEAR THEM OUT OF OUR COMMUNITIES.

I THINK THAT IT IS AN OUTRAGE SHARED BY NEW YORKERS ACROSS THE BOARD.

WE'RE VERY CONCERNED MOVING FORWARD ABOUT THE STATE'S ABILITY TO MANAGE THIS SITUATION, BUT I'M GLAD WE'RE IN COURT AND STILL, WE HAVE JUSTICE ON OUR SIDE AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL TISH JAMES WILL DEFEND OUR LAW TO THE BEST OF HER ABILITY AND I HOPE FOR A VICTORY.

>> AND IN THE EVENT THAT THE LAWSUIT IS NOT DISMISSED, WHAT SHOULD THE STATE BE DOING IN THE LONG TERM TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANT NEW YORKERS IN THE YEARS TO COME?

>> WELL, CERTAINLY AT THE CITY AND STATE LEVEL, WE NEED TO INVEST MORE RESOURCES INTO LEGAL SERVICES TO REPRESENT UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN COURT.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IF YOU'RE AN IMMIGRANT AND YOU'RE BEFORE A JUDGE AND ENGLISH MAY NOT BE YOUR FIRST LANGUAGE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME REPRESENTING YOUR SIDE OF THE CASE, WHETHER IT'S IN A STATE OR FEDERAL COURT.

SO WE'VE ADVANCED RESOURCES IN THE STATE BUDGET, BUT WE NEED TO DO MORE BECAUSE SO MANY IMMIGRANTS APPEAR IN COURT WITHOUT ATTORNEYS, AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE A FOCUS MOVING FORWARD IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO ENSURE THAT IMMIGRANTS GET THE LEGAL COUNSEL THEY NEED TO STAY IN THIS COUNTRY ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE ASYLUM SEEKERS AND FEARING PERSECUTION IN THEIR HOME NATIONS.

>> AND THIS LAWSUIT COMES AT A TIME WHERE WE'VE SEEN OTHER DIRECTIVES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN DEPTH TACKLING IMMIGRATION POLICY IN DIFFERENT SANCTUARY STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS SAYS ABOUT THE OVERALL TONE REGARDING ICE AND IMMIGRATION IN NEW YORK CURRENTLY?

>> WELL, SO MANY NEW YORKERS AND MY COLLEAGUES BELIEVE THAT ICE IS, IN EFFECT, A SECRET POLICE FORCE, MASKED TO ROUND UP UNDESIRABLE NEW YORKERS IN THE EYES OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION AND SHIP THEM TO FAR AWAY MEGA PRISONS.

AND SADLY, THERE'S A LOT OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT SUPPOSITION.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CLIMATE, THE TENOR, THE TONE TOWARD OUR IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES.

WE NEED TO DO MORE TO SUPPORT THEM WITH NOT JUST LEGAL SERVICES BUT SOCIAL SERVICES TO ALLOW THEM TO BEGIN THEIR LIFE HERE IN OUR STATE AND CONTRIBUTE TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND TO OUR LOCAL ECONOMIES.

>> AND IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU THINK CONGRESS SHOULD BE DOING TO HELP PROTECT THESE RIGHTS?

I'M CURIOUS IF YOU'VE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEW YORK CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION ON THIS MATTER.

>> WELL, I CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH OUR LOCAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO FEEL SIMILARLY THAT ICE IS OVERREACHED IN A WAY THAT IS APPALLING AND HAS NO PRECEDENT.

WE'RE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS.

WE SHOULD RESPECT PEOPLE WHO SEEK ASYLUM IN THIS COUNTRY, AND WE KNOW THAT IMMIGRATION IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR NATION'S AND OUR LOCAL ECONOMIES.

SO THE DISAPPOINTMENT, THE DISGUST, THE FEAR IS PALPABLE IN NEW YORK AND I WOULD VENTURE ACROSS THE ENTIRE NATION.

IMMIGRANTS AREN'T OUR ENEMIES.

THEY'RE OUR NEIGHBORS.

>> IS THE LEGISLATURE CURRENTLY CONSIDERING HOLDING A SPECIAL SESSION TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THREATS TO IMMIGRANT NEW YORKERS AT THIS TIME?

>> I WISH THERE'D BE CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL SESSION IN THAT REGARD, BUT THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SORT OUT IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECENTLY PASSED BUDGET RECONCILIATION BIL IN WASHINGTON INCLUDING DEVASTATING MEDICAID CUTS.

SO IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHETHER IMMIGRATION WILL BE A TOPIC OF ANY FUTURE POTENTIAL SPECIAL SESSION.

>> AND LASTLY, HEADING INTO THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR STRATEGY TO FURTHER PROTECT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANT NEW YORKERS?

DO YOU THINK THAT THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT IS A PRIORITY IN THE STATE BUDGET?

>> I CERTAINLY HOPE IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES WILL CONTINUE TO BE A PRIORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE IN BOTH HOUSES OF OUR STATE LEGISLATURE.

LEGISLATION CALLED 'THE ACCESS T REPRESENTATION ACT', AS MOVED IN PREVIOUS SESSIONS BUT NEVER PASSED FULLY BY EITHER HOUSE.

IT WOULD PROVIDE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN LEGAL SUPPORT FOR OUR IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES.

AT THE SAME TIME, THERE HAS TO BE BALANCED WITH OTHER NEEDS ACROSS THE STATE INCLUDING CUTS THAT WE FORESEE COMING IN THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR.

>> WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR NOW.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK WITH US TODAY, SENATOR.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> AND WE WERE SPEAKING WITH STATE SENATOR BRAD HOYLMAN-SIGAL, CHAIR OF THE STATE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >> AND FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THAT LAWSUIT, YOU CAN VISIT OUR WEBSITE.

THAT'S AT NYNOW.ORG.

IN THE FINAL DAYS OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES AND STATE LAWMAKERS WERE HOPEFUL THIS A BILL KNOWN AS THE PACKAGING REDUCTION AND RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE ACT WOULD MAKE IT OVER THE LEGISLATIVE FINISH LINE.

IF ENACTED, THE LEGISLATION WOULD REQUIRE LARGE COMPANIES TO REDUCE PACKAGING WASTE BY 30% OVER THE NEXT 12 YEARS.

WHILE PROGRESS ON THE BILL FAILED IN THE FINAL HOUR IN THE ASSEMBLY CHAMBER, THE BILL'S SPONSOR AND ADVOCATES ARE HOPING TO BUILD ON THEIR EFFORTS THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER MONTHS.

IN THIS NEXT SEGMENT, WE'LL HEAR FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER DEBORAH GLICK ON WHAT'S AHEAD FOR THE BILL.

HERE'S THAT CONVERSATION.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US HERE TODAY, ASSEMBLY MEMBER.

>> I'M VERY PLEASED TO BE WITH YOU TODAY.

>> NOW FOR OUR VIEWERS WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR, WHAT IS THE PACKAGING REDUCTION AND RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE ACT, AND WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO A STATE LIKE NEW YORK?

>> EVERYBODY THAT RECEIVES PACKAGING INTO THEIR HOMES SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THEY PAY FOR THE COST OF DISPOSAL.

THE MANUFACTURERS, THE PRODUCERS DO NOT.

BUT THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF PACKAGING OR WHAT IS IN THE PACKAGING IN TERMS OF TOXIC MATERIALS THAT COME INTO OUR HOMES, THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN ABILITY TO RESTRICT, SO THE PACKAGING REDUCTION WOULD SET CERTAIN STANDARDS FOR REDUCTION OVER TIME.

IT'S OVER 12 YEARS, WHICH IS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS' HORIZON, THEY HAVE TO REDUCE THE PACKAGING BY ONLY 30% SO IT'S NOT EVEN A HUGE ASK.

WE MADE ABOUT 26 CHANGES TO THE BILL OVER A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS TALKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS.

SO WE STARTED OUT WITH A MORE AGGRESSIVE PROPOSAL, BUT WE HAVE MADE SOME CHANGES.

IT ALSO REQUIRES THEM TO PAY A FEE BASED ON HOW MUCH PACKAGING.

THEY PAY LESS AS THEY SEND US LESS AND THOSE DOLLARS THAT ARE IN THE FUND GO TO HELP LOCALITIES EXPAND THEIR RECYCLING FACILITIES, UPGRADE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE.

THEREBY, HAVING SHARED COSTS BETWEEN TAXPAYERS, CONSUMERS, WHO ARE GENERALLY THE SAME, AND THE PRODUCERS.

SO WE ALSO ELIMINATE OF THE THOUSANDS OF CHEMICALS THAT ARE IN VARIOUS PACKAGING MATERIAL, WE RESTRICT THE USE OF 17, NOT IMMEDIATELY.

THEY HAVE FIVE YEARS TO GET RID OF THINGS LIKE LEAD, MERCURY, CADMIUM AND PFAS.

SO THAT'S THE BROADEST DESCRIPTION AND THOSE COMPANIES THAT ARE IMPACTED HAVE TO BE NOT SMALL BUSINESSES.

THEY HAVE TO HAVE REVENUES OVER $5 MILLION, AND THEY HAVE TO BE PRODUCING MORE THAN A TON OF WASTE.

SO IF IT IS A SMALL COMPANY THAT IS INVOLVED IN A REUSE AND REFILL OPERATION, THEY'RE EXEMPT.

SO THAT THE EASIEST THING THAT I CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD BE A REUSE AND REFILL IS IF PEOPLE HAVE PACKAGING THAT THEY CAN RETURN AND THEN IT GETS USED TO RETURN MATERIAL TO THEM.

SO THAT'S A CIRCULAR ECONOMY, AND THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS WE ALSO REQUIRE OVER TIME MORE RECYCLED MATERIAL IN THE PACKAGING.

SO THAT WE CREATE THAT CIRCULAR ECONOMY.

YOU HAVE TO USE MORE SO THE MUNICIPALITIES WILL HAVE A MARKET FOR THE THINGS THAT THEY ARE RECYCLING BECAUSE THAT RECYCLED MATERIAL WILL BE MORE VALUABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE-- THAT MATERIAL IS NEEDED TO BE CONTENT IN PACKAGING.

>> AND AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, THE BILL REQUIRES COMPANIES MAKING MORE THAN $5 MILLION A YEAR TO REDUCE PACKAGING WASTE BY 30% OVER THE NEXT 12 YEARS, SO HOW DID YOU IN THE SENATE SPONSOR LAND ON THESE FIGURES?

>> WELL, WE ACTUALLY STARTED BY DETERMINING WE HAVE A SOLID WASTE CRISIS.

WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF LANDFILL SPACE, AND SO WE BACKED INTO THIS AND WE ACTUALLY HAD, AS I SAID EARLIER, MORE AGGRESSIVE GOALS.

WE WANTED 50% OF PACKAGING REDUCED OVER 10 YEARS.

WE CAME TO THIS DIFFERENT REQUIREMENT BASED ON LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS.

WHAT IS POSSIBLE?

YOU HAVE EXISTING INVENTORY.

YOU HAVE TO USE UP WHAT'S IN THE PIPE LINE.

YOU HAVE THE MATERIAL STOCKPILED FOR USE.

THOSE KINDS OF THINGS AND SO WE GIVE TIMEFRAMES INCLUDING THE ELIMINATION OF TOXIC MATERIALS.

NOW I WILL SAY THAT IN OTHER PLACES LIKE EUROPE AND CERTAIN CANADIAN PROVINCES, THESE MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES ARE ALREADY REQUIRED TO DO MUCH OF THIS.

SO FOR THE BIGGEST COMPANIES, WE'RE NOT REINVENTING THE WHEEL.

THEY HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR WHY THEY CAN'T DO THIS.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF MOST BUSINESSES DON'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY'RE REQUIRED TO IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE WOULD NOT SEE SEAT BELTS IN CARS IF THE GOVERNMENT HADN'T HAD A SAFETY STANDARD THAT REQUIRED THEM.

SO REGULATION IS DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT.

WE TRY NOT TO MICRO MANAGE HOW THEY REDUCE THE PACKAGING.

WE THINK AMERICAN INDUSTRY ARE GREAT INNOVATORS, AND THEY WILL COME TO IT IN THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY OVER TIME.

WE JUST SAY, HEY, HERE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS-- HERE ARE THE BENCHMARKS.

>> AND THERE WAS, OF COURSE, A LOT OF ENERGY AROUND THIS BILL IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION THIS YEAR.

THE BILL DID GET PASSED IN THE SENATE BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT OVER THE LEGISLATIVE FINISH LINE IN THE ASSEMBLY.

SO CAN YOU UNPACK WHAT WENT ON THIS YEAR?

>> WELL, OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LOBBYING.

ESPECIALLY FROM THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL.

WE HAD MEETINGS.

I THINK THAT THERE WERE CONSUMER BRANDS THAT WERE CONCERNED.

THERE WERE -- AND WE RESPONDED TO MANY OF THOSE.

AND MADE CHANGES ALONG THE WAY.

WE-- ONE OF THE MAJOR CHANGES WAS THIS WAS NOT PRODUCT LINE BY PRODUCT LINE.

THIS WAS ACROSS COMPANYWIDE.

SO REDUCING 30%, IF THERE WAS A PARTICULAR PRODUCT THAT-- FOR WHICH THEY COULD NOT FIND AN ALTERNATIVE PACKAGING, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE, YOU KNOW-- THERE WAS LEEWAY FOR THAT.

BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PRODUCT LINE BY PRODUCT LINE.

IT WAS COMPANYWIDE.

SO THAT WAS A MAJOR ADVANTAGE TO BUSINESSES IN TERMS OF THEIR COMPLIANCE, AND I THINK THAT IN THE END, THE CHEMISTRY COUNCIL SPENT AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY.

IN FACT, THIS BILL HAD THE MOST AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT IN LOBBYING AGAINST IT OF REALLY ANY BILL THIS SESSION AND PERHAPS ANY BILL I'VE EVER SEEN.

SO THIS WAS-- AND A LOT OF SCARE TACTICS.

THINGS ARE GOING TO COST MORE.

YOU'RE USING LESS PACKAGING.

YOU'RE USING MORE RECYCLED CONTENT.

HOW IS THIS COSTING YOU MORE?

YOU'RE USING LESS MATERIAL.

YOU COULD SAY, WELL, WE HAVE TO RECONFIGURE OUR PROCESSES.

YES, BUT VERY SLOWLY OVER 10-- A 12-YEAR HORIZON.

REALLY, I THINK THE OTHER THING I DIDN'T MENTION WAS THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF CONTINUING TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WE DON'T HAVE LANDFILLS.

IT'S COSTING TAXPAYERS MORE TO DISPOSE OF THINGS.

YOU EITHER-- HOW DO YOU GET RID OF THINGS?

YOU RECYCLE AND REUSE.

YOU INCINERATE OR YOU BURY IT.

THAT'S A LANDFILL, IT'S BURYING.

THERE ARE IMPLICATIONS, HEALTH IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

SO IF YOU ARE INCINERATING, YOU ARE CREATING POLLUTION.

IF YOU ARE BURYING IT, THE LANDFILLS CREATE WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS LEACHATE, WHICH IS SORT OF SLURRY, A LIQUIDY DISSOLVE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, CONCENTRATED POLLUTION, AND THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH.

SO AND THE PACKAGING, ITSELF, EVERYBODY IS NOW AWARE OF MICRO AND NANOPLASTICS AND HOW THEY HAVE INVADED THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR OWN BODIES.

THE HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF WHICH WE ARE STILL NOT PERFECTLY CLEAR UPON, BUT IT CANNOT BE GOOD FOR YOU TO HAVE PLASTIC THAT IS A COMPOSITION OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN YOUR BODIES AND IN THE BODIES OF CHILDREN.

>> AND GIVEN THAT MOMENTUM THAT THE BILL HAD IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, HOW ARE YOU HOPING TO BUILD ON THAT IN THE SUMMER MONTHS?

AND WHAT ARE YOUR CURRENT CONVERSATIONS LIKE WITH THE ASSEMBLY SPEAKER ABOUT THIS BILL?

>> I THINK THAT WE CAME VERY CLOSE.

I THINK THE FINAL ANALYSIS, PEOPLE WERE MADE NERVOUS ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, AND THAT BECAME VERY IMPORTANT.

NOW WE WILL RAISE PEOPLE'S-- WE THOUGHT WE HAD SHARED ENOUGH MATERIAL WITH THEM THROUGH THE SESSION, BUT OUR FOCUS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THEIR FOCUS.

SO WE WILL REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS TO EDUCATE COLLEAGUES AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISN'T COST FREE.

YOU'RE PAYING FOR THE DISPOSAL, AND YOU-- IN YOUR TAXES OR IF YOU PAY A CARTING FEE, THIS IS AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT THAT ALSO HAS A HEALTH COST, AND SO WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS AND RAISE PEOPLE'S LEVEL OF COMFORT IN THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO COST THEIR CONSTITUENTS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE.

THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S NO IMPACT, STUDIES IN PLACES WHERE THIS HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED, THERE HAS BEEN NO DEMONSTRATABLE CHANGE IN THE COST OF PRODUCTS ON THE SHELF, BUT PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT THIS PAST YEAR.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER COSTS.

NOT JUST DISPOSAL, BUT THERE'S COSTS TO PEOPLE'S HEALTH.

ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT AS WE SEEK FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS ON SUPPORTIVE HEALTH CARE AND ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE, AND THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES THAT INVOLVE SOME OF THESE CHEMICALS AND THEN HAVING THESE CHEMICALS IN THEIR-- IN OUR HOMES WHERE THEIR CHILDREN CAN, YOU KNOW, INGEST MICROPLASTICS.

>> WELL, UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR TODAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK WITH US TODAY, ASSEMBLY MEMBER.

>> I AM VERY APPRECIATIVE OF YOU GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO-- TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION.

>> AND WE WERE SPEAKING WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER DEBORAH GLICK, CHAIR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >> AND FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE FUTURE OF THAT BILL, YOU CAN VISIT OUR WEBSITE.

AGAIN, THAT'S AT NYNOW.ORG.

YOU CAN ALSO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER BY GOING TO NEWSLETTER@NYNOW.ORG, OR BY SCANNING THE QR CODE ON YOUR SCREEN.

WELL, THAT DOES IT FOR THIS EDITION OF "NEW YORK NOW."

THANK YOU FOR TUNING IN AND SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >>ANNOUNCER: FUNDING FOR "NEW YORK NOW" IS PROVIDED BY WNET.