Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Announces Sweeping Legislation to Curb Smoking, Tobacco Usage

April 19, 2017

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Good afternoon, everyone. Wendy, would you like to open up?

[…]

Mayor: Thank you so much, Wendy.

Wendy, I just want to say I’m sorry you had to go through all of that and, obviously, your loved ones had to go through it. And I bet if we asked everyone in this room most of us have a story – I certainly do – of the people in our life who grew up in that times, as you said, when they were being told all the time it was okay; it was cool to smoke, and even in the years since are still too many people who unfortunately have ended up in the clutches of tobacco. And it just has a devastating impact on people’s lives. And I appreciate you coming forward to tell your story to make clear how important it is to fight this.

It is indeed and we will.

I want to thank our host as well – particularly Kathy Kauffmann who is the senior VP of the American Heart Association. Thank you, Kathy and to all of your colleagues for hosting us and for the important work you do fighting this scourge and you have been at the forefront, obviously, for decades. And we are here to talk about the things we’re going to do to take the next steps in this city in this fight.

I also want to note upfront the members of my team who are here and thank them for their work; Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Herminia Palacio, Commissioner for Consumer Affairs Lorelei Salas, our Finance Commissioner Jacques Jiha, and our Sheriff Joseph Fucito. You’re going to hear from some other folks in a moment obviously including our Health Commissioner and our councilmembers who are here and who are sponsors of key pieces of legislation. And I want to thank some other partners as well; The American Lung Association, The American Cancer Society, and The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. All of them have extraordinary records of fighting big tobacco and helping to turn the tide. But there is still more to do. And that is what brings us here today. Look, unfortunately, even after all of the fights, after all of the years, after all the victories big tobacco is still very strong in this country and big tobacco is public enemy number one when it comes to public health. We have a lot more we have to do and unfortunately sometimes when you’re fighting an enemy you think you have won only to find that that enemy takes a new shape.

We’re going to talk today about some of the new [inaudible] realities like e-cigarettes that are causing a whole new set of challenges. And we’re going to talk about how the tobacco industry is once again using the techniques of decades ago to hook people on a product. Smoking is – I am happy to say – through the efforts of all of the folks I mentioned earlier and so many others, smoking is down dramatically in the last 15 years in this city. There are still 900,000 New Yorkers who smoke. That is way too many. And too many are dying young as a result. The examples you just heard are not unfortunately rare. There are still too many people, too many families going through this.

Right now, in New York City, the top five causes of death, overall in this City, heart disease, cancer, pneumonia, respiratory diseases, and stroke. What do they have in common? All of them can be linked to tobacco use – every single one. Tobacco causes one in three heart disease deaths. And that is part of why we are here today at The American Heart Association to make clear that linkage.

What we’re going to do now to move forward on a plan that will hit tobacco hard on many different fronts and address the problem of smoking in a variety of ways that are going to reach down to the grassroots of this city. This package of five bills, we’ll be working with our City Council colleagues to pass and I know that when we pass these bills they will reduce smoking markedly and they will save thousands of lives. The goal overall, of this package, is to reduce the number of smokers in New York City by 160,000 by the year 2020. It is an ambitious goal, but a necessary one. It will bring us down to the lowest rate of smoking we would have ever had in our history – 12 percent of our population. And as with all initiatives in terms of health and safety that is not an end point that is our goal for the next three years. And then we intend to go farther after that.

I want to say upfront, that my predecessor Michael Bloomberg did extraordinary work in terms of fighting smoking and taking on the tobacco industry and New York City has led the way on so many elements of this fight. And with this new package of legislation we are going to go to an even higher level and be able to show folks all over the country the next things that are necessary to do to take on this challenge. Now, I want to be clear what we are up against – a multi-billion dollar industry, a very strong industry, very agile industry. It should have been long ago knocked back on its heels, but they keep coming back in new ways. And that is why we have to go at this problem with a whole variety of tolls. And we have to be very, very aggressive.

So the package before us first, licensing of e-cigarette retailers. You’re going to hear today from my colleagues just what a problem e-cigarettes have become in how they have become a gateway to the use of tobacco products. So, I will say upfront, to anyone who harbors the illusion that e-cigarettes are a fine alternative, they are not. They are dangerous because they are addicting onto themselves and unfortunately for too many people are just a step on the way to tobacco use.

We’re going to license e-cigarette retailers the same way we license traditional cigarette retailers. Now, here is a statistic that should shock everyone. According to the Surgeon General, e-cigarette us is up 900 percent among high school students in this country just in the four years from 2011 to 2015. That is a shocking amount of growth. In this city right now, almost 16 percent of our high school students, according to a Department of Health survey, are smoking e-cigarettes. And Dr. Bassett will tell you about the nicotine and the dangerous chemicals in those e-cigarettes.

Now, again if there is any illusion that somehow e-cigarettes are better or they are okay – they are not okay because of what is in them already and the health challenges that they present onto themselves. They are not okay because they are clearly being used and end up being used as a gateway to tobacco use. But just to be clear that the industry knows that and there is a clear strategic linkage. They are trying to get people – particularly young people to become addicted to e-cigarettes so they will ultimately use other products as well. And they are literally borrowing the same advertising approaches of the time that you heard about before of 50, 60 years ago. Here is an example – you see on these easels behind me, but I will hold one up just to make it easier. Here is a cigarette ad from the 1960s. This is the star of the television series Gunsmoke promoting LNM cigarettes and talking about how they are healthier than they were. And here is an e-cigarette ad from the brand Blu. And you can see just an updated version, exact same thing. A guy who would be regarded as cool and admirable and the cigarette in these instances somehow complete the man. That is what is being pushed here. But what is so shocking is as a society nothing has changed, just as bad, just as much trying to play on people’s emotions and hopes to get them to partake in the dangerous product. And if you look at the easels, you can take a look afterwards, it is just striking. There is almost no difference in the approach, no matter how information came out over the years of the dangers of smoking. This industry is shameless. Again, just to make the point clearer, more and more the e-cigarette industry is the tobacco industry – major tobacco giants are buying the e-cigarette brands and promoting them. It is not a disconnect, it is now a coordinated strategy more and more.

So we will go at that through a variety of means including licensing. And I want to be very clear that we’re going to have to be very aggressive because big tobacco is spending billions. They are spending billions of dollars on advertising like this. They are spending billions of dollars in a systematic effort to addict people. So I make the point even more bluntly, you can make a parallel here to the kind of serial killers we read about, tragically, in the news. And we see each and every time they follow a pattern; well,  big tobacco is following a pattern – convincing young people in droves to partake of e-cigarettes knowing that for so many of them it will be the pathway to traditional cigarettes and potentially a lifetime of smoking; with all the dangers that come with it.

We want to draw a line here in New York City to stop that; through licensing, through public education, with every means we have. The second item of the plan raises the minimum price of cigarettes and tobacco products and it is clearly one of the best ways to drive down use particularly among young people; raising the minimum price for the pack from $10.50 to $13. That is the highest price floor in the nation when we achieve it. We think that alone is going to substantially reduce smoking. And we will be also the first in the nation to be setting a price floor on other types of tobacco products as well.

The third point, we’ll be reducing the number of places that sell these products. In fact it is quite striking; there are 29 times more tobacco retailers in New York City than there are Starbucks, so it’s everywhere. Tobacco is everywhere. It’s just too easy to get. We’re going to change that by capping the number of licenses available in each community.

Fourth point – and this one makes so much sense it’s amazing that it’s still the reality in our society. There are pharmacies that sell dangerous products. There are pharmacies that sell cigarettes and other tobacco products. There are pharmacies that sell e-cigarettes. Pharmacies that are supposed to be the place we turn for health – pharmacies that more and more are supposed to be helping to take care of the whole person – the whole family. On the other hand, they are selling a dangerous product that’s making people sick. It doesn’t make sense. If you are in the health business, you shouldn’t be peddling a product that kills people. It’s as simple as that.

Now, I want to tell you there are some good actors, and you’re going to hear from a great gentleman who will talk about what a lot of the smaller and family-run, and independent pharmacies have done of their own volition. I want to commend them. I also want to say there are some big companies – CVS is a great example. CVS made a decision three years ago to stop selling tobacco. I want you to know – this was a very brave decision. It probably meant about a $2 billion loss in annual sales. But they did the right thing. And they stayed true to the mission that they were supposed to have as a company. Unfortunately, there are other businesses that aren’t following that same moral imperative. Major pharmacy chains, like Walgreens, Duane Reade, and Rite Aid, still sell cigarettes and tobacco products; giving health with one hand, taking it away with the other. We believe they could follow the lead of the independents and CVS and just do the right thing right now, but if they’re not going to, we’ll work together to pass this bill to force their hand.

Finally fifth point, last point, we need to encourage folks to ask the right questions. If they’re thinking of living somewhere in particular, what’s the environment they’re going to be in, they’re families going to be in, will it be healthy, will it be safe? People have a right to know if they move into a building to live, what the rules are related to smoking. Now, I understand by law that landlords have the right to allow smoking on private property, but tenants also have rights, and they should know what the ground rules are if they have to expect that they’ll encounter second-hand smoke, and that may cause them to think that’s not a place they want to live. And that will put pressure, market-pressure, on landlords to create stronger policies.

These five elements of the plan will fundamentally change the reality. And there will be a fight over this – I guarantee it – in the coming months. This legislation is all about to proceed in the Council. You’ll hear from my colleagues in a minute. There will be a fight over it. And big tobacco watches New York City very carefully. We’re obviously the biggest single market in the country. So expect a fight. And we know historically, they’ve stopped at nothing. But we are resolved to beat them, and to turn the tide here in New York City.

A few words in Spanish.

[Mayor de Blasio speaks in Spanish.]

I mentioned that I was going to introduce to you someone I really appreciate and admire. He is the owner of a pharmacy in Staten Island called the Super Health Pharmacy, and he lives up to that name because of the choice that he has made. It is my honor to introduce Mayank Parikh.

[...]

Mayor: Thank you. Really want to express my admiration for the way you’ve approached things, and the way you treat your customers, or as you say – your patients, which is the right way to think about it. But I know that you and a lot of other smaller pharmacies gave up a lot of money, bluntly, by making that decision. But you put the health care of your customers first. So I just want to thank you. It’s really admiral the way you’ve handled it.

Now, someone who feels this matter very passionately and has spent a lot of her professional life fighting this battle and has been a big part of the success here in this city, our Health Commissioner Dr. Mary Bassett.

Commissioner Mary Bassett, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you also to our host today, the American Heart Association. As all of you know, cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of death in our country, our state, and our city. Thank you to the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services, Dr. Palacio, and my fellow commissioners who have worked with the Health Department on this as well –Commissioner Salas, Commissioner Jiha; to the Health Committee Chair, Councilmember Johnson, Councilmembers Lander, and Cabrera. Thank you very much for bringing us to this day. And Councilmember Torres, I believe is not here. But we are also very grateful to him. And of course, the advocacy community – some of whom I expect are in the audience today – who have been so important to the public health progress and tobacco control.

It really has taken a lot of people to bring this package together. And the Health Department is extremely excited to reach this day. It’s hard to imagine that it was only 15 years ago that it was almost acceptable that one out of every five New Yorkers – adult New Yorkers – smoked cigarettes. But through concerted, sustained government action, that proportion fell from 21.5 percent to 14.3 percent today. It’s been a remarkable achievement, but we still have, as the Mayor has noted, 900,000 adults in New York who smoke, 15,000 youths in our city – high school students who smoke. And we know that about a third of current smokers who if they continue smoking will face death from a smoking-related condition. So the risk over a lifetime is real and substantial, so what we are here today talking about is saving lives.

This package of bills, built on the same general strategy that the Health Department has promoted for a long time. We want to make it easier to quit and harder to smoke. And these bills do exactly that. They do it by limiting availability and accessibility. You’ve heard about the limit to retail sales. Pharmacies will no longer sell cigarettes. Retail tobacco licenses will be capped and set at 50 percent of the current level by community districts. And no new tobacco licenses will be reached until we fall below that 50 percent line. New York City has very dense collection of retail outlets. We have some 9,000 of them. We expect that over a period of 10 years, we will get well below 6,000.

So we also are reigning in e-cigarettes. And the Mayor has talked a lot about the explosive growth of e-cigarettes. And the absolutely rapacious behavior – I mean we’ve talked together often about microbes and lower-life forms. But today we are also talking about some lower lifeforms in the form of tobacco companies, and the marketing of these products is so clearly aimed at youth. It’s by the flavorings, and the use of popular figures, that it’s definitely a replay of an old playbook.

We’ve also talked about price. The importance of price as a public health tool for tobacco products has been recognized for a long time. People don’t buy products as the price goes up. It limits consumption. And the laws as you’ll hear are going to be setting minimum prices, raising it for cigarettes, setting it for the first time for other tobacco products. And we are very pleased that people will be getting more information that they need in residential buildings to protect themselves from the second-hand smoke, so that they at least know what the smoking policy is in a building.

I was 16 years old when I went into a pharmacy with an 18-year-old friend and bought my first pack of cigarettes. And I smoked for another 15 years. That won’t be possible anymore in our city. And thankfully in a growing number of cities across the country, so we are here today talking about advancing the health and well-being of all New Yorkers, saving lives, preventing tobacco-related illnesses – saving money because these preventable illnesses are costly to care for. I want to thank the Mayor again and the Council members and all those people who helped make this possible.

Thank you Mr. Mayor.

Mayor: Thank you Commissioner. Now, I want you to hear from the three council members who are taking the lead on these key pieces of legislation. I want to start with a crucial partner in this effort because he is the Chair of the Committee on Health, and he has worked with us on so many important initiatives, and I want t thank the councilmember for that – also, the sponsor of Intro 1544 which sets the price floors [inaudible].

[...]

Mayor: Thank you, Corey. Corey, thank you. I think it’s very important – and I admire your honesty – but it’s really important for people to be reminded what a grip nicotine has on people. And in a world of too many addictive challenges, how supremely addictive this particular chemical is, and what it does to people. So I think it’s admirable. I’m sorry it’s been a struggle. And I believe that you will overcome it, the way you’ve overcome the other challenges. But this one is different, and we have to treat it even more aggressively as a result. Thank you for your leadership.

And now I want to turn to someone who is a Council member, but he has another job too. He’s a pastor, and therefore he knows plenty about working with people on their personal realities, and their challenges, and the things they are trying to overcome, and the things that they struggle with. And so you clearly understand with something like e-cigarettes how this is creating a whole new set of problems, particularly for young people. And so, as the sponsor as the licensing bill for e-cigarettes, I want to thank you and sponsor of Intro. 1532, Councilmember Fernando Cabrera.

[...]

Mayor: Well said, well said. Finally, want to introduce my Council member, from my community, and he’s been a leader on a number of issues, and in this case, he will be leading the way on the tobacco ban in pharmacies, which I think is going to be a huge piece of this, and once and for all say pharmacies should be a place for health only. Thank you for your leadership Councilmember Brad Lander.

[...]

Mayor: Thank you for that historical perspective. Okay, we’re going to take questions on this legislation, this proposal, and then we’ll go to other topics as well. Anna?

Question: Eric Garner was killed because he was selling loose cigarettes. Why, like how would this bill stop people from selling loose cigarettes, or are you guys thinking that that might increase too?

Mayor: I think that’s a different challenge, honestly. I’ll turn to Dr. Bassett. We’re trying to address a number of pieces of the equation. And again, my predecessor did a fine job going out key pieces of this, like getting cigarettes out of bars and restaurants. We have to keep employing a whole host of new strategies to keep driving down the amount of smoking. But I know if we – what our best approach is on that question.

Commissioner Bassett: Sure, I’m going to take that question as not a question about policing techniques, but a question about the problem of the illegal sale of cigarettes that are untaxed. And that is a concern that, of course, we have that we share with the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Department of Finance which are responsible for the enforcement of both taxes and the correct handling of tobacco sales. We will – for the first time, have a license that covers both cigarettes and tobacco sales, and we’ll have license that as Councilmember Lander just explained will be in the situation that if you lose it, it’s gone.

So we expect that the fact that the illegal sale of cigarettes by stores can result in the eventual revocation of a tobacco license. We’ll help ensure that people adhere to the guidance and the legal requirements for tobacco sales. So, we expect that this will successfully reduce the sale of unstamped, untaxed tobacco products in retail outlets, which is a principle setting for the sale of untaxed – illegal sale of untaxed illegally imported tobacco products.

Mayor: Okay, other questions?

Question: If I might ask a two-part question. One, if you raise the price floor from $10.50 to $13, what would be the actual price of a pack of cigarettes in New York City because does that include the State [inaudible] tax and the City tax? I know that those are all components.

Commissioner Bassett: Well, the – I’m happy to answer it. I just wanted to defer to the Councilmember.

Mayor: We’re all deferring to you Mary.

[Laughter]

Commissioner Bassett: The minimum price, as Councilmember Johnson would explain – and thank you for giving me the chance to answer the question – sets a price. So at $13 a pack, New York City will once again have the most expensive pack price in the nation. That means that you can’t sell a pack of cigarettes for less than that. It includes – that price will include the various taxes, which also are still in effect. But it basically just sets the price. You can sell a pack of cigarettes for more, but not for less.

Question: The second part, do you have data or can you give us statistics about what New York City smoking population looks like by income level. I have seen some concerns from people that increasing prices in this way could be unduly burdensome on low income New Yorkers who maybe smoke more than wealthier New Yorkers. Do you – who smokes by income level?

Commissioner Bassett: You’re right to point out that there are demographic variabilities in who smokes and who doesn’t in this city. Men are more likely to smoke than women. Probably the most important determinant is education level, with people with less than college education, less than high school education being progressively more likely to smoke. And that, of course, educational level is often a correlate with income. We don’t see the kind of variability by race for example; while blacks and whites have about the same smoking rate in our city. You’re framing – cigarettes smoking as though it’s a benefit. And I just want to make it clear that, true, it is a regressive tax in the sense that it is a flat tax. No matter what your income is you presently pay the same tax or the price is a flat price so it can’t be lower than $13. But for people who whom this will be an incentive not to smoke I say that is a good deal.

Mayor: Jillian?

Question: Just to kind of follow up on Laura’s question. Is there a concern that though if lower incomes are already aren’t stopping people from smoking which is an expensive habit – I guess how much data is there to show that making cigarettes more expensive will make those people stop smoking. Or will it just make them have less money in their wallet?

Mayor: Let me start and pass to Dr. Bassett. Look, we have to remember there is a whole series of tools being employed here. So you have seen the very vivid advertisements the City of New York sponsors to show people what the effects of smoking are, to make available help. If someone wants to quit, there are a lot of ways to get help. And they are free and available. It doesn’t mean it is easy and Corey’s testimony is powerful, it is not easy. But I want to be really appreciative of the history in this city of really illustrating the problem, but also making a solution readily available. Obviously [inaudible] in our whole public health apparatus which is huge in this city. And also by changing the culture – because we’re all affected by the culture around us. So, by making smoking less acceptable, less pervasive, less available all these things do affect behavior.

To the previous point, and yours – you know – we want to use every tool we have to convince people to stop smoking even if it is tough. And price is one of the things that dictate human behavior. So take it from this.

Commissioner Bassett: And I think you framed it exactly correctly. And there really is every reason to think that everybody who is a smoker can successfully quit. Many people attempt many times and may for whatever personal experience may be of value. I certainly quit many times. I smoked until I was a doctor in training. So, I certainly knew better, but eventually most people who attempt to quit do succeed. And the City has worked very forcefully to make nicotine replacement therapy, which greatly increases the likeliness that your quit attempt will be successful readily available to people by working in concert with the State.

Mayor: Marcia.

Question: Mr. Mayor, can I add?

Councilman Brad Lander: I would just encourage people to remember that helping people quit, not only saves their lives but also saves them a lot of money. So, a great way to help low income people be less low income is to help them quit smoking and there is a lot of evidence that a higher price does that.

Question: You’re increasing the price of a pack of cigarettes by $2.50. Will the City be able to increase taxes, so that it would go into city [inaudible] or will the people who sell the cigarettes get an extra $2.50? And if that is the case, are you at all concerned that there may be a black market or people trying to evade the law in order to sell them cheaper?

Mayor: A couple of answers and then my colleagues may want to jump in. We’ve gone down this road, sadly, too many times, Marcia. If we had the power to make our own tax policy it would be very, very different in this city. And we don’t, unfortunately, and the vast majority of areas we have to go to Albany for approval. We do have the ability to price set in different ways. Now, the reason I am at peace here is we’ve seen these price increases drive down demand. And so it clearly nets out in favor of health and ultimately the more you drive down demand the more you put big tobacco out of business.

So, you know, it is one of those things in life where you choose sometimes a means to get to an end that may not be perfect, but it is towards a good deal. And we know it works.

But if we had the ability to tax ourselves, we would do that and then we would put that money into good uses here. On the black market question, sure there is a huge black market. It is a big problem. And we can talk about some of the enforcement efforts – the Finance Department, Sheriff Department, Consumer Affairs is a very, very aggressive enforcement effort and it is growing, but it is a big problem nonetheless and a lot of that – a lot of those cigarettes come from out of state, from jurisdictions that don’t regulate it as much as we do. And it really does create another challenge to public health that a certain number of cigarettes are getting through that are not at the price that discourages people. But that doesn’t stop us from recognizing, if you can go at the place of most people are buying – let’s face it most people are buying through normal legal means. If you can go at that, make it less appealing to people, that makes a big difference.

Anyone want to add?

Commissioner Bassett: The only thing that I would add to that is that the fact that the tobacco licenses will be capped. And that if you lose you tobacco license because you have been selling untaxed cigarettes or selling to minors or selling flavored cigarettes, you will not be able to get it back. So, in that sense we’re hopeful that we’ll have more good citizenship on the part of people who hold retail tobacco licenses.

Question: [Inaudible] if you’re selling it below the $13 price.

Commissioner Bassett: Yes.

Mayor: Yeah, and I want to note –

Commissioner Bassett: I mean – it’s a process.

Mayor: It’s not overnight, but that is the ultimate penalty. And I want to note, again, between Sheriff, Consumer Affairs, Finance, that they are in a position to exact a lot of fines as a result of this legislation, serious dollar figures. And again in some cases as high a penalty as removing a license or even putting a business out of business. So, it is very serious stuff. I think the sheriff wants to tell us a little about this.

Sheriff Joseph Fucito: Yes, certainly. I am a little short, so maybe it is a good idea to stand up.

[Laughter]

Sheriff: Okay, so – first off my name is Joe Fucito. I am the sheriff of the City of New York. I have been with the Sheriff’s Office for 30 years and I first have to say that we have done more cigarette tax enforcement in the last two years than we have in the history of the Department. We have done very, very big things. And we have used, as the Mayor said, different tools in the tool box. Unfortunately, a lot of the problems in New York City start outside New York City. So one of the things we decided is we were going to gather the data from our strong regulatory inspections. So, we go out, we inspect locations; we have the right to look at their inventory, their stock. If they are found having untaxed product we have the right to make an arrest; we have the right to make a seizure. There is felony level, there is misdemeanor level, and there is a whole series of tax penalties. But that is not the only answer to the problem. That is one piece of it. In our dialogues with the individual store owners we develop leads on where the traffic king; where are the networks that are moving the cigarettes into New York City. We feel that that is very important.

The question about Eric Garner – that is a small localized issue. We want to stop the flow coming into the City. And we go to its source – so last year we ran a major investigation in Virginia where we had a network that was shipping anywhere from 7,000 to 10,000 cartons of cigarettes a week. We had deputy sheriffs from New York City go down, work with the sheriff in Virginia, and do surveillance, electronic, physical. We did seizures; we did search warrants and we shut that network down. That network was costing the City and State over $24 million in tax revenue. That was one network. And we do four to five of those types of investigations a year. So we have a very aggressive policy that consist of regulatory, criminal investigation, and finally strong civil tax penalties. If you are found with untaxed product there is a civil tax penalty that gets docketed as a tax warrant. We have placed liens on real property. We have directed the sale of property, the seizure of property. And we are continuing to use that combined strategy to tackle these issues. So all of these new pieces of legislation will piggy back ion what already exists and in place. We are going to use the same staff and while they are looking at the cigarette product they are going to look at the OTP product, they are going to look at the other aspects of it and then we work jointly with the other agencies. We’re continuing to use that combined strategy to tackle these issues. So all of these new legislation – pieces of legislation will piggy back on what is already existing and in place. We’re going to use the same staff and while they are looking at the cigarette product they are going to look at the OTP product, they are going to look the other aspects of it and then we work jointly with the other agencies. We are not n a vacuum. This is not [inaudible] we only look at the sheriff items. We contact DCA. We tell DCA what we found. DCA tells us. We do joint inspections with DCA, so we have very, very strong proactive approaches to enforcing the City’s tax law.

Mayor: Thank you. The sheriff is in town.

[Laughter]

Who else – go ahead.

Question: Do you have any numbers on the sales of cigarettes in the City and how you expect them to decrease [inaudible]?

Mayor: It’s a damn good question.

Commissioner Bassett: It’s a good question.

Mayor: We will get you a follow up on that.

Go ahead, Melissa.

Question: [Inaudible] tax of cigarettes within the overall sales on the New York City area already selling at $13 or above. I know smoker friends who complain that they were already paying $14 a pack. So how many cigarettes –

Mayor: You mean, just like a retail decision to that on their own?

Question: [Inaudible]

Councilmember Corey Johnson: It really depends on the part of the City.

Commissioner Bassett: The amount was set based on driving up the average price by about 20 percent. So on average, it’s higher by 20 percent.

Question: Follow up on Marcia’s question because I was going to ask about that too. Is there any scenario in which the difference to get to $13 is not made up by increased taxes and therefore does end up in the pockets of the tobacco companies?

Mayor: Mary, do you want to describe – again, we don’t have direct taxation authority. So, Marcia’s question which I commend points out the unfortunate reality – we don’t have the taxation authority. If we did, we would do this is a tax. It’s a price increase. It is a mandated price increase. Companies unfortunately do get that money in, but since we’re driving down demand we think it nets out in favor of both health and ultimately knocks down the customer base.

Commissioner Bassett: That’s right. Just to recap, the companies –

Mayor: Let’s recap.

Question: Retailers keep that money from the increased prices, right? Nothing is returned to the City or to any smoking [inaudible]?

Mayor: It is not a tax in that sense.

Question: In terms of NYCHA, I know that at the end of last year I believe the federal government said that all public housing needed to be smoke free in 18 months. I am wondering if the City is doing anything on a faster timeline with NYCHA. And since you’re the landlord you wouldn’t necessarily wait for legislation to pass, you could go ahead and make those changes now.

Mayor: It is a big change and it is something we are committed to, but we are on the timeline that was dictated by the federal government. If anyone has any specifics to add I welcome them, but by in large look, this is a – it’s a very extensive set of rules. We’re going to spend a lot of time educating people and preparing them for the change. We intend to implement it fully and on time. But I’m not – at this point – sure we can do it earlier than the schedule laid out.

Okay, way in the back.

Question: Mr. Mayor, I am wondering [inaudible] what the current status of the requirements for anti-tobacco education is in City schools and if there was any discussion in this legislation about [inaudible].

Mayor: Anti-tobacco education in schools – okay, I am not an expert on that.

Anyone want to speak to that?

Alright – unless any one can speak to that we are going to get back to you on that one too.

Willy?

Question: Three similar packages of measure was presented to you in the second half of 2015. A year ago in March on ESPN you said [inaudible] anti-tobacco measures you were putting them forward and other [inaudible] in the coming weeks. If it is an issue of saving lives as people in New York are dying every day because of tobacco use, why wait so long?

Mayor: Because of the balance of priorities that we had to deal with. Since we came in we have been focused on opening up whole new veins in the fight for health and safety. Obviously, Thrive NYC in terms of mental health; Vision Zero in terms of reducing traffic fatalities everything we have been doing to drive down murder and other tragic outcomes in terms of crime. We were balancing a lot of factors. We were doing a lot of work with the Council on a number of fronts as well; and including things that were beyond the question of health and safety but other crucial public policy areas. And it was a question of sequencing everything. We knew this was important, but we had to get it right and we had to get it in the right sequence.

Question: Can you explain what that means – sequencing?

Mayor: It means there is a lot going on.

Question: Are you saying you didn’t have the bandwidth to do more things?

Mayor: Again, you’re talking about a legislative process and you’re talking about the work that has to be done to perfect each package and make sure it is ready to be achieved in the Council and implemented. It is literally a matter of sequencing, as soon as we thought we could get it done the right way we were ready to do it.

Go ahead.

Question: How many users of e-cigarettes go on to use regular cigarettes? And can you talk about the math at how you arrived at 160,000 fewer smokers?

Commissioner Bassett: The data on e-cigarettes are that about 16 percent of high school students have reported that they have smoked e-cigarettes in the past 30 days. Adult usage is much lower. It is something like six percent. And many adult users are also tobacco users. But your precise question, how many are going back and forth. I am not aware of any data that would help us answer that. It certainly is true that somebody who uses e-cigarettes is becoming to addicted to nicotine. And if they are unable to locate an e-cigarette they will buy tobacco products to address their nicotine cravings. You asked about how we came up with the idea that if we move from 14.3 percent of New York City adult smokers to 12 percent would be 160,000 fewer – it’s the back of an envelope calculation. I can show it to you.

Question: If I can just follow up – you guys said that e-cigarettes are a gateway drug to regular cigarettes. Can you back that up with statistics saying x percentage of e-cigarette users go on to smoke standard traditional cigarettes.

Commissioner Bassett: The – what the Mayor was describing was a marketing strategy that looks exactly like many of us who are old enough remember tobacco products being marketed. There are some people who make the case that e-cigarettes are a sensation tool. But if you look at the marketing this is not trying to get people to take up e-cigarettes as the way of not smoking tobacco. This is a strategy of trying to glamorize a form of nicotine addiction. Additionally, the industry has invested heavily in e-cigarettes with the major tobacco companies, Reynolds [inaudible], Philip Morris owning e-cigarette companies. So, I would describe this is as an inference that is plausible and it is extremely worrying. The fact that we have seen this explosion of use of e-cigarettes along with all the marketing clearly aimed at youth – trying to encourage them to use e-cigarettes – suggest that it is a plausible concern.

Mayor: I mean – just to put a point on it. From everything we know of the e-cigarettes so far they are dangerous onto themselves. Obviously more studies are being done because they are fairly new in our world. But the nicotine is clearly addictive. There are other chemical elements that cause a lot of concerns about health and then the crossover that we see happening and we’re concerned about. But we can also put together other backup information to show you how some of that conclusion was reached.

Commissioner Bassett: I mean some of this – we have no idea what it means to be a 15-year-old who smokes e-cigarettes and smokes them for the next 50 years.

Mayor: It hasn’t been around.

Commissioner Bassett: Because they haven’t been around. But why should we run that kind of natural experiment.

Question: Under your bill, capping the number of bodegas, etcetera that would be permitted to sell cigarettes and tobacco products. What happens if a bodega sells to somebody else? Does the bodega – does the second successor bodega get the license of it goes to the cap?

Councilman Lander: I mean if it is a change of business and ownership you don’t transfer the license automatically. Let me let the Consumer Affairs Commissioner give the answer to this question as they give the licenses.

Department of Consumer Affairs Commissioner Lorelei Salas: If the business is in good standing the license could be transferred.

Question: And it would not factor into the cap.

Commissioner Salas: Right, it would not.

Question: What is the cap number?

Councilman Lander: The cap number is going to be calculated at 50 percent of the current number – today’s number. Is it by health district or community district?

Unknown: Community.

Councilman Lander: By community district. So –

Question: [Inaudible]

Councilman Lander: It’s about 9,000.

Commissioner Salas: It’s over 8,000 – 8,000.

Question: [Inaudible]

Commissioner Salas: I’m sorry.

Question: What are the criteria for losing your license?

Commissioner Salas: So there a couple of violations that can trigger revocation of a license like unlicensed activity and sales to minors. So if you are found guilty of violating these laws within a period of three years, two of those violations can trigger revocation.

Question: If you have a license and you do everything right, you can’t lose it?

Commissioner Salas: Right. You will not lose it.

Councilmember Lander: Unless you are a pharmacy in which case the other bill would reduce the –

Mayor: Let me go to – anyone who has not had a question yet?

Question: About the pharmacy thing; can you talk a little bit more how you would encourage Duane Reade or Rite Aid, who gets a lot of money from these cigarettes, to get of rid of selling them?

Councilman Unknown: Well, by making it illegal.

[Laughter]

Mayor: A smart way.

Councilman Lander: There has been a campaign – look, CVS got a lot of love for doing it and people did follow up and say – the American Heart Association or other advocates could talk about this. CVS was persuaded it was the right thing to do. There has been pressure on the other big chains to do the same thing. They have not. We’re proposing to do it by legislation.

Question: So in other words, persuade them to do it and if not make it illegal?

Councilman Unknown: No, the legislation proposes to make it illegal.

Mayor: No – goes straight to illegal. I do think it will have a pressure effect that if the end is near maybe they will seek salvation and they will suddenly reform themselves. And any day sooner is good for everyone. But no, this is straight up. It’s going to be a legal mandate.

Councilman Lander: And hopefully they will choose to do that beyond New York City, right? CVS decided to stop nationwide. Our law will only cover New York City, but I sure hope that it will help encourage the other chains to stop selling them.

Mayor: By the way, for anyone who needs [inaudible]. Isn’t there a Duane Reade in the ground floor of this building? So, you’ll be able to see plenty of cigarettes right there at the “pharmacy” that sells cigarettes. Go ahead, rich.

Question: Mr. Mayor, have you ever smoked cigarettes?

Mayor: No. My dad unfortunately as you heard in everyone else story, my dad was two packs a day, Winstons, Marlboros. It was horrifying to watch and definitely had a huge horrible impact on his health. And I could see it progressing over the years when I was a kid. So, no I’m in that group that was scared straight to never even try one. And my brothers are the same way. Everyone was deeply affected by the experience.

Mayor: Who has not gotten a question – way back.

Question: Just to clarify – the City doesn’t have any plans to try to reach out or have any conversation with these big pharmacies before pushing legislation. You’re introducing the bill and that should be the pressure?

Mayor: I’ll start and my legislative colleagues can jump in. I think – they got the memo a long time ago that this is bad thing. They consciously decided to keep doing it. The independent pharmacies overwhelmingly made the decision, even against their business interest, to get rid of cigarettes. CVS very commendably made the decision. I think the time of persuasion is over. It is time for a more forceful solution.

Councilman Lander: I’ll just add here, the bill was introduced a while ago and there was follow up with the other chains after CVS stopped selling. So the threat has been out there while, the persuasion has been trying to take place. And it is time to move forward with the legislation.

Question: You praised former mayor Bloomberg for all the work he had done on this issue. Did your administration have any conversation with him or with Bloomberg to [inaudible] they continue to do on this issue?

Mayor: I have not. Now, the Health Department, obviously, a lot of folks in the Health Department have been here the whole time through. I said when I ran one of the areas I am most agreed with Michael Bloomberg on was public health. And so, we have kept a lot of the same approaches and a lot of the same personnel. So I don’t know if there has been an ongoing discussion with the philanthropies. But right off of his strategies – the deepening of the public education efforts continued. And the notion was we were on a track we were continuing as you heard from Councilman Johnson. We’ve gotten down to our lowest rate ever at this point, but it is not enough. And we’ve got to go a lot farther and that is what sparked this. But we would be happy to work with them.

Commissioner Bassett: As the Mayor mentioned, when I worked for the Health Department before I was a Deputy Commissioner responsible for this part of the Health Department’s work., And I was just recollecting this morning that we came up with the idea of a reduction strategy must’ve been ten years ago. So, the long game is very important in public health. So, here we are today, but there have been no direct conversations with the Bloomberg philanthropies about this. I’m sure they will be very happy to read the newspapers.

Mayor: Let me see if there is anyone else who has not gotten question; round two – Anna.

Question: 10 percent tax – state law allows that as long as the money does go into public housing. Is there anything stopping the State from doing what they did with the bag fee and just saying like screw you guys we’re going to change legislation so you can’t do this anymore.

Mayor: Don’t use those exact words.

[Laughter]

Mayor: A little more gentile.

[Laughter]

Mayor: this is, I, to be fair this is a very – the piece that is an actual tax is allowed; something we by law have the right to act on. There are a few of those taxes, which -- that’s a different matter I think. I’m not an expert, maybe my colleagues want to speak to it. It’s a different matter when something has been long since adjudicated as City purview. The situation with the bags was more unusual in that sense, but it is also very small amount of money in the scheme of things.

Commissioner Bassett: This is a State housing law.

Mayor: You want to speak to it, Doc?

Mayor: Hold on. Stand up.

Commissioner of Finance, Jacques Jiha: It’s a housing law. It’s 1935. It’s already in the law.

Question: [Inaudible]

Commissioner Jiha: No, it’s already in the law. They could always –

Question: [Inaudible]

Commissioner Jiha: They could always –

Mayor: Let’s be clear, hold on one second Jacques – and he can fill in the blanks.

Mayor: It’s a bit of apples and oranges here. In 1935 law that has continued unabated versus the situation with the bag fee was a standalone thing, not based on that kind of previous precedent. So, yeah anything could happen, but it is a very small piece.

Jacques, what kind of dollar figure are we talking about comes off of that in this scenario of what we’re talking about here – it’s pretty small, right?

Unknown: It’s very small, about a million dollars.

Mayor: A million dollars. So, I’m not sure it’s where people in Albany are going to put their focus.

Who else? Grace.

Question: Any timeline for the legislation when you hope for this to be passed?

Mayor: I’ll start and the experts could speak.

Mayor: It would – definitely this year and the sooner the better.

I know that there is work that has to be done in the Council and a legislative process, but I think there is a lot of momentum too.

Councilmember Johnson: The plan is to hear these bills in the coming weeks and not even the coming months. But there will be hearing on these bills sometime very soon. One of the bills comes from – Torres Bill hasn’t been introduced yet; the other bills have been introduced. His bill is going to be introduced I believe – I don’t want to speak for him, but I understand it’s going to be introduced at the next stated meeting of the City Council so then we can hear the package of bills after that. I think the next stated meeting is April 25th, I believe. And so I think the health committee hearing on this will either be the very end of April or the very beginning of May. And given it sounds like we have support from the administration and the advocates and I don’t see much opposition to this in the Council; there might be some tweaking that goes on after the hearings depending on what advocates say and depending on what the public says when they show up. But I think that these are bills that would probably be on the fast track to get done hopefully before the summer.

Mayor: Okay.

Question: [Inaudible] Dr. Bassett, you said the 160,000 was derived by deciding – by setting the goal of reducing [inaudible] 12 percent of the population from 15.3 percent and that’s by 2020. Was that number simply chosen arbitrarily – that 12 percent target? Or

Commissioner Bassett: It represents –

Mayor: There is a national standard.

Commissioner Bassett: It’s a national goal, one that we also aspire too.

Mayor: For all of our education, who set the national standard?

Commissioner Bassett: The National Standards were set in a document called Healthy People 2020, which is a document that puts forward numbers of public health goals by Health and Human Services.

Question: [Inaudible] 12 percent of the adult population?

Commissioner Bassett: Correct.

Question: Any reason based on this that you think you can get there in two-and-a-half years?

Commissioner Bassett: I think as part of a comprehensive package of tobacco control efforts that the Mayor has described that includes support sensation, the ongoing hard-hitting advertising, and this new package that we are on track to achieve it.

Question: Was this new tax on other tobacco products. I didn’t understand if you were saying that would raise a million dollars annually. And that income is supposed to be dedicated to the housing authority. Is there any stipulation over how the housing authority would use it?

Commissioner Bassett: None in the law that I am aware of. This as you have heard is a very old law that was put on the books in 1935 under New York State housing law and it stipulates that there can be a tax by a local jurisdiction. As you have heard this is something that is a very precious ability for local jurisdictions. And that it has to be earmarked for public housing so that the tax that accrues this mechanism it all goes to NYCHA and it doesn’t specify how they have to spend the money.

Mayor: Okay, last call. I’m sorry – go ahead JoAnn.

Question: Sorry to beleaguer this but I just want to triple check. So, if retailers already selling a pack of cigarettes for more than $13 nothing would change at that retailer in terms of the price, correct?

Unknown: That’s correct.

Question: [Inaudible]

Commissioner Bassett: $13 is the minimum price for a pack of cigarettes if this bill passes. Presently it is $10.50.

Question: Currently, the selling of cigarettes is licensed but e-cigarettes is not yet licensed.

Unknown: Correct.

Question: And this would now pack that and other forms of tobacco into that license.

Unknown: Correct.

Commissioner Bassett: Two licenses – one for e-cigarettes, the other for tobacco. And added to the cigarette license are all other tobacco products. So that includes cigarillos, cigars, smokeless tobacco, and snooze.

Question: This would go together or they would –

Commissioner Bassett: Well not everybody who sells e-cigarettes is interested in selling tobacco cigarettes – the head shops for example don’t sell tobacco products but they sell e-cigarettes. So they would just get an e-cigarette license.

Question: [Inaudible] 4,000 licenses for e-cigarettes. I don’t know if that math is the same as [inaudible] community board – approximately half are by community board for e-cigarettes and half for –

Commissioner Bassett: So there is no licensing now for e-cigarettes so there is no – so basically the e-cigareete rule is people would have people who sell e-cigarettes have to prove that they are selling e-cigarettes and apply for a license within a certain amount of time.

Question: So it’s not a cap.

Commissioner: it will be at that – when that time elapses.

Mayor: Let’s have them go over with you separately, go over the details. I see one more question over there.

I want to say this, I think that the speed with which the e-cigarette phenomenon grew is part of the issue here. I will say, when I first heard about it I didn’t understand was it healthy, unhealthy. Was it a tool to get people off of traditional cigarettes, what was it? And by the way, it’s another area where I think the market has been clever. They have sort of tried to make people think this is a kinder, gentler form of cigarette. And it’s kinder, gentler, dangerous thing. It gets you – obviously nicotine addictive period; a bunch of chemicals that the FDA has still not fully analyzed what they are doing to people.

I asked the question of Dr. Palacio and Dr. Bassett, for those who might argue it’s a tool to get off smoking what would you say? They said – smoking, unlike the gum, unlike the patch which went to the FDA and got approval as something that would help people. Low and behold the e-cigarette industry never took that step, never even pretended it was something health oriented. It is not FDA approved in that sense as a tool to get of cigarettes. So I think there is a lot of mystery. I think there is a lot – as Dr. Bassett said, we don’t even know what the long term health impact is because it hasn’t been around that long. We do know the growth of usage is explosive, particularly among young people and that is why it was important to quickly get some regulation in here. And I think we can also safely say we’re not expecting a whole lot of new regulation from Washington nowadays on health and safety matters. So cities like New York and states are going to have to step up because I think it is going to be the Wild Wild West on health and safety for a while and we better do what we can do to protect our people.

Commissioner Bassett: The only thing I would add to that mayor is the growth is surprising, but not accidental. It is very intentional and we need to stop it

Mayor: And backed by a vast majority. Please.

Question: There was some legislation in the City Council regarding hookah bars and the [inaudible]. Can you speak to whether you support that regulation and where it is right now and why it is not part of this package?

Mayor: Yes, we need to act that next. There is no question there is real challenges there that have to be addressed too. So these are our first – that will be soon behind. Obviously we got to work with the Council and they are issues that have to be worked through, but my intention is to get that moving with the Council soon after this is resolved.

Question: What are those issues that to be worked through?

Mayor: I think it’s a lot of grassroots concerns about impact on business, which I always appreciate. Meaning, I understand that is a real concern but I am going to argue [inaudible] that the health and safety comes first.  There are also concerns because there are some connections to people’s historic cultures and there has to be some sensitivity on that front, but again – part of making sense of what goes first, what goes second, what goes third is to say okay these – and my colleagues can comment. I think these went through a lot of work. Sure there will be some real questions raised and there will be concerns raised from communities that have to be worked through, but these are ready to go. I think hookah is not yet ready, but hopefully will be soon.

Councilmember Johnson: We had a hearing on hookah almost two years ago and I know Councilmember Gentile has done one of the major folks trying to get this done. Councilmember Rodriguez had some bills on this as well. And I know the Health Department – I don’t want to speak for them they have been working with those councilmembers o try to adapt the legislation in a way they though could actually fit is currently going on right now. I support both bills in concept, I am sure I will support both bills as they are amended and the health committee is ready to pass those bills as soon as there is an agreement between the Health Department and the Coty Council.

Councilmember Lander: I’ll just add that I think doing these first and especially the license reeducation bill sort of is the right order on this. A concern I had was I have signed on to those bills but I isn’t initially a sponsor until we got this one in play because you could see it as targeting particular community given their cultural connections, but because we’re doing this citywide as part of a broader effort also doing it in the hookah bars would make sense.

Mayor: Okay, last call on these topics before I go to other topics. Going once, twice, -- other topics.

Question: So is there anything stopping you guys from issuing new licenses because the 50 percent cap only starts when the bill goes into law.

Mayor: Is there anything stopping us, Commissioner? Or are we choosing to? I don’t know what the answer to that is.

Commissioner Bassett: Right now there is no cap on tobacco licenses in New York. So anyone who signs up and applies. People have the legal right.

Question: Can you guys not issue them?

Mayor: Until the law changes we are obliged to continue to follow the law.

Question: So what is stopping a bunch of people from like rushing to get licenses before the cap goes into play?

Mayor: Well, they have to qualify. You know, there are still standards they have to meet. But yeah, anything like that is always a concern when you pass new regulations.

Commissioner Bassett: It’s a little different for e-cigarettes. I should clarify you have to prove that you are currently selling e-cigarette products in order to be eligible of the license. Go ahead, Marcia.

Question: [Inaudible] challenge you in court of the constitutionality of limiting [inaudible].

Mayor: I’m not a lawyer. It is theoretically possible. But I would argue just common sense. Tobacco has been highly regulated – that it would be a really hard argument to make on any of the tobacco related pieces. If you said with e-cigarettes, which are increasingly dominated by the same tobacco companies, could they say well, no no this is no that. I think nicotine really kills their argument right away. I think the fact you know the addictive element in Tobacco is present in e-cigarettes and there is such a clear history of regulating tobacco. I don’t know how to win that one as an arm chair analysis. I don’t know how they would win that one. Certainly our lawyers have looked at these pieces of legislation very carefully and feel very comfortable that they are on strong legal footing. 

Okay, other topics – I see a hand way back there. 

Question: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to get your general [inaudible] response to the levels of lead that have been found in public school drinking water, but also ask you – apparently there’s no requirement – one of the Department of Education’s responses is that there have been no cases of lead poisoning found in school kids, but there’s no requirement to test kids above the age of two or three, I believe. And so, I’m wondering if the City or the Department of Education would consider doing some tests just to rule that out. 

Mayor: Look, I think I have to frame this for a moment – any question about children and their health is a valid question, but in your paper there’s been efforts to make a linkage to the Flint situation, and that is just absolutely unfair, and inaccurate, and alarmist – it doesn't serve anyone. You’re talking about apples and oranges in the highest degree. In Flint, the entire water source caused pipe on a widespread basis throughout and entire city to corrode and poison people, and it was proven en mass. Here, we have a situation where our schools have been highly monitored for years and years. We’ve had a huge amount of testing over years – there’s been even more testing lately, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a lot of testing before that. We have not seen any instance of a problem across the board, let alone on any scale like the horrible tragedy in Flint. Our Health Department is the number-one public health agency in America – it’s well-regarded, it’s well-known – and they’ve been watching this situation closely. So, we take very seriously – if we see any information from a test that suggest there’s a problem, we’re going to isolate that part of the water supply in a school building. We will, if necessary, replace pipes, replace water coolers, take that part of the water system offline permanently if we need to – there are all sorts of remedies – but typically that’s not what we’ve found. We find momentary indications of a problem that do not manifest on an ongoing basis, and we don’t have examples of kids getting sick from it. So, to the question of how often we test, and how reliable, and how consistent, I will turn to Dr. Bassett who can give you that context. 

Commissioner Bassett: You are correct that the surveillance for elevated blood lead levels is among one- and two-year-olds. The reason for this is that the developing brain is the most susceptible to lead and it’s most important to identify elevated blood levels at that age. But we do always test if there’s a concern about exposure, and we do have other sources of lead exposure that may affect older kids – important products that have lead in them, toys that have been painted with lead-containing paints. When we find these things and we’re concerned about an exposure, that child may be tested. Apart from that, I think I can only reiterate what the Mayor has already explained – that the water that arrives from our upstate reservoirs is tested 500,000 times, and it arrives prestige to buildings. The source of lead that may be found on these Department of Education tests is from the pipes in the building, most importantly from the sodder that was used to put pipes together, and it leeches into water when water has been standing in pipes and the Department of Education, who’s testing strategy – the Health Department has consulted with them about – uses first draw. When they find an elevated water sample, it’s taken offline and remediated. 

Question: Mr. Mayor, how well do you think Chuck Schumer has represented progressive Democrats during the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency – and Democrats, in general. And what cause do you believe of his that he’s advocated has been his strongest? 

Mayor: I think he’s been a fantastic leader. I’m thrilled he’s in that job. Look, I am a proud, proud progressive – can’t think of anyone I’d rather have leading the Senate Democrats than Chuck Schumer because he is extraordinarily effective and we need right now a master strategist in that job to deal with the overwhelming reality of an unguided missile of a Republican administration, plus a more traditional conservative Republican Senate, and a Tea Party dominated Republican House – that’s a pretty heavy combination, and to make sense of all of that, and to fight back effectively, you need a really strong leader. I think he’s been outstanding. I think progressives need to recognize his capacity to marshal the fights that we need to win and I think he played a key role in the effort to prepare, to fight, and win on protecting the Affordable Care Act. It ended up never even getting to the Senate, but he was front and center in the organizing of those efforts – I think that’s a great victory for progressives and the one I would point to first. But, no, I talk to him all the time and I really admire the way he’s doing his work. 

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: We all could do something better, but in terms of the batting average so far, I like what I see. I think the – look, I think President Trump somehow in his imagination believed he would be having a first 100 days that might compare to the original, which was Franklyn Delano Roosevelt. I think he’s ended up having one of the weakest 100 days of any new president since Franklyn Roosevelt, right? I mean, Franklyn Roosevelt set that standard. Trump, who’s coming up on 100 days, doesn’t have anywhere near the achievement of other presidents to show for it. So, I think you’ve got – when something like that is achieved – you’ve got to look at the context. And Chuck Schumer deserves a lot of credit, Nancy Pelosi deserves a lot of credit, the grassroots movements deserve a lot of credit for the outcome, and I like where things stand at this point in terms of fighting the extremist policies of this administration. 

Question: Mr. Mayor, when you ran for mayor, you said you were very critical of Mayor de Blasio for lack of –

Mayor: No, I’m Mayor de Blasio.

Question: I’m sorry, you were very –

[Laughter]

Mayor: I wasn’t critical of him because he didn’t exist yet. 

[Laughter]

Question: When you ran for Mayor, you were critical of Mayor Bloomberg for a lack of transparency and you said you were going to be the most transparent mayor the city’s ever had. I wonder how you score that with your recent decision to cut back even further the amount of times you take questions from a group of people, like the numbers of reporters who are here today?

Mayor: Very comfortable between these kinds of press conferences, the radio show I do every week, including call-ins, the television show I do every week, the town hall meetings, and then all sorts of other times that I gather with press either individually or when there’s other issues that come up. It’s a lot of opportunities to be questioned, as it should be. And then, all the officials of my administration, and obviously my press office, are constantly responding to things. We’re held accountable for everything, and that’s as it should be. And I’m communicating back and forth with the public on social media as well. I think that ads up to a lot. And I’ve told you guys, I’m very proud of transparency – we’ve done lobbyist disclosure that not previous administration did – didn’t get a lot of attention, but I would argue that the fact that I have always told you if I ever talk to a lobbyist about their business matters and put that online, that was a pretty big step forward in government. We obviously disclosed funding sources on any of the efforts to change policy, to achieve pre-K, to achieve affordable housing, etcetera. Plenty of people don’t disclose where their donations come from – you know some of them. And I think that’s part of being transparent, so I’m comfortable – and certainly everything we’ve done with Open Data – I stand by that we have a very open and transparent administration. 

Question: So, is this a new Rose Garden strategy?

Mayor: No, it’s a strategy for communicating in lots of ways with the public, which is – you know, you guys have a job to do and I respect it, but the first obligation I have is to constantly inform the public, and there’s lots of ways to do that nowadays, and we’re using all of them. Do you think for a moment the people of New York City don’t hold me accountable for anything and everything? I hope you were watching my Inner Circle skit. 

[Laughter]

So, it was somewhat facetious, but, seriously, people are going to hold me responsible for anything and everything that the City government does, and that’s fair, but we speak to them in many, many ways. 

Way back –

Question: Mr. Mayor – actually, before I get to my question on the Campaign Finance Board, just to follow up on that – there’s maybe 20 outlets represented here, and this group basically gets 20 to 30 minutes of your time a week, all of those other factors notwithstanding. So, do you think 20 to 30 minutes of questions with this group is enough for a week?

Mayor: Sure. I think the fact is that you know you can ask any and all questions and get answers all day long from my press office, where I stand on everything, which is going to make very, very clear what my views are on things, and how we respond to problems, and challenges, and issues that are raised – and so many other members of my administration you’re speaking to. I am comfortable that that kind of accountability is there. And again – that’s one part of it – you guys holding us accountable and you do it all time. It’s also my obligation to talk to people, to let the people of the city know what we’re doing, and we do that in a myriad of ways, respectfully this is one of many ways to communicate with people. They’re all valid. What was the other one?

Question: Campaign Finance Board. You’ve praised the system. Obviously, you’re participating. There’s a number of City Council members who are not participating in the public matching system this cycle. It seems like in large part because they want to spend more than the out-year limits ahead of time. And there are some that are running for Speaker that want to be able to give money to other City Council candidates – we can obviously interpret why they would do that. What do you think of the fact that there is at least a handful if not close to a dozen City Council members opting out of the matching program?

Mayor: I’m surprised on the first part that – you said because they want to spend in the out-years. You know, the law is that you can spend anything that you want in the out-years, but it comes off your ultimate spending cap. So just to be clear, if for example, if the election is this year, and you wanted to spend a ton of money in 2016, you can do that, that’s not inappropriate. But you’re going to have a lot less money in 2017. If that’s their concern, I don’t understand why they would want to understand because there’s no reason they couldn’t do that anyway. In terms of donations to others, again, people can make the choice. I would discourage it. I think it’s a mistake. The – we have one of the best campaign finance systems in the country. I’ve said many times it’s one of the reasons why I’m Mayor is because of that system. I could never have raised the kind of money my competitors were able to raise. Only because of matching funds am I here. I believe it is a tremendous reform. I believe it is democratizing. And everyone should participate in it. So, I don’t want to prejudge people’s reasons without hearing them. But if you say it’s the smart thing to do – no, it’s not. I would discourage them from opting out.

Way back, way back? Way, way back?

Yep.

Question: Thank you. Three quick questions. One there is a demonstration that was taking place this afternoon downtown at the HUD building. The No Cuts Coalition over President Trump’s proposed federal cuts to the public housing. That’s my first question. Second, there’s been a call for more police – 

Mayor: What’s the question? How do I feel about it?

Question: How do you feel, how you’re reacting to that?

Mayor: Okay.

Question: Also, there’s been mounting pressure from lawmakers – Governor Cuomo, Senator Schumer, about more training for police in light of the situation in Penn Station, rush hour last Friday. And finally, one more question – Letitia James was on MSNBC last night, talking about the latest victim to come forward in the Bill O’Reilly saga, more pressure on O’Reilly to be fired. Your two cents on that?

Mayor: Time for Bill O’Reilly to go.

Audience: He was. He got fired.

Mayor: Oh, I did not know that. Okay. That worked.

[Laughter]

Unknown: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Do I get two more?

[Laughter]

No, I mean, the Bill O’Reilly thing – look, I’m not the closest observer of FOX in any way, shape, or form. But it was clear in recent weeks that when that number of people come forward – unfortunately we’ve seen this pattern before. But it goes back to a more systemic problem with FOX. And I’ve spoken about my views on FOX on News Corp before. This is a different matter. This is not their political orientation, or their effort to push an ideological line. This is a broken culture. This is a culture that obviously allowed this kind of horrible activity and never created any consequence for it. So the chickens are coming home to roost – that they’re now all paying the price for a culture – a very unfair and inappropriate culture they created.

On the question of the Penn Station incident, you know, we tried very quickly to get the word out on social media that there was not – there were not gunshots, there was not a reason to panic. We’re going to work with NYPD, OEM to really speed up. Everyone needs – and I think this is the reality of the social media age – I think we’re all coming to grips with it. You remember in a very challenging situation when we had the bombing in Chelsea, social media actually proved to be a very helpful tool in finding the perpetrator. But social media, like everything else in the world, cuts both ways. Unfortunately, it also enables panic in some situations. Part of the answer that government agencies have to get the actual truth out as quickly as humanly possible. And it’s a little bit chicken and egg because sometimes they are trying to confirm the truth while these things are unfolding. But what I can tell you is, we’re dedicated – City Hall, NYPD, OEM – at the first moment we have confirm truths, we are going to put it out on social media. I think the other thing is a human thing that people – every one of us are human beings, if we sense danger, we’re going to react. That’s normal. But being aware that the panic can create its own dangers, so I think cool heads in these situations have to be careful to see is there any evidence that’s being alleged before.

Question: Do police need more training though? Do you agree with that?

Mayor: I’m sure – training always helps, and we are re-training the entire police force all the time now. So it’s the kind of thing we would – we would work on refining, since it’s new reality people have to get used to. And officers need to know more about how to quickly reassure people and get facts in that we can get out. Remember, not so long ago, reporting those facts back to your commanders meant still a lot of other steps before it could get out to the public. Now you’re talking literally the faster you can get it to folks who can put it out, could be a matter a minutes, you can set the record straight. So I think it is smart to say that there should be more training. But I think the people – all of us – have a responsibility too to do our best to not necessarily believe the first rumor we see and be a little careful to try and get something official to back it up.

The first one on the HUD cut, or they’re at the Federal Building protesting the budget cuts, obviously HUD in particular – this could be a big fight. And I think it’s another example of where the President has bitten off more than he can chew. To put forward a budget that eliminates – eliminates a series of initiatives that are deeply cared for all over the country. I think he’s going to be surprised at the backlash. The community development block grant is a great example. This – this stream of funding pays for senior centers, and meals on wheels, and affordable housing, and weatherization for homes of low-income people, and all sorts of things that are in every city in the country – every city, no matter how big, how small, every state, of every persuasion. And for a lot of states – this is what’s being left out of the equation – we’re a city that has a lot of resources relatively speaking, and we do have our ability to – because of income tax, for example – brings resourcing directly to our City government. A lot of cities and towns around this country don’t have anything like that. And one of the only things they can depend on is federal aid like the community development block grant. When you say you’re going to take that away, you’re going to have a rebellion in red states and purple states of local officials, and chambers and commerce, saying to their Congressmembers and their Senators, that this is some of the only examples of federal support we get. And Donald Trump is going to take it away. That’s not going to end well.

Please.

Question: I have a few. So, John Kelly, DHS Secretary, said I think it was last week, that marijuana possession is an essential element of ICE’s deportation package. NYPD had 18,000 marijuana possession arrests last year. Wondering you know – are you thinking, do you think people should be deported, considered criminals for a marijuana possession, and deported as criminal aliens, be a target of ICE?

Mayor: Again, we – I think we’ve been down this road a lot of times, so I’ll try again. We’re going to do what we think makes sense to keep our people safe. The issues related to immigration are very important. The first responsibility is to keep our people safe, so we believe the way we’re set up now in terms of law enforcement is achieving that and we have the facts to prove it in terms of constant reductions of crime.

You know that in terms of low-level possession of marijuana, we moved away from arrest. You know that with the training officers are getting now with much more discretion and in many cases different options, arrest, summons, warning, etcetera, that are officers are choosing often to not go the path of arrest. But if there is an arrest, that typically is because of other factors involved – outstanding warrants or other issues. And even in that instance, we’re not going to collaborate with ICE. Yes, the person is fingerprinted. Yes, the information goes to the federal government. But that still means ICE has to go through its own elaborate process of trying to find someone and they can do that anyway in many cases as you know. But we will not work with that because we have a clear law that doesn’t permit that, and we don’t want it to permit it. So I’m convinced we’re on the right track – if we make a decision to approach any offense differently, it’s going to be because of the public safety needs of New York City.

Question: Second thing. Different. Yet another construction worker last week fell off a building and died, not wearing a harness. The Buildings Commissioner came out and said it was totally preventable. More people obviously dying in this industry than any other in the city by a large factor. What needs to happen?

Mayor: We are working closely with the City Council, and the industry, and labor to put new measures forward quickly. We put a series of changes forward last year that increased the amount of supervision on sites, increased the number of inspections, a lot of things that we believe have helped, but still it is a shocking number of deaths, and it’s not acceptable. So we’re going to have more, and I think that package is coming together quickly.

Yes?

Question: Could you follow up on my [inaudible[ question? You said that you think Chuck Schumer has a good batting average – great batting average. What would you say his batting average is?

Mayor: I don’t give batting averages.

[Laughter]

Mayor: This is not baseball. I think he’s great. I just think he’s doing a great job. I think I get the inference of your question and my response – and I’m very comfortable in this – is I think he’s doing a great job. 

Question: Last week, we had a story in the Daily News about the increase in State troopers in the downstate area [inaudible] at airports. Some people saw that as part of this back and forth between you and Governor Cuomo. I’m curious what you make of the increase in State troopers – and also, what you think of the current law enforcement status at the airports. 

Mayor: We welcome more law enforcement at the airports. Airport security is obviously controlled by the State and the Port Authority. We have very rigorous standards in terms of the NYPD and we think it is appropriate to beef up security at the airports. So, I don't think it has anything to do with the political dynamics or personality dynamics – it’s something I’m actually very happy to see.

Question: [Inaudible] going back to some of the earlier questions – do you enjoy taking questions from reporters?

Mayor: It’s scintillating. 

[Laugher]

Question: That sounded like a dodge. 

Mayor: I thought it was a nice adjective. 

[Laughter]

Question: I’m curious – you brought up the lobbyist disclosure that you do voluntarily – I know you’ve done that. I asked at some point – a year ago or so – about your pledge as part of your campaign in 2013 to disclose agency-level lobbying. Can you say any more about what’s going one with that? And also, I’m curious to know what’s – if you have any updates on when we would be getting the list of the donors who didn’t get what they wanted?

Mayor: This month – and it’s not a list – I just want to make sure it’s clear, because Eric Phillips there has communicated that I think has been an interesting – what’s the word I’m looking for – mission drift, or something like that. I didn’t say I had the perfect list of everybody – I said I wanted to give you examples. When I first talked about this – that I felt a really bad assumption was being made, and President Obama spoke about this back during the presidential campaign. People give a donation, and that’s all you need to know – that people give a donation – and that’s all you need to know – is they gave a donation and there’s got to be an outcome and it’s all very linear. And I really think, honestly, and with the deepest respect the role the media plays as watchdogs – you’ve got to look at the reality of what’s happening in all its nuance. What I’ve said consistently is, people make a donation and they sure as hell better not expect an outcome because I’ve got lots of examples where they don’t get an outcome they want and they get often the opposite of the outcome they want, because we’re going to make the decisions based on the merits and based on what we think is right for the people. So, I don’t have a perfect exhaustive list. I have examples for you that illustrate the point that all of the inferences over the last year that a donation must lead to an outcome were really unfair – unfair to a lot of people in public life. And also, there’s glaring examples to the contrary that somehow don’t get talked about. So, what I will do – and I think I will probably do it in the form of an op-ed, Eric Phillips – I’d like to just tell you that. Someone tell Eric that I’m going to do an op-ed. I’m just going to give the illustrations of some of the ones I think are the most powerful examples to set the record straight that it’s just not how things work. 

Question: What about that first thing that I asked about – the lobbyist – the agency-level lobbyist –

Mayor: It’s a good question and it’s something I believe in, but I have to find out the status of that, so I will come back to you on that. 

Okay, let’s go back – who’s the farthest back? Go ahead. 

Question: If you’re going to give us examples of what you didn’t [inaudible] are you also give us examples of people who did get [inaudible]?

Mayor: People don’t get anything because of a donation. So, you guys have spent plenty of time trying to make that allegation, and you’ve taken cases where someone made some kind of donation and, meanwhile, back at the ranch, there was something that the government agreed with them on, and you’ve tried to make that endless linkage and I’ve told you that’s not a fair linkage. You’ve long since argued that case in lots and lots of column inches – all of you. I’m going to give you a bit of the counterpoint that I would love to see you report on – I won’t be surprised if you don’t. But no, I’m not going to – you’ve asked this before – I’m not going to go back over a three-year administration and tell you how every single thing worked out. I can tell you a blanket rule – we don’t do things because of contributions, period. 

Question: [Inaudible] will you be giving examples of donors –

Mayor: I disagree with the characterization. I’ve told you that also before – I disagree with that characterization. 

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Wait, I’m sorry. You’ve gotten a little too much, we’ll come back. Go ahead, Anna. 

Question: Yesterday you released your tax returns and they showed that you paid a little over $7,000 on your property taxes for homes that are worth well over $3 million. Do you consider this fair?

Mayor: I think the entire property tax system needs to be reviewed top-to-bottom. There’s no question that there’s inequities in the tax system. I didn’t create the tax system, you didn’t create the tax system, but there are obvious inequities in it and there’s a lack of consistency across geography and across different types of homes. Now, I’ve said this in town hall meetings, including in the borough of Staten Island in the previous one – this is going to be a massive undertaking. About the most controversial thing you could possibly imagine – you open up the entire property tax system in New York City, shine a light on it, and talk about how to restructure it to be more fair. And one thing I’ll you upfront –

[Commissioner Bassett coughs]

Mayor: Dr. Bassett, you do not sound like you have a good health situation. Are you alright?

Commissioner Bassett: I’m alright, I just have a cough.

Mayor: Is there a doctor?

[Laughter]

Commissioner Bassett: Drink water, everybody. 

Mayor: But the other trick is, we ca’t lose revenue in the bargain, we just can’t. I mean, let’s be real-world about this, we have to take a system right now filled with idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies and still end up with basically the same amount of revenue. But I think there is a way to do that, that creates more fairness. So, for example, you know that some neighborhoods have just seen these ridiculous increases because of the way their values have increased compared to others, and it doesn’t create parity. We’re going to have to address that. So, I think it’s quite clear that cannot be achieved in the remainder of this year. It’s going to probably be – I would be shocked if it would be done in a year – it might be a multi-year effort. But if the people renew my employment contract that is something I will be working on. 

Question: Okay. Another follow up, do you think what you pay now is fair is what I originally asked. Also, are you delaying this because it’s an election year? Why not start now if it’s going to take multiple years anyway?

Mayor: Because it’s going to take multiple years, and, you know, if I’m here, I will govern over that process and I’ll get us to an endpoint. I’ve already committed myself to it. And, if I’m not here, someone else has to decide how they want to handle it. At this point, it just doesn’t make sense to start it when there’s so many other things happening. It’s going to be a very, very labor-intensive effort. 

Question: So, it’s not because it’s an election year? 

Mayor: It’s because it is something that’s going to take so much effort and so much of the administration’s time and energy that it’s just not the thing we’re going to do now. But, if I’m around, I guarantee we will do it. 

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: I’m not going to speak to my personal circumstances. I don’t think it’s right. I think the question is, is the system balanced? Is the system fair across all geography? No. But that – I didn’t create it. I’m part of a much bigger thing here, so I’m just not going to answer it as asked. 

Question: Paul Massey – NY 1 did a story on his voting record and found that he only voted in five elections over 19 years and didn’t vote at all over a 10-year period. I’m wondering what you make of it and if you think that voting records of candidates for public office are something that voters should take into consideration?

Mayor: I think he should vote more. 

[Laughter]

Yeah, of course, people who want to be in public service should vote consistently and it’s a perfectly valid issue, of course. 

Way back –

Question: The Governor was proud of including in the State budget this flexibility based on the federal budget. I’m wondering if you are familiar with that part of the State budget – I’m wondering if you are familiar with that part of the State budget – that he can adjust the State budget mid-year based on a certain amount of federal cuts to New York – if you’re familiar with that and what you make of it, and any concerns you have for New York City – that federal cuts will then trickle down to the City?

Mayor: I’m not familiar enough – I don’t fully understand it – I don’t know if I’m alone in that fact. I don’t fully understand it. You know, from our point of view, we would do that through a budget process. We would – you know, we have a normal process for budget modifications. We go to the City Council – they vote on it. I don’t understand, even though I know the legislature has more of a fixed session than the Council does, that’s true, but I don’t fully follow the logic. I would think the normal thing to do would be, you know, set a course if those federal actions really fundamentally change things to come back to the legislature and talk it through if it was major things. So, I’m speaking as someone who doesn’t fully understand what the vision is, but I think if it’s a major magnitude, you’d want to work with the legislature to work it out. 

Unknown: Last two –

Mayor: Go ahead – I see three, so let’s do three. 

Question: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to follow up on something you said last week regarding Deputy Mayor Buery and the assistance he got from the DOE [inaudible] his kids enrolled in school. You said you were looking into it. What does that mean exactly? Is there an investigation or what have you? Also, separately, just wondering if you’re able to tell us how much money you owe in legal fees to Kramer Levin? 

Mayor: They are still being gathered because their services only ended a short time ago. So, a lot is the answer, but I don’t know the exact amount yet. On the situation with the Deputy Mayor, there’s a review going on. I don’t have the chapter and verse on who’s doing it. I do know it will take a little while, but we can get back to you on how that’s being handled. 

Question: Mr. Mayor, last week, we did a story about immigrants who told us that they would rather go hungry than risk deportation. These are families where the parents are undocumented but the children qualify for food stamps. They’re actually canceling their food stamp benefits, and, in some cases, not showing up for food pantries, even though they’re not government-run programs. So, aside from reaffirming our status as a sanctuary city and pledging not to share information, is there anything else that you think the city can or should be doing to get the word out when people try to cancel their benefits – to try to dissuade people from doing this?

Mayor: It’s a very important issue and I really appreciate that you have shone a light on it. The – we are worried about this reality. I mean, think about it, a family turning down food they need because they fear deportation – it’s just sickening and it proves how dangerous both the rhetoric coming from the Trump administration and some of the executive orders are. They’re literally causing decent people, hardworking people to suffer – that’s not what we’re supposed to be seeing in our country. Our job is to counteract that. It’s not just by vaguely saying, you know, we’re going to be supportive and protective of immigrants – it’s, we have to get out in the communities, particularly through trusted intermediaries – houses of worship, nonprofit organizations that are part of the community and spread the word that it would horribly unfair to families to start stepping away from all the things that we offer them so families can be whole. We don’t want to see parents not send their kids to school. We don’t want to see people pass up healthcare. We certainly don’t want to see them pass up food. We’re not going to ask their documentation status. It’s not going to put them in harm’s way. They should not hesitate to keep taking advantage of the things that are there for them. And that’s a moral statement, and a human statement, but also if this follows through in the way that we see some of these signs – so what are we going to be left with? We’re going to be left with children who are New Yorkers, who are hungry, who are less healthy, who are less educated, and then we will all pay the price as a society in every sense, including the taxpayers – that’s how horribly counterproductive this policy is, in addition to being immoral. So, we’re going to try with every tool we have to reassure and show them that they should not fear in a way that causes them to do things as harmful to their own family. We’re also going to address the ways, going forward, that we can provide support. If, God forbid, a family that didn’t do anything wrong, or did something very minor was threatened with deportation, there are ways we can support them. We’ll have more to say on that soon. 

Question: So – one is the once-a-week open-Q&A that we’re used to – could that become once a month? Is there a certain obligation that you think, now, as Mayor, this is my obligation to see you guys and do an open press conference once a week. And thinking also about the precedence it sets for other electeds and what you would want the President to do. 

Mayor: I think they’re all different dynamics. I think Presidents have done relatively few over time. I think President Trump is different than any other president, I think we can all agree on that. But, in general, presidents don’t do a lot. I’m not familiar with the latest on the Governor – my impression is he has not had a lot of traditional press conferences. You can set your watch by the fact that we’ll be doing this every week, just like you can set your watch by the fact that I’ll be doing the WNYC call-in show and NY1. So, I think for a city with so much going on that I have to attend to, this is a lot of opportunity to answer questions and I said, on top of that, there will be town hall meetings, there’ll be all sorts of other interactions with media and one-on-one in small groups, or as issues arise – and then other ways I’ll be communicating. You can bank on that. It’s not going to change. So, I understand the inference of the question – I’ll say very comfortably, as long as I’m Mayor, I’m comfortable with this standard. 

Question: So, in terms of particulate matter in the air settling in people’s lungs and giving them heart attacks, have you heard about the issue of the burning of used motor oil [inaudible] across the city – the widespread practice? 

Mayor: I [inaudible] Palacio, this is a new one on me. Do you know about this issue?

Deputy Mayor Palacio: I don’t know about that particular issue. In terms of – yes, particulate matter is a health hazard and we’ll look into that issue and get back to you. 

Mayor: Thanks so much, everyone.