♪♪ >> From NJ PBS Studios, this is "NJ Spotlight News" with Briana Vannozzi.

>> Hello, and thanks for joining us tonight.

I'm Joanna Gagis.

Briana Vannozzi is off.

Coming up, we get the latest from Washington, D.C.

from Congressman Tom Kaine Jr.

's re-emergence to the birthright citizenship ruling.

Plus, Jersey City got a last-minute bailout in the state budget, but some council members are calling for an audit of their books.

But first, speaking of the state budget, we talk with Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin about the record-level state spending plan.

That's next.

Funding for NJ Spotlight News provided by RWJBarnabas Health.

>> Learn more at RWJBH.org.

>> The ink is dry on New Jersey's $60.7 billion state budget.

Governor Mikey Sherrill and Democratic leaders are touting property tax relief, increased child tax credits, a $6 billion surplus, and a reduction in the structural deficit.

But the final deal is also drawing criticism over a $360 million supplemental spending bill and what some say is a lack of transparency.

Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin helped to steer the final package through the legislature and he joins us now as part of our Under the Dawn series.

Assembly Speaker, great to have you on the show.

Thanks for taking some time to talk to us.

I saw in an op-ed that you wrote on NJ.com this morning, you called this budget that was just passed a victory for the 9.5 million residents in New Jersey.

Why?

- Thank you.

Well, first, thanks for having me.

Nice to be with you again, Joanne, and see you.

Because it was.

It was a victory because it continued to do the things that we have talked about for a number of years in the Assembly.

It started about making New Jersey more affordable.

It's a victory for the people who are the beneficiaries of stay, which you know is something that has been important to me because we have adjusted the plan and made it sustainable in the long term for people so they can rely on it going forward for seniors and people who are about to retire.

It also does those things that we have done so well in terms of making, being good fiscal stewards for the state of New Jersey.

Paying our bills, for example.

You know, we talk about the budget having grown in size.

Part of that is because for decades, literally decades, full payments weren't being made to the pension fund.

Well, we're doing that.

We've changed that now.

Governor Sherrill continued that again this year, but that's $7 billion for that.

Record property taxes, not just stay, but anchor and senior freeze.

Again, fully funding schools so that we have the best school system in the world and continues to be supportive, and it continues to be supportive.

And also, we also invested in communities, things that the legislature has added in terms of doing the things that matter in the communities that they represent.

I've said all along, people understand and appreciate what's good for their community, and the way to do that is to know them well.

Nobody knows the people of their district better than the legislators who serve them.

So for all of those reasons.

- Yeah.

- Yeah.

- Let me ask you this, and you said record property taxes.

I think you meant record property tax rebates, yes?

- Relief, yeah, yeah.

Well, we don't raise property taxes.

We just help cut them, right?

So yes, I apologize.

It was record property tax relief in the budget.

- You talk about, Assembly Speaker, you talk about giving back to communities and this budget is not without criticism.

And one of the criticisms we've heard is that funding in the hundreds of thousands was cut for many programs, things like the Tourette's Syndrome Fund and cancer research and many programs that have come to probably over year over year rely on state funding.

But then we saw this supplemental spending bill that appropriated $358.8 million for only a handful of communities.

One of them is Sayreville in your district.

Another is Linden and Woodridge.

That's of course the Senate president and Senator Paul Sarlo's districts.

Is that the right way to allocate funding in a supplemental bill that came in at the last minute, I might add?

Yeah, well much gets made about the less meant, but it's just really hyperbole.

The Supplemental Spending Bill is a traditional part.

It's in the budget all of the time.

It allows for non-reoccurring expenses and expenses that are supportive of communities to be included with funding from the existing year, the year that's about to end.

It happens in every budget and it routinely occurs.

So I don't think any of that is wasteful spending.

I think that we make hard decisions in a budget year that was tougher than normal, in part because of what we anticipate from Washington, in part because we're already seeing cuts from Washington, and because we want to address the structural nature of the deficit that we have.

And so we managed to do that by not increasing taxes on individuals in the state of New Jersey, and by continuing to fight against that structural deficit, which has served us well.

You know, as you know, we have raised the ranking of the credit rating of the state of New Jersey multiple times under Governor Murphy.

I suspect we've put it in strong position perhaps for an upgrade again, because we made commitment to take on the challenges and do the hard things.

- You say it is hyperbole, and I might just add to what you said, there is a $6 billion surplus written into this budget, and the structural deficit did drop to about 1.3 billion.

But I wanna talk to you about process, because you call it hyperbole, that folks are critical of the way that some of these add-ons are added to the end of the budget process.

Several members of your chamber drafted bills that would address process, that would address how the budget is drafted in the final stretch.

And so two Democratic members required, wrote a bill that would require that the budget sit for 14 days before the final vote.

And two Republican members proposed that no changes be added after June 1st.

It doesn't look like you supported either of those bills.

One, do you support changes to the process?

And two, would you back those bills that many in the public have been calling for?

More transparency, more reform?

Well, to the first question, can we do better?

Of course, we can always do better.

Would I support those bills?

No.

I think it doesn't recognize, for example, the bill that say, we can't make a change after June 1st.

Well, we don't get final revenue numbers until probably the third week in May, because the tax day is April 15th, and it takes Treasury time to process those things.

So it would be, you would put an artificial deadline on there.

There is a deadline, by the way.

The Constitution provides for the deadline.

June 30th is the deadline.

It's already been established.

It's artificially moving it up because somebody wants to make an issue out of a process that they don't like.

Here's the truth of the matter is, people don't criticize the things that have gone into the budget largely.

These are things that are investments in communities.

These are things that help people.

The things that are included in that budget process have helped students, for example, when we increased summer tax substantially.

We've invested in hospitals.

We've invested in reentry programs.

We've invested in domestic violence places that provide services to domestic violence victims.

So the answer is the budget process is a challenging one, and it will remain so.

What would be different, I suspect, if we had an artificial deadline of June 1st?

What's the difference between June 1st and June 30th in that regard?

Well, the difference would be the time for the legislature to read it over, time for the press to dissect it, time for the press to look at it, time for the legislature to read it over within just what tends to be a 48-hour or a 72-hour stretch of processing all that's in that bill and then having to vote on it.

What do you think that's the difference?

- Well, I think that would force the... You have to come to a conclusion on what the budget's going to look like, right?

Part of that process is to do all of the hundreds of hours of review that the budget committees do.

I think year after year, they meet thousands of people who want to talk about the budget.

They talked to all of the department heads.

It's an involved process.

A lot of commend the people on those committees who spend hours and hours going over it.

Again, we have to rely on revenue numbers and make sure that what we're doing is making those right decisions and what we have.

I think the process is, may be cumbersome to some, but I think at the end of the day, we come up with a good result.

But let's focus on this, Phil.

The budget is out from March.

So from March till we pass it, people like you, people like reporters, people like stakeholders all have the opportunity to read that.

This year I think it changed by about seven, there were about seven one thousandths of a percent that added to the budget.

That's what it does.

And again, the legislature has an important role in the budget process constitutionally.

So it's our job to review it, not just check the math and review it, but to weigh in on it because we have such an important relationship with the people of our districts.

And so going through those processes- - And in just that little time, just a little bit of time that we have left, of course, stay NJ was preserved in there.

I just have to ask, aren't you happy with where it ended up?

Rebates for those making up to $200,000 a year?

- Well, look, I think what we did was we accomplished what was really important, and that is to make sure that people can rely on stay going forward.

It's gonna be sustainable.

People who had, at the upper levels of income, have benefited largely from tax cuts through the federal government, and so they are protected.

does is make and most peo were making over a couple still working and have a to do it.

But we protecte were at the lower economi of the salary scale.

The by any change.

They're st benefit and people uh in in a, you know, in a sending range have a little bit less.

So, uh, I think I'm, I'm, I'm happy with where we ended up on stay.

I think in the long term, it is, it is, it is there for the people of New Jersey and for people who are planning on retirement because that's what it's about.

Yes.

We have to leave it there.

I'm, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we do have to leave it there.

We're out of time.

Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Appreciate you having me.

Thanks again.

Bye-bye.

>>> "Under the Dome" is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation funded by the American people.

>>> It's been a busy few weeks on Capitol Hill from celebrating America's 250th to Congressman Tom Kaine Jr.

returning to the House floor after a more than three month absence, revealing that a depression diagnosis kept him away.

Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court released a number of landmark decisions, including upholding birthright citizenship, the law that guarantees that any person born on US soil is a citizen.

Our Washington DC correspondent Ben Hulak joins us now to discuss.

Ben, great to see you.

We are all still, I think, processing this decision that was very long awaited from the Supreme Court, came out in the last day of the term, Trump versus Barbara.

Just put into context the impact of this decision that came out last week.

It really, it's in many ways a story of what might have happened if the court had ruled in the other direction and had upended or tightened birthright citizenship in this country.

That would have been, would have upended centuries of American existence, essentially.

This is how the country's always worked, that people born on US soil are US citizens.

So this ruling was for advocates for people in immigration limbo, was a sigh of relief, a massive sigh of relief.

And if things had gone the other way, there would have been, to be frank, no one was really sure how the US would operate in a world where people who are born in the US weren't automatically granted citizenship is I interviewed Matt Plotkin on the steps of the Supreme Court earlier last year in a related case and he said this was an example he used a lot the former Attorney General but he said so are people are children born in one state that recognizes birthright citizenship going to be in a different category different class effectively legally than children born in a state that doesn't recognize birthright citizenship there could have been this hodgepodge of legal definitions utterly confusing so right now it's back to status quo and that's really the main takeaway.

Of course the president in a very unusual move sat in on the oral arguments of this case.

I don't think that that's ever happened before.

He's clearly very unhappy with the ruling.

He said it was too bad for our country.

What are his next moves?

What options does he have now if he wants to still change this precedent set in the 14th Amendment of our Constitution?

This was really his one main move and you're right he is he became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

This has been a clarion call for him and some of his ardent followers to end birthright citizenship.

They view it as a threat to really the future of the country and there are all sorts of racial and nationalistic overtones to that.

But as it stands for next moves, the president really doesn't have many.

The main move would be to amend the Constitution and that is incredibly difficult.

That requires super majority votes in both chambers of Congress and then three quarters of all states to ratify what Congress has passed.

So that's effectively impossible at this point.

That simply won't happen.

He did demand Congress take up this issue and skirt this constitutional amendment process.

That's not how this works.

This is really a dead end for Mr.

Trump.

- I wanna look at just quickly how the judges decided this was a six to three decision.

Can you just lay that out for us and who dissented?

- Yeah, so the six to three, in general sort of parlance Supreme Court wise, there are six right-leaning justices, conservative justices and three liberals.

So if you're in the liberal block of voters, it can be difficult to get fellow judges to sign on to decisions you want finalized.

The six to three majority though, was cobbled together with the three liberals.

So that's Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and-- Katonji Brown-Jackson.

Thank you very much, Joe Biden's appointee.

And then John Roberts, Chief Justice, led the decision, along with Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Those are your six.

I think it's interesting, at least for New Jersey viewers, readers, listeners, that Samuel Alito dissented.

He's a son of New Jersey, was born in the state, and has become this ardent right-wing anchor of the Supreme Court.

And he, of course, called it a serious mistake.

I'm not happy with the decision.

I want to, just in the time that we have left, turn and look at Congressman Tom Kane Jr., who made a reappearance last week on the House floor.

He came out and said that he has been struggling with depression, that that is the reason for his extended leave.

Any indication right now that he's going to be more willing to talk to press now that he's back to be sharing this story?

>> No indication of that.

In fact, after he gave his remarks, which probably were five minutes max, he avoided, I would say, 30, 40 reporters who had all waited for him to break the silence that he's held for nearly four months about his condition and his history.

He avoided all of us.

A few reporters snagged him as he left, but he didn't say a word.

That's his typical MO.

So no, he is not talking, which is standard for him, of course.

And I think campaign-wise... He did then... Yeah, well, speaking of the campaign, he held a fundraiser that same night, Tuesday night.

Is there anything you can tell us about how that went?

Who showed up for him?

Is he going to be back raising money as strongly as he has been in the past?

He... I don't know about... What his fundraising might look like in the future.

Our colleague Colleen O'Day did talk to his finance chair for his campaign, who said a few weeks ago they've had effectively no problems raising money for Mr.

Kane.

I think the wrinkle here is now it's really crunch time for campaign season.

Congress will be gone basically all of August, much of July, and then all of October in the run-up to the midterms.

This is the one seat where it's really going to be a dogfight in New Jersey, congressional races, New Jersey House races, Mr.

Kane trying to hold on, and then Rebecca Bennett trying to knock him off his post.

But this is this is the period of time when the public wants to hear from their elected officials and Congressman Kane, he hasn't spoken in months, maybe he'll speak a little bit more on the campaign trail, but he is coasted really to re-election without a whole lot of public interaction.

We will keep following it, I know you will be also, Ben Hulak for us down in Washington, D.C.

Thank you so much.

- Of course, thanks.

- Jersey City is facing a $255 million budget shortfall this year.

The numbers were announced shortly after Mayor James Solomon took office and calculated the debt.

Since then, the state approved a $120 million aid package, 105 million of that is a loan.

But residents are still facing a steep property tax hike, first proposed at 20%, now looking like it could be a 15% increase.

Tom Zupa is a newly elected councilman in Ward C, who's now calling for an audit.

He's here now to explain.

Councilman, it's so great to have you on the show.

Now I know that you are calling on the New Jersey office of the state comptroller to conduct an audit over Jersey City's finances.

Why?

- Absolutely, and thanks for having me today.

So, it's alleged that the scale of this budget deficit and the structural deficit we have in Jersey City is so massive that it goes beyond what a city council can do to investigate with our resources and it requires an independent investigation at the state level, especially since our residents deserve to know where every penny of their dollars go.

You sponsored a non-binding resolution to do that.

The council unanimously voted to approve it.

If the acting comptroller, Shirley Ameliehu, found that there is something untoward that happened under former Mayor Steve Fulop's administration, what then?

Who's responsible?

Does that change the budget hole that you're in right now?

What action could be taken?

Sure, it doesn't change the condition we're in, but if there was anything beyond mere negligence, then I believe the entire council would be on board with a law enforcement getting involved, investigating and taking it from there.

Whatever the findings are, whether it's mere negligence that we have to deal with, at least we can show our taxpayers where the deficit is.

If it's beyond that, then I would ask that the Attorney General's Office get involved and start investigating.

I do want to just play a quick clip that we have of Governor Sherrill talking when she approved the state budget about the reasons why she did put forward $120 million in aid.

I know that $105 million of that is a loan, but we're going to just take a quick listen to what Governor Sherrill had to say about why she approved that.

Unfortunately, in Jersey City, which accounts for, you know, well over half of what we had to spend from this year's funds, Steve Phillip had left that city in over $250 million of debt.

It was almost insurmountable for that town.

And so we got to work.

We've been working with them for many months trying to chart out the best, most fiscally responsible path forward.

That's why we did a loan.

So Councilman, I want to ask you, even with that state aid, it looks like it brings, this is like back of the envelope math for me, but it looks like it brings your budget hole to somewhere around $135 million.

That's still a massive budget hole.

Is a property tax in Jersey City inevitable as you see it?

I think it's responsible to say yes.

The mayor had initially proposed 20% and then after some public pushback came down to 15%.

And the City Council is getting our budget, the city's budget on the 15th.

I look forward to doing that and going line by line and seeing if we can save the taxpayers the burden because the city should be cutting spending before we ask our residents to bear the burden of the tax increase.

Where would you cut?

What types of services would you cut?

Good question.

You know, we can't cut public safety.

Our Department of Public Works is much needed.

We saw that through the January and February storms.

They were put to work and tested.

So we'll have to see if there are jobs where two people are doing the job of one person, and that's an inefficiency that we need to find.

Since it's the first budget, as my first year as councilperson, I'm looking forward to seeing it.

And we'll find out if there's any extra bloat, and if there's any structural issues that we can get more efficient with.

Let me ask you this.

I know the Jersey City's CFO ran an audit.

Those numbers will be released soon, as they have told us.

Do you see any room for a major overhaul or any type of legislative change to the type of oversight that council members have?

We did hear from now Mayor Solomon when he was a council member saying he didn't have the type of oversight he wanted over then Mayor Fulop's budget.

Do changes need to be made there?

Yeah.

So like I said, it's my first budget cycle.

So if we're not getting information that the council is entitled to, then absolutely.

So the council's biggest role in city government is the budget.

It's reviewing it, making responsible decisions and those tough choices to determine whether, you know, we're, we're spending responsibly.

And the council should have every ounce of information available to us and available to the mayor's office when making those decisions.

In the end, the folks of Jersey City are none too happy right now.

We've heard criticism across the board.

How do you keep them a part of this process?

How do you communicate with them as many council members are new this year and are acclimating to this process themselves?

The most important thing is being transparent.

So once we heard as a council heard the Mayor's proposal for a 20% tax increase.

I hosted a community meeting for my ward.

We do it online, we do it virtual, we do it in person, making sure everyone can be heard.

And I'll host town hall meetings so the residents can go with me line by line to the budget.

They deserve to know everything I know about how the government's working and what's being proposed.

All right, we've got to leave it there.

Tom Zupa, Jersey City Councilman in Ward C. Thanks so much for today.

Thank you.

That's going to do it for us tonight.

I'm Joanna Gagis.

For the entire team here at NJ Spotlight News, thanks for being with us.

We'll see you right back here tomorrow.

NJM Insurance Group, serving the insurance needs of residents and businesses for more than 100 years.

[MUSIC]