The Assembly majority conference in late May] blocked a package of bills designed to, among other things, curb rampant criminal recidivism, hold child murderers accountable, stop hate crimes against law enforcement and reduce gun crime. The proposals were summarily dismissed in committee meetings, and as such will not even be afforded consideration by the Assembly as a whole. Again, the public is left to wonder why career criminal continues to be a viable profession in New York while crime victims are treated like second-class citizens.

The majority’s blanket policy of disregarding statutes originating from our side of the aisle is a tired practice that has done nothing to make New York a better place. Our proposals offer common-sense solutions rooted in feedback from every segment of the criminal-justice system. The public is tired of living in fear, and law-enforcement officials have seen their authority consistently undermined.

Consider the following public-safety measures rejected by the Assembly majority conference leadership. 

• Judicial Discretion (A.3183, Reilly) — Restores the ability of judges to determine whether a violent criminal poses a dangerous threat to the community and can be held without bail.

• No Parole for Child Murderers (A.4041, Maher) — Requires a life sentence without parole for the murder of a child under 13 years old.

• Tougher Penalties for Shoplifting (A.5029, Reilly) — Authorizes prosecutors to combine petit-larceny charges occurring in one 18-month period.

• Hate Crimes Against Law Enforcement (A.3417, DeStefano) — Designates offenses against law enforcement, whether actual law-enforcement officers, or those perceived as law-enforcement officers, as hate crimes — thereby increasing the penalty for the offense.

• Increased Penalties on Youth Gun Crimes (A.3167, Reilly) — Prevents the removal of an adolescent offender to family court in cases where the defendant possessed a loaded firearm. 

• Non-Resident Sex Offenders (A.4997, Simpson) — Requires non-resident visitor sex offenders and registered sex offenders to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act when temporarily residing within the state, among other provisions.

Instead of advancing our legislation, Assembly Democrats approved “Elder Parole” and “Fair and Timely Parole” bills, which ultimately will lead to the release of additional prisoners from prison. If those bills were to become law, Payton Gendron, for example, who killed 10 people and injured three others in a racist attack at a Tops Supermarket in Buffalo, will be eligible for parole when he turns 55 years old — despite being sentenced to life without parole. The idea of putting away dangerous criminals for life is on track to become an impossibility in New York.

It has never been clearer that the legislative agenda of Albany Democrats prioritizes incarcerated criminals ahead of innocent victims. Despite years of public outcry, there has been no sincere effort to restore order to communities or institute policies that fix our compromised criminal-justice system. With several crime-prevention bills rejected as pro-criminal bills move forward, New Yorkers were given another example of the dangerous agenda of one-party rule.      

William (Will) A. Barclay, 54, Republican, is the New York Assembly minority leader and represents the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses all of Oswego County, as well as parts of Jefferson and Cayuga counties.

Before the memory of the recent debt-ceiling negotiations disappears and we confront the next new drama in Washington, D.C., let’s pause a moment to acknowledge what just happened. You can debate from here to eternity whether the American people were winners or losers in the deal … but what’s not debatable is one key point: Congress and the White House provided a lesson in how negotiations and bipartisanship are supposed to work.

We live in an era when this can seem impossible, as hardline conservatives in the GOP and a few determined progressives in the Democratic Party try to push policy to the extremes and appear to reject the idea of even talking to the other side. But Washington, D.C. has a way of imposing the discipline of hard numbers — in this case, a House controlled by Republicans with a bare majority; a Senate with a small Democratic margin; and a presidency in Democrats’ hands. For either side to make progress, they have to negotiate with the other.

What’s easy to forget is that this has been the norm for more than a half century. Of the 28 Congresses since 1969, 19 have been divided (if you include the 107th, which began and ended under unified Republican control, but for most of its two-year length was divided because of a senator’s party switch).

 Anyone who’s spent time in the nation’s capital during this long era of mostly divided government knows that with power so distributed, there is no single path to success in trying to make the Congress work. As long as they’re playing by the rules, the chief way to judge success is by the results. And on that front, the debt ceiling debate was a success.

You may know the broad outline of the agreement: It buys the government two more years before the next debt-ceiling clash; imposes a freeze on some federal spending; broadens work requirements for food stamps; and makes other changes designed to appeal to either Republicans or Democrats. As The New York Times’ Catie Edmondson wrote after it passed, “The compromise was structured with the aim of enticing votes from both parties. It allowed Republicans…to say that they succeeded in reducing some federal spending — even as funding for the military and veterans’ programs would continue to grow — while allowing Democrats to say they spared most domestic programs from the severe cuts.”

This allowed both McCarthy and President Joe Biden — and their parties — to claim victory. In a set of negotiations like this, that’s actually what you’re aiming for — the ability for everyone to walk away saying, “This is what I’ve done for you.” It’s a classic illustration of how democracy works, especially when political leaders are content to share credit. In an analysis after the bill passed, longtime New York Times Washington correspondent Peter Baker noted, “The president’s approach to the negotiations — and especially their aftermath — reflects a half-century of bargaining in Washington. When someone has been around the track as long as Mr. Biden has, resisting the temptation to spike the ball and claim victory can be critical to actually securing the victory in the first place.”

The recent floor rebellion by some disgruntled members of McCarthy’s caucus is a reminder that none of this is easy. But the overwhelming majority by which the debt ceiling compromise passed in both houses is also a reminder that, when the chips are down, many members can remember a key fact about life on Capitol Hill. That is: You have to be flexible and work with what you can patch together when you’re trying to lead the country. That’s what our system offers: the chance for political leaders to do their jobs and make democracy work.        

Lee Hamilton, 92, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.