Regular Session - May 5, 2000
2954
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 5, 2000
10:04 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
2955
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Thursday, May 4th, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Wednesday,
May 3rd, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
2956
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I believe there's a substitution at the desk.
If we could make it at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 45,
Senator Stafford moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Finance, Assembly Bill Number
9292A and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 6292A, Third Reading
Calendar 885.
And on page 46, Senator Stafford
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Finance, Assembly Bill Number 9503B and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 6403B, Third Reading Calendar 886.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitutions
are ordered.
2957
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I would just
encourage the members to please come into the
chamber to check in so that we can start
voting on bills and get on and pass the budget
within a reasonable hour today. And Senator
Paterson concurs.
So please come into the chamber.
THE PRESIDENT: All Senators are
directed to come into the chamber, please, so
we can conduct business.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could take
up the noncontroversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
2958
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
560, by Senator Larkin Senate Print 5676A, an
act to authorize the Commissioner of the
Department of Transportation to transfer and
survey.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 41.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
771, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 7268, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to the special powers.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
2959
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 41.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
781, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 5120A, an
act authorizing the assessor of the County of
Nassau.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
782, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 6248A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to creating.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
2960
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
783, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 6372A, an
act in relation to authorizing the disposition
of surplus monies.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
784, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 6877, an
act to amend Chapter 371 of the Laws of 1999.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
2961
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
785, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 6952, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to creating.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
787, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 7208,
an act to legalize, validate, ratify and
2962
confirm certain acts and proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
return to reports of standing committees, I
believe there's a report of the Finance
Committee at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
The Senate will come to order.
We'll return to reports of standing
committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 1B, by Senator Bruno,
2963
an act to amend the Tax Law;
6291A, Senate Budget Bill, an act
to amend the Education Law;
6400A, Senate Budget Bill, an act
making appropriations for the support of
government, Legislature and Judiciary Budget.
And Senate Print 6405B, Senate
Budget Bill, an act making appropriations for
the support of government, Education, Labor
and Family Assistance Budget.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills ordered direct to third
reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
we're waiting for messages. They should be
here shortly, and then we'll continue with the
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time call up Calendar 885.
2964
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
885, Assembly Budget Bill, Assembly Print
Number 9292A, an act to authorize the
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move we accept
the message.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
2965
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we now call up Calendar 886.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
886, substituted earlier today, Assembly
Budget Bill, Assembly Print Number 9503B, an
act making appropriations for the support of
government, Transportation, Economic
Development and Environmental Conservation
Budget.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move we accept
the message.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
2966
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message of
necessity is accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote?
SENATOR DUANE: No, I'll wait
until the roll is done.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Schneiderman recorded
in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I'd with unanimous consent like to
2967
be recorded in the negative on S6292A as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, you will be so recorded as voting
in the negative.
For purposes of the record, Senator
Duane, your vote will be recorded in the
negative on the Assembly bill, which was
substituted for the Senate bill. I thought
you'd be in agreement with that.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. To explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: To explain your
vote, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: There are
a lot of good things in the bill that just
came to the floor relating to transportation.
However, I -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, excuse
me for interrupting. We're not on a roll call
yet, so we'll -
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Oh, we're
not? I apologize.
THE PRESIDENT: Apology accepted.
The bill has already been passed.
2968
SENATOR CONNOR: Excuse me, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Can Senator
Schneiderman have perhaps unanimous consent to
explain his vote for a minute on the last roll
call?
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, he may explain his vote after the
roll call.
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
As I was saying, there are some
very good things in this transportation bill.
I am constrained to vote no because of the
provisions relating to the capital plan for
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
I realize that we are in the
process of authorizing bond refinancings that
are critical to the MTA's 2000-2004 capital
plan, which also was approved in another
context yesterday by our representatives.
In my view, the MTA's capital plan
is a disaster for the City of New York, for
2969
all the working people of the City of New York
and for all the businesses in the City of New
York. It is a plan that depends on
$25 billion in refinancing and new bonds with
no source of revenue other than the tokens of
the straphangers. It is a lead balloon that
will not fly.
In the last eight years, the actual
state dollars for New York City's buses and
subways have been cut by almost 25 percent.
That's why we were having surpluses and
funding all sorts of other good programs. And
I think it is a tremendously bad example of
shortsightedness that this Legislature and the
Governor and the Mayor of the City of New York
are not putting the money where we need it for
future economic growth.
I am joined in my concerns not just
by my old colleagues at the Straphangers
Campaign, but I would urge that everyone look
at the work of the Empire State Transportation
Alliance -- it is opposed to this capital
plan, urging us to take action -- which
includes the New York Building Congress, the
League of Conservation Voters, the Association
2970
for a Better New York, the Long Island
Association -- essentially every group
concerned with the business and economic
future of the City of New York.
I vote no. And I think if we do
not take action to intervene and change the
provisions of this transportation bill within
the next year, we are going to be faced with
large fare increases, service cutbacks, and
the decline of our transit system back to the
levels we were in in the 1970s. That's bad
for business and bad for the working people of
this state.
And I would request unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative,
without objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, Senator Schneiderman, you will be
so recorded as having voted in the negative on
Calendar 885.
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I just want to rise to make, I
guess, a vote of clarification, if I may. If
I may have unanimous consent.
2971
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: I'd like to be
recorded in the negative on Senate Print 885.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, as
I already clarified to you, that bill was
substituted for the Assembly bill already.
SENATOR DUANE: Calendar Number
885, then?
THE PRESIDENT: Calendar Number
885. And you have been so recorded as voting
in the negative on Calendar Number 885. All
right?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time call up Calendar 887.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 887, Senator Bruno moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 11006 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 1B, Third
Reading Calendar 887.
2972
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
887, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 11006, an act to amend
the Tax Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
is there a message at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move we accept
the message.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
2973
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
on this bill, which is the tax bill that
pertains to the budget, I want to explain my
vote.
Last year we introduced a Senate 1,
the college tax deduction. And to my
knowledge, this is the first in the country
where any state will allow up to $10,000, a
tax deduction for students that go to any
college in the country, with an unlimited
income level.
So that is the right message for
the people in New York State, that we
encourage people to go to college and we
recognize the hardship that it is for
families.
This tax bill contains about
$1.5 billion, and it includes things like the
elimination, over a period of years, of the
gross receipts tax, first on manufacturing and
retailing and eventually to consumers. That's
about almost $500 million that will remain
with businesses and with people in this state.
The college tuition deduction is about
2974
$200 million that stays with people.
There is a whole litany of tax
cuts -- Power for Jobs, helping to continue to
stimulate the economy of this state. And
that's a piece that is worth about
$240 million.
And when we talk about those
reductions, those are dollars that stay with
people, they stay with businesses. And that's
why New York State now is in the forefront in
job creation, economic development.
And that's why we in New York, with
the leadership of Governor George Pataki,
assisted by his Lieutenant Governor, partnered
with the Speaker and my colleagues here in the
Senate, we have continually led the country in
tax cuts. And we in this chamber can be proud
that we have passed more tax cuts, year after
year, than all other 49 states combined.
And that's why New York State now
is in the forefront in economic development
and job creation.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome,
Senator Bruno.
2975
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President. To explain my vote.
As Senator Bruno pointed out, there
are significant tax cuts in here. And we on
this side of the aisle are delighted,
absolutely delighted to see it.
We've done significant things.
We've enacted a number of things which members
of this conference have for many years
advocated for, have advocated in the ways
Minorities advocate, by speaking out on the
floor, by, oh yes, those nasty motions to
discharge in past years and amendments and so
on. These are the tools the Minority has to
try and get the attention of the Majority, so
to speak, and get some focus on issues.
And in the last five and a half
years, as I said, when I first became Minority
Leader and Senator Bruno was first Majority
Leader, I wanted to join with the Majority in
a tax cut program. There hasn't been a tax
cut bill on this floor in the last five and a
half years that I haven't voted for and that
the majority of the Democrats haven't voted
2976
for, as well as certainly the Republican
Majority.
So that's a good partnership we've
had. And as I've said before, imitation is
the sincerest form of flattery. Or, as the
former speaker, the former great speaker -
not Newt -- Tip O'Neill once said, "There is
no limit on what you can accomplish in
politics if you're willing to let someone else
take credit for it." So we've feel we've
accomplished much.
And certainly Senator Bruno is to
be congratulated on the college tuition tax
deduction. It is, as he says, significant.
Nationally significant.
We have an expanded TAP program
that is good. Meaningful debt reform, we had
a debate yesterday. It's not this house's
fault, I guess, but we are disappointed we
haven't closed that back door.
Eliminating the gross receipts tax
is something that we have proposed in budget
amendments for the past six or seven years.
We're delighted to see that happen now. It's
so important to job development and it's so
2977
important to the upstate economy, which if -
I guess, to fulfill my role, I disagree with
Senator Bruno about one thing. The state
overall is doing well. The upstate and
western New York economy needs a lot of help.
It's really downstate and the metropolitan
area where we've had tremendous job growth.
It hasn't been shared by all New Yorkers.
Eliminating the marriage penalty.
My only regret is we didn't eliminate it. We
almost eliminated it. There's still a little
bit left there. But Senator Dollinger is
certainly to be congratulated for the
e-petition drive earlier this year, for
getting that issue on the voters' minds and
for bringing it forward.
Even in here in this budget we're
making air travel in New York State more
competitive and affordable. That's something
that former Senator Abate, from this side of
the aisle, advanced five or six years ago.
EPIC. EPIC, the only regret is the
start date, not this house's fault. Something
Senator Gentile has been speaking out on for
these past four years.
2978
So we're delighted that -- we're
delighted that occasionally when the Majority
runs out of ideas they're willing to take the
good ideas that emanate from the Minority,
embrace them, make them their own and move
forward.
So we say go -- and, by the way, I
shouldn't forget the beer drinkers. We have a
slight decrease here for beer drinkers. On
behalf of unnamed colleagues on this side of
the aisle, we thank you, Senator Bruno.
That's significant for many of our
constituents.
So I'm delighted to vote aye, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
to briefly explain my vote.
I would like to start by extending
my congratulations and commend Senator Bruno
for his leadership in the energy and
telecommunications arena. By partnering with
the Governor, as you go through this bill you
will find a series of tax cuts directed to the
energy industry -- the gross receipts, the gas
2979
importation tax, and, last but not least,
yesterday resolution of the sales and
compensating use tax problem.
When you take that, couple it with
the tax credits that you'll find in the
telecommunications arena, couple that with
Power for Jobs, you'll find that the Senator,
under his leadership, has provided a level
playing field for competition, reduced costs,
all of which will enable New York to be far
more competitive and encourage the energy and
telecommunications industry to locate in this
state, which in turn will maintain and grow
jobs.
So, Senator Bruno, thank you very
much for your help in this arena.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President.
I too would like to rise and
congratulate our Majority Leader, Senator
Bruno, for being so focused on higher
education, with -- not only with the tuition
tax deduction that is so critical and so
important to lead the nation, but also on the
2980
Tuition Assistance Program. This is the first
significant change in 25 years.
That, coupled with the SUNY
scholarship program, truly in this budget
makes the dream of every citizen of New York
State possible to achieve, a higher education.
So once again, we started a number
of years ago with the College Choice Program,
the savings program which people are putting
away. And in this session we add two
incredibly important components with the
tuition tax deductibility and the enhancements
of the Tuition Assistance Program. It's a
win-win for the students and the parents of
New York State.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President. Just very briefly.
My distinguished colleague from
Manhattan, Senator Connor, was talking about
the state of the upstate economy. My district
runs from roughly the Utica area to the
Canadian border, which I think qualifies as
upstate. The Utica-Rome area last year
experienced job growth greater than the state
2981
and national average, thanks to the policies
incorporated and extended in this bill we're
about to pass, thanks to the Governor's
leadership, the leadership of this house.
Things upstate are getting better.
So some folks may need to change their tune.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I'll continue the spirit of
brevity.
I want to applaud two things. One
is I think that New York State, which we have
often talked about being a leader in many
areas, has reestablished its leadership. We
are ahead of the United States Congress in the
repeal of the marriage tax penalty, or at
least the substantial reduction of it. And I
think we're ahead of them with respect to the
tuition tax credit that Senator LaValle and
certainly Senator Bruno talked about.
I think New York has shown that we
can innovate in our tax cuts, drive them to
address middle-class needs, needs to build the
2982
intellectual infrastructure of New York so
that we secure our future not just with roads
and bridges but by building people's brains.
It's the brain power that will carry New York
into the 21st century.
And I'll conclude, Madam President,
on specifically with respect to the marriage
tax penalty. I appreciate the Majority Leader
and the Speaker agreeing with the Governor to
reduce this. I think this is a sign that we
can not only keep our word but, when we put
out the e-petition and we brought that before
this Senate, I think that's the new wave of
democracy.
The next generation of democracy
will be more participation by people
electronically. And that, I think, is an
important harbinger of the future of what
government will look like.
And I applaud all of my colleagues
today. I think this is a good bill. I think
it reestablishes New York's preeminence as the
innovator in governmental thinking.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Madam
2983
President, it's wonderful to hear all these
lovely remarks today and all the accolades
that are going around the room. But I want to
remind everybody that we just took the monkey
off of our back with the gross receipts tax.
Now the utility companies can't point the
fingers at the politicians for the high
utility costs in New York State.
All our major utility companies
that supply electric in New York State are
still not doing their job. We are the second
highest state in the country with the high
utility rates, outside of Alaska.
So I would hope that each and every
one of us reminds the utility companies to
start doing their job and lowering the
electric rates in New York States. They've
caused us a tremendous amount of problem in
New York State, and the facts prove me right.
So I would hope that after we get
through with the gross receipt tax today that
we put the onus on the utility companies in
this State of New York. And that's where the
problem lies, and that's where the problem has
been.
2984
Thank you, Madam Chair.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno, to
close debate.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
for clarification, we keep talking about the
marriage penalty, marriage tax penalty. This
is not a penalty for being married on this
tax.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: This is the
elimination of that tax penalty that used to
exist. I just wanted that for clarification,
because it's been said many, many times: the
marriage tax penalty. Not a penalty. It's
relief for people who are married with the tax
table.
Thank you, Madam President.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Bruno, for that important
clarification.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
2985
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time call up Calendar 888.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 888, Senator Stafford moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 9291A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 6291A,
Third Reading Calendar 888.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
888, Assembly Budget Bill, Assembly Print
Number 9291A, an act to amend the Education
Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
is there a message at the desk?
2986
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we call up now Calendar 889.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
2987
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 889, Senator Stafford moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 9500A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number, 6400A,
Third Reading Calendar 889.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
889, Assembly Budget Bill, Assembly Print
Number 9500A, an act making appropriations for
the support of government, Legislature and
Judiciary Budget.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
2988
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time take up Calendar 890.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 890, Senator Stafford moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 9505B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 6405B,
Third Reading Calendar 890.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
2989
is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
890, Assembly Budget Bill, Assembly Print
Number 9505B, an act making appropriations for
the support of government, Education, Labor
and Family Assistance Budget.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
2990
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
yesterday we in this house started the process
to pass a budget for the people of this state.
We have now proudly completed that process
with the passage of this bill at this hour, in
daylight, late in the morning. And it now
goes to the Governor.
So I want to thank my colleagues
here, I want to thank the Speaker and his
colleagues in the Assembly, especially the
Governor for his leadership in this process.
This budget that we send to the
Governor is one of the best budgets that we
have passed on behalf of the people of this
state. And I am confident that it will
continue the economic development, the
prosperity, the job creation, and all of the
other good things that have been happening to
2991
this people of this state over the last five
and a half years.
Thank you, Madam President.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we just stand at ease for just a very
short period of time while we go through the
rest of what should be done this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate stands
at ease.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 10:52 a.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 10:55 a.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we ask for an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee, Room
332.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
2992
ease at 10:56 a.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 11:09 a.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could return to reports of standing
committees, there's a report of the Rules
Committee at the desk. I ask that it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills direct to third reading:
Senate Print 6077, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to amend the Social
Services Law;
7788A, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act to establish special
equalization rates;
7837, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Social Services Law and the State
Finance Law;
And 7838, by Senator Padavan, an
act to amend the Education Law.
2993
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the report.
SENATOR McGEE: The motion is to
accept the report of the Rules Committee. All
in favor say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
SENATOR McGEE: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
SENATOR McGEE: The Rules report
is accepted.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam
President -- Madam President, if we could call
up Calendar Number 861.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
861, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 7788A, an act to establish special
equalization rates.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there a
message at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator Skelos.
2994
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Please
recognize Senator Onorato for an explanation.
SENATOR ONORATO: I'd like a
brief explanation of the bill, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I'm
sorry, Senator, I didn't hear you.
SENATOR ONORATO: I'd like a
brief explanation of it.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry,
2995
Senator Dollinger -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Madam
President. Senator Onorato would like an
explanation of the bill, please.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Wright, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill will establish a one-year
temporary freeze of equalization rates. And
it's a direct result of changes that are
occurring within the energy industry with the
sale of generating facilities and, more
importantly, the corresponding changes that
BORPS has recommended to local governments in
terms of their assessing practices.
The concerns are that by virtue of
changing some of the methodology when we're in
a position that the industry itself is very
much in flux at this point in time and very
much in transition, it will have an adverse
impact on a number of local governments
because of a shift due to the change in
2996
assessed values and the corresponding
equalization rates used for apportionment
purposes relative to school and county tax
levies.
We had a experience in the City of
Oswego a year ago where we had an equalization
rate change from 180 percent to 100 percent,
with an 80 percent shift in the taxes from one
jurisdiction to another. It's not an
experience I would encourage anyone to go
through.
This bill is intended to provide
mitigation to that situation, as a number of
the municipalities are facing a like change
this year. This provides for a freeze, allows
things to stabilize within the market and the
changes within the assessing practices, which
in turn we believe will accrue to the benefit
of the local governments and the local
taxpayers.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Yes, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield -
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
yield?
2997
SENATOR WRIGHT: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Senator Wright,
does this reflect on the nuclear plants in New
York State?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Does it reflect
on the nuclear plants in New York State? At
this point there have been no sales concluded
on the nuclear facilities in New York State,
so there have not been significant reductions
in those assessed values.
Now, there have been negotiated
reductions where the local governments have
entered into agreements with Niagara Mohawk
whereby they would see a reduced assessment.
Dependent upon the size of that negotiated
reduction, this could apply to them for one
year in preventing the shift of that
equalization.
SENATOR COPPOLA: On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Specifically,
Senator Wright, would this be for Nine Mile 2
2998
sale?
SENATOR WRIGHT: No, this is not
specifically directed at the Nine Mile 2 sale.
That sale has not been completed. And as a
result, there have not been new values
established for that.
That's -- that assessed value I
don't believe has been reduced. It's upon the
roll. There are negotiations that have gone
on with the local governments relative to
that.
So it's not intended nor targeted
to any one utility. In fact, it's intended to
be statewide. There are some 167 different
parcels across the state of New York that have
either sold or are in the process of sales by
virtue of divestiture of generating
facilities. That would include hydros as well
as fossil fuels.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Thank you,
Senator.
My comment on the bill, Madam
President. The fact of the matter is Nine
Mile 2 is being proposed for sale of
$150 million. It was built to the tune of
2999
$6 billion. So right now we'll be helping
Niagara Mohawk when we pass this piece of
legislation. The fact of the matter is they
had budgeted Nine Mile 2 for $350 million, and
it cost them $6 billion. And now they're
going to sell it for $150 million. And then
we get blamed for the economy in western New
York.
I'll support this because it
includes other localities. But I just wanted
to point out the mismanagement of some of the
utility companies in the State of New York.
And those are facts, when you
budget $350 million and then it goes up to
$6 billion and now they're going to sell it
for $150 million and they're asking us to help
them lower the valuation of those plants.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will,
3000
Madam President, through you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Wright,
how does this affect the City of New York,
which is now in the process of Con Edison and
Brooklyn Union selling off quite a bit of
their utilities in the immediate area of
Queens and New York City?
SENATOR WRIGHT: It will not
affect them, because both the City of New York
and Nassau County, that use class-assessing
practices, are excluded from this bill.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: To explain my
vote. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
to explain your vote.
3001
SENATOR WRIGHT: To explain my
vote.
There are a couple of points that I
would like to make. Number one, this bill is
not intended to provide any relief to any
utility. It's intended to provide relief to
the taxpayers, real property taxpayers of a
number of jurisdictions across this state.
Secondly, so that we have the facts
accurately reflected on the record, the sale
of Nine Mile 2 has not been completed at $150
million; in fact, it has been recently
rejected by the PSC as recently as two weeks
ago, and now they are entertaining an open
competitive bid process that will be used to
establish.
So once again, the Public Service
Commission and the State of New York have
looked out for the interests of the taxpayers
of this state and are now providing a
procedure that will ensure that taxpayers
benefit.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
3002
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if you could call up Calendar Number 891.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
891, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 7837, an
act to amend the Social Services Law and the
State Finance Law, in relation to enacting the
Quality Child Care and Protection Act.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there a message of necessity at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
3003
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President. This bill has various provisions
in it which will improve the daycare quality
and safety of children that are entrusted to
daycare workers within the state of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. If the sponsor, Senator Velella,
would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator Velella, I am very pleased
that you have introduced legislation which we
anticipate will help to improve the quality.
And there are a couple of areas that I would
3004
take some exception to, and one of them
certainly is the issue of the fingerprinting.
Now, I understand that the
legislation that you have here will require
fingerprinting of every single individual who
is currently involved with childcare, all of
their family members, and any person who is
volunteering to work in a childcare setting
or -- either group daycare or family care; is
that correct?
SENATOR VELELLA: No, Senator,
that's not accurate.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay.
SENATOR VELELLA: We would not
require -- let me say first that this is a
program bill that I introduced at the request
of the Governor.
And this is his program bill to try
and deal with some of the issues of daycare
where both you and I and almost everyone, I
believe, in this chamber is very much
concerned about the people that we entrust our
children and our grandchildren to during the
day when the family goes out to work and help
support them or whatever the purpose may be.
3005
But no, we are not requiring that
everyone related to a daycare worker be
fingerprinted. That would be a little bit, I
think, out of order. What we are requiring is
that when a daycare facility is based in the
home, that the people residing in that home
should be fingerprinted.
And that is as a result of a case
where a very dedicated woman was doing a
daycare program within her home and her 18- or
19-year-old son had been a convicted rapist
and raped one of the children.
Now, that was the extent that we
went to. If you are living in the home where
daycare and children are placed, those people
residing in the home where the children are
should be fingerprinted. Not if you're in a
daycare facility and you work there, that your
child or your son or your daughter who lives
in your home on the other side of town should
be fingerprinted.
It's only limited to where you have
daycare in the home and you have family living
in the home where the children are, that those
people exposed to the children ought to be
3006
checked for that kind of a background.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. If
Senator Velella would continue to yield.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
You may proceed, Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right,
thank you.
Senator Velella, you also talk
about electronic monitoring. Could you
describe what that means? And is there any
age limit? Is this every child must be
electronically monitored, or is there -- are
infants monitored as well? Does this relate
to every child in the -
SENATOR VELELLA: Hang on a
second.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay.
SENATOR VELELLA: The purpose of
this -- and if you read the section, it would
3007
explain it to you, Senator -- is that we don't
want daycare workers simply relying on
electronic monitors for the children entrusted
into their care. So that a daycare worker
cannot have a roomful of children, put on a
monitor and walk out. That cannot be the
exclusive means of supervising the child.
And that's prohibited right in
page 6, section B, lines 10 through 12, where
it cannot be the sole means. And that was the
purpose of putting that in there, so that
people would not be able to have large numbers
of children supervised only by an electronic
monitor.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Velella, my question was, what is this
electronic monitoring? What does that consist
of? Who provides the electronic equipment?
SENATOR VELELLA: The intent here
is not the same as you would think of a
convicted felon who is bound in their house
and has an ankle bracelet on or a wrist
bracelet on that beeps when they go out.
Electronic monitors might be the
type that, very simply, a mother might use or
3008
a grandparent might use when watching their
child sleeping upstairs and having a box on in
the room and listening for some type of action
up in the room so they could respond.
That's okay when it's a one-on-one
or in a family setting. But electronic
monitoring and listening to a room of kids to
know if there's a problem I think would
present a problem. And we don't want people
to just rely on an electronic monitor. There
ought to be human beings around to watch these
young people.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: One last -
my last question, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield? Senator Velella, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator Velella, I'm happy to see
that we have increased the requirements around
training. And I think one of the issues for
3009
the -- when it was under the Department of
Social Services, and that we have talked about
for many years, is how do we provide support
for people who provide childcare in their
homes and how do we encourage people to come
from underground.
Because we had this huge
underground childcare business where no one at
any time was monitoring. So there was an
attempt to encourage people to identify
themselves as childcare providers and therein
become certified, and then they could be
monitored.
One of the ways that we came up
with doing that was providing support to a
network of childcare advocates and service
providers that we call the Childcare Resource
and Referral Network.
My question to you is, since we are
increasing the training -- which we want to
do, and I think is a very good thing -- and we
also want to make sure that people not only
receive their -- what are you increasing it
to, 30 hours every two years, but that there
is ongoing support for them, that they have
3010
ongoing training, that there are people that
they can reach out to to ask questions, local
people that they can interact with and who can
be there to monitor those homes on an ongoing
basis -- what have we done to expand and
strengthen the capacity of the Childcare
Resource and Referral programs so that we can
match your -- the other aspects of your bill
with a group that is actually there to help
people so that they don't make mistakes that
are harmful to children?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I'm
glad you asked that question.
Because we not only have taken care
of that problem of the referral agencies,
which has money in the budget for it, but the
Governor in his wisdom, in submitting the
budget to us and submitting this bill, has
provided an additional $40 million that
hopefully you're going to be voting on very
shortly in our budget that will allow for
retention and expansion of these very workers,
to allow them to have career paths in this.
So that those workers who start out
as just watching a child can develop, have the
3011
training and become professional daycare
workers and have a career path and provide a
career path for them.
So yes, there is already money in
the system for the referrals. And yes, there
is even more money in this budget,
$40 million, that is going to go into
developing career paths for those people who
want to advance themselves in the daycare and
childcare profession.
And that money is going to be
implemented through a program that is going to
be decided and has been pushed for by a number
of very well organized unions within this
state and that have been pushing very hard for
this.
Social service agencies, religious
groups, unions, they are going to be very
pleased that you and I are putting this bill
into law at the request of the Governor,
because it's going to provide that career path
and that service for their employees and for
their communities.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Can I just
ask one last question, to follow up on that,
3012
Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Could you
tell me what percent of the 40 million will go
specifically for the CCRRs, the child care
resource and referral agencies in the state?
SENATOR VELELLA: No, I couldn't
tell you. This is going to be -- and
hopefully the Assembly, when they return -
they didn't have the opportunity to act on
this last night. But I believe when they
return, they will be acting on this.
And OCFS will be implementing the
regs to see how this is spent, with the advice
of the boards that are in place and all of
those groups that I mentioned -- social
service agencies, unions that have an interest
in this, religious organizations, various
civic groups, various agencies that are funded
and actually have an interest.
3013
So that this is going to be one
major accomplishment that you and I are going
to be pointing to come around, I would think,
November, to say that we were doing some very
good things for the people in our communities.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right,
thank you.
Madam President, just briefly on
the bill.
As I said, certainly we all are
concerned about the quality of childcare and
the safety of children and all. I'm just a
bit disappointed, if you will, that we have
approached it from a criminal justice angle
rather than from the position that we want to
provide support so that we can make sure that
we prevent incidents from happening.
Our legislation really talks about
or addresses something after it happens. And
I would like to see us be more proactive in
this area.
Number one, I believe that the
emphasis on the fingerprinting of people,
especially the fact that we are going to
fingerprint everyone who is in a household, as
3014
well as any volunteer, is going to drive
people more underground.
Because if I were making a decision
that I wanted to provide some childcare, and I
knew that I was going to be fingerprinted, my
son is going to be fingerprinted, my husband
is going to be fingerprinted, I probably would
have to make a decision to be an underground
provider, because, number one, my husband
would not agree to be fingerprinted, and I
would not want my son fingerprinted.
So these -- this is going to really
in fact, I think, work against what the
purpose is.
And, number two, the issue of
childcare resource and referral is very, very
important. We have local not-for-profit
groups. They have expertise in this area,
they have been reaching out to encourage
people not to be underground, to provide
training for them, to provide services to them
that they need, to answer questions that they
have.
This is where we should be
investing our money, in making sure that those
3015
agencies can function because we're funding
them adequately and we're making it possible
for them to do more than they currently do.
So there are some clear
shortcomings here. I understand that this is
a response to an incident that was exposed
recently. But we should know that this is not
that incident. And that expose was just the
last one in a long history of problems in this
area. We've tried to address it and we will
continue to try to address it, but I don't
believe that this Child Care Protection Act is
actually going to finally do that.
I hope that, Senator Velella, we
can continue to work making sure that we have
a mechanism in place where childcare people
can feel comfortable going and saying, I don't
understand this, I'm not sure what I should be
doing, can you help me, help me fulfill the
regulations, make sure I do the right thing
before an accident happens.
So yes, I'm going to vote for this
legislation, but I do have a number of
questions and concerns about it. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
3016
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I yield to
Senator Seabrook.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes, Mr.
President. Will the sponsor yield to a
question?
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes. Senator
Velella, a quick question in reference to when
does the clock start on this bill.
For example, if an individual who
may have been involved in a crime 30 years ago
and is a family member but not the licensee
who is applying, when does that clock start
and stop?
SENATOR VELELLA: Well, I would
think as soon as the bill is signed into law,
that this would take effect.
And if someone has a group of
children in their home and they're providing
daycare services and they have a son or
3017
daughter or husband, it's a wife, a
grandparent, or an individual, a friend, that
lives in the home, that has a criminal record
and has been fingerprinted and that criminal
record is detected, then the supervising
agency would look at it and see what was the
offense.
Now, this may have been an offense
that dealt with an embezzlement, not in any
way endangering children. I don't believe the
agency would be authorized -- we have some
specific crimes here that are listed for what
they would be subject to denial of their
license. For example, felony sex offense,
crime against a child, crime involving
violence.
But the agency would make a
determination. Obviously if someone made a
mistake 30 years ago and has led a very good
life and is a productive citizen and happens
to reside in the home, the agency would look
at that and I believe rational minds would
determine that that did not present a clear
and present danger to the children who were
being supervised.
3018
However, if someone was a sex
offender and had molested children or had been
abusive to children and had been convicted of
that, and you're bringing a whole group of
your grandchildren or children and my
grandchildren or children into that home, I
don't think that would be an appropriate
setting.
And that's why in this bill the
Governor has proposed that we limit it to
relevant crimes like felony sex offenses,
crimes against a child, or crimes involving
some type of physical violence.
So the Governor hasn't just said if
you've got a violation for crossing against a
red light you're out of the box. He's said
that if you have committed a crime and you
have done something that relates to the safety
of those children in the care of the
individual running the program, then we ought
to know about that, the licensee ought to
account for that, and we ought to protect the
children from any potential danger.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield?
3019
THE PRESIDENT: The sponsor
continues to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Senator
Velella, is there a provision that's in this
bill that would indicate that a son or a
daughter-in-law who resides with the licensee
who has been involved in an act and never
exposed that, what are the liabilities of the
registration if they have not put that
information to the director of the center? If
the director has no information about this
that occurred, is that director still liable?
SENATOR VELELLA: Well, Senator,
my only reaction to that would be if people
are going to lie, cheat and conceal, we
will -- the state in any case would have to
make their best effort to determine what is
going on at that facility.
Now, if someone is an applicant for
a license to have daycare in their home and
they don't want to tell you that they have a
3020
son living there and they refuse to let him be
fingerprinted, as soon as the supervising
agency would know that there's someone in that
home that wasn't fingerprinted or was hiding
in there, they would have the grounds to
terminate the license.
So, you know, there's some degree
of what we don't know, we can't defend
against. But right now there is no provision,
there is no protection. And I don't know of a
better way than having police go in and search
your house every day to see who's in there.
So when a licensee applies, if they
have a clean record and they have been an
honest person, I would assume they would say
"and the following people living in my home
are" -- my son, my wife, my granddaughter, my
cousin from another country, or whatever it
is. And then the agency would say, "Well,
they have to be fingerprinted."
If you don't disclose that and it's
found out, then you lose your license because
you've lied on your application. So we can't
stop people from lying. But when we catch
them, we can pull their license.
3021
SENATOR SEABROOK: Madam
President, just one other question.
THE PRESIDENT: And the Senator
does continue to yield.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Just one other
question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR VELELLA: Thank you.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Senator, is
there a real issue of this in the City of New
York? Because in the past, in my involvement
with daycare and family daycare for many, many
years, this hasn't been a problem. Has there
been a problem in New York City with this?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, let me
respond to that. I might point out not only
in the City of New York but in our own county
that we come from, in Bronx County, there was
a Yolanda Lenares who had been an approved
daycare licensed worker and had been ruled as
seriously mentally defective because she tried
to burn her house down with a whole bunch of
children inside it. And she was licensed by
our state to take care of children like your
3022
grandchild, my grandchild, and our children.
And we had nothing in the law when
those parents turned around and looked at us
and said, Why is she a licensed worker in New
York State? She burned a house down with a
bunch of children in it. She was ruled by a
court to be a mentally defective person, and
why are you giving her a license?
Because we didn't know. We didn't
have the fingerprints. This bill will allow
us to know.
There are many, many more cites of
a lot of issues like that. The case I
cited -- I don't know, maybe you didn't hear
me, but the case where we had a good,
dedicated woman running a daycare center and
her son had been a convicted rapist and her
son lived in the home with her and raped one
of the little children. We want to know those
things so we can provide the protections
necessary.
And we're not looking to intrude on
people's privacy, we're looking to protect our
most innocent children that are in these
daycare centers.
3023
SENATOR SEABROOK: Thank you,
Madam President. Just on the bill in
question.
I would hope that we will really
take a look at this. I think that it's moving
in the right direction with some sense of some
things have to be dealt with as to the amount.
But I would just hope that -- we've
had an incident in a number of schools, public
schools, where teachers the other day revealed
that there's a teacher in the district that is
addicted to eight bags a heroin a day.
So if we're getting into this
business of fingerprinting, that perhaps we
need to make this kind of broad-based, to
expand and do all of that in other areas where
we have tremendous violations, also in public
and private schools as well, of those
incidents that have taken place.
So if we're going to do this, let's
just carry it across the board.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield,
please.
3024
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator
yields.
You may proceed, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I
notice that in the bill the maximum fine
imposed on daycare providers is going from
$250 per day to $500 per day. I'm wondering
what the reasoning is for the increase in the
fines.
SENATOR VELELLA: Well, my reason
would be to help discourage people from
violating the law. That's the purpose of
fines or punishments. And if we see that
people continue to violate the law at $250,
we're hoping that the elevation to $500 might
be a little bit more of a discouragement to
them not to violate the law.
The fines will be going into a fund
here administered by the Comptroller and the
Commissioner of OCFS, and such funds will be
used for health and safety grants and for
training of daycare providers. So these funds
will be put into a trust fund. The Governor
has said we're going to take these monies from
3025
the violators of the law.
But we're not just going to take
them and put them into the general fund of the
State of New York and let it go off into
never-never land, we're going to take it and
put it to a constructive use. We're going to
say that we're going to use these dollars from
these violators of the law for the health,
safety and training of young people and the
people who supervise them.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: That's not
enough? Okay.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Following along
that line, the other change in terms of that
kind of administrative oversight is that
presently an operator or a provider, if they
are found to be doing something wrong, get a
period of time to cure that. Under this
3026
legislation, they immediately start paying
fines. And as I say, the fines are now $500
per day.
I'm wondering why it is that
there's no grace period provided for the
provider to actually fix their -- any problems
that are found.
SENATOR VELELLA: There is, in
the regulations, an opportunity to cure the
defect within 30 days. And that would be
administered by the agency that imposes the
fine. Except in cases of egregious safety
violations such as fire violations, grievous
health violations, something that puts the
child in jeopardy.
You know, those are, in my mind,
crimes that ought not to be forgiven so
easily. And if we had a system where every
time you did something wrong and put a child's
life in danger or put the safety of someone in
danger all you had to do was say "I'm sorry"
and everybody forgives you, it would be a
weakness in support of those laws.
So where we have serious violations
of health and safety, yes, those fines are
3027
imposed. And they would be imposed as a
matter of fact because you have violated the
law.
Where there are violations that are
of a less severe nature, the administrative
agency would have the authority, if it's cured
within 30 days, to waive the fine.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I just want to clarify. The 30-day
grace period, if you will, is not contained in
the legislation, it's only contained within
the agency's administrative code right now; is
that correct? Is that what you said?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I
would refer -- I'm sorry, did you finish?
SENATOR DUANE: I'm just
3028
wondering if that's what you said.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yeah. And
again, I don't have every page memorized. So
with the advice of counsel, page 15, line 20,
imposition of the penalty -- within 30 days of
notification of the imposition of the penalty,
they may waive it, avoid payment of the
penalty. If you read 17 to 21 on page 15.
Oh. I don't believe you have the
same bill I have. You're reading off the
printed bill. I'm reading off the draft.
Section 9, paragraph C(i).
SENATOR DUANE: If you'll -- I'm
having trouble finding it in my bill.
Actually -
SENATOR VELELLA: I'm trying to
find it in the bill now.
SENATOR DUANE: -- I was given a
copy of the bill-drafting one, so it's okay.
Thank you, I see it.
SENATOR VELELLA: Okay, it would
be -- your copy would be page 7, line 55, 56,
and going on to page 8.
I apologize for not having the
right page.
3029
SENATOR DUANE: That's fine.
Thank you.
I was concerned about that, that
issue, since we provide the same grace period
for code violations and buildings, et cetera.
So that's a good -- good thing.
Thank you. Madam President, on the
bill. Oh, I'm sorry. One final question, I'm
sorry.
SENATOR VELELLA: Last question.
SENATOR DUANE: Last one.
SENATOR VELELLA: I'm not
yielding to any more.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator
yields for one last question.
You may proceed, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: You know, I
notice that we're doing this with a message of
necessity. And you referenced that the
Assembly hasn't passed the bill. But I'm
wondering if there was an agreed-upon -- if
the Assembly has an exact agreed-upon bill
which they just didn't have time to do.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, the
bill was sent over last night. They did not
3030
have time to act on it.
I have read this bill only briefly
only this morning, so I had an opportunity to
review it. I've prepared for the debate and
looked through the issues that were discussed
on it. And I have every belief in my mind,
having been a former member of the Assembly,
that rational minds will prevail and when they
return they will welcome this bill with open
arms as it's delivered to the Assembly and
pass it unanimously.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm of course
very happy to hear that the Senator had such a
lovely experience in the Assembly. And I'm
heartened by his joyous experience in the
other house.
However, I'm skeptical that the
legislation will pass in exactly the same
form. There have been a few points -- I want
to echo some of the comments made by my
colleagues Senators Montgomery and Seabrook
3031
about our concerns. And while there's a lot
of really terrific things in this legislation,
I think there are still some things that I
would characterize as not in the best
interests of public policy.
So even though it has a message of
necessity, I actually don't think it's going
to get passed that quickly, and that there
will be some negotiations between the other
house and this house.
So I'm going to vote in the
negative in the hopes that we'll get another
chance to vote on a bill in a slightly
different form.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to just a
couple of quick questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Okay, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
3032
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
Senator Velella, I agree with most
of the premises of this bill, the
fingerprinting and other steps. My question
to you is, what's the practical effect of
these measures? Is this going to increase the
cost of childcare? Will it delay the
retention or the hiring of childcare workers,
and will it make it more difficult to retain
them?
As you know, those are classic
problems that we have in our childcare system.
Will this bill, even though its proper
intention -- and it will probably drive to
greater institutionalization of childcare,
which may or may not be a bad thing. But will
it increase the cost and simply exacerbate
some of the problems we've had before?
SENATOR VELELLA: In response,
Senator, I don't know what value you place on
the safety of children or their lives. But
yes, there will be a little bit more of an
increase.
And yes, we are providing for this
in a balanced budget that we are voting on
3033
today. The funds are there. The Assembly has
agreed that there is a need to protect these
children. We have some technical -- possibly
technical differences as to how to best
protect them.
But the money that needs to be
spent to protect these young people has been
agreed upon by both houses. If you want, I
can give you the details of it. $6.5 million
in the budget right now that we're going to be
voting on, for inspections and improving the
safety of these facilities. And 12 million
will be the fingerprinting cost. And then the
40 million that I spoke to Senator Montgomery
about to establish career paths for the people
who are working in the daycare centers and to
allow them to advance themselves, get better
pay, and hopefully get better quality
services.
So I think that yes, the answer is
it is going to cost a little bit more. Every
penny of it is worth it to help our young
people.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Second
question, Madam President.
3034
How long will it take from the time
of application to the time of actual hiring to
go through these prehiring screening
processes? Will that create a problem for the
daycare operators?
SENATOR VELELLA: Well, Senator,
assuming that the Assembly acts responsibly
and passes it quickly -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Assumed.
SENATOR VELELLA: -- we would
assume that, I'm sure -- and the Governor
signs it quickly, as fast as humanly possible
is the answer that I would have to give to
you. These regs will be put into place, the
dollars are there. As fast and as quickly as
humanly possible, these safety provisions will
be followed by the agency.
And I assure you that Governor
Pataki will be amongst the first, since it is
his bill, to see that his agencies immediately
start implementing and spending this money for
the purpose it's intended for.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President, if Senator
Velella will yield. I obviously wasn't clear
3035
with my question.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Senator
continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The question
I wanted to clarify, Senator, is the practical
consequence of after someone applies for a job
in a daycare center, how much time will lapse
before they go through this preemployment
screening before they can actually begin
employment?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I'm
trying to ascertain -- I couldn't tell you. I
didn't bring my crystal ball with me today.
But certainly the agency will move as quickly
as possible to get those fingerprints back.
There is the possibility that after
an interview, that that person could start
working pending the return of the prints. If
there's probable cause to believe that that
person may have something wrong, they would
possibly hold it up. But if they want to do
an interview pending the return of the
3036
fingerprints, they could start working
immediately.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Thank
you, Madam President. Just briefly on the
bill.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill as well, although quite frankly I have
practical concerns about the impact of more
front-end fingerprinting and screening, which
is certainly given with the right purpose but
may have the adverse impact of slowing down
the hiring process and building into delays
before people can apply for jobs and have them
filled.
We get into a balancing of the
needs, the actual needs of the agencies versus
their ability to deal with this regulatory
framework.
And I will say one thing, I still
think that the critical solution to childcare
is not completely contained in this bill. We
need more than $40 million for childcare.
Childcare -- as everybody in this room knows,
it's more expensive to pay for childcare for
your child in a single year than the tuition
3037
at the State University of New York. It's a
pure and simple fact. It's far more expensive
for childcare.
What we need to do is make
childcare accessible and affordable, and
that's going to take a lot more than
$40 million.
My concern is that the increased
burdens that we're placing upon childcare
agencies -- all of them properly intended, all
of them designed, as Senator Velella says, to
better protect our children -- they come at a
cost. And the cost is it's going to be more
expensive to provide childcare across the
board.
And until we have a statewide
childcare policy where we say to the people of
this state who want to protect their children
that we as a state are going to make sure
there's abundant subsidized daycare available
so that people don't have to spend more for
their child between birth and age 6 than they
spend between 18 and 22 when they send them to
college, that's the kind of statewide policy
we need.
3038
I would suggest, Senator Velella,
that's going to be a lot more expensive than
$40 million a year. But that is the right
thing to do. That's the thing to do to
provide high-quality, accessible, subsidized
daycare for everyone in this state, so that we
can make sure that our children are protected,
that they're provided with high-quality
experiences in childcare. But it's not going
to happen without this state coming up with a
statewide childcare policy that makes it
accessible and affordable.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, briefly on the bill.
The concept of putting in more
money, having greater impact on funding, is
great. That's fantastic. We should put more
money into childcare, it's absolutely
necessary. Private industry is doing it. We
see it happening all over the place. Daycare
centers are opening up within corporations as
part of the service. It's happening
3039
everywhere.
However, all that being said, that
doesn't account for the safety factor. We
still have to check who's going in. We still
have to check the background of the people
involved.
You could have the greatest system
in the world, the most widespread system in
the world, but if you can't find out if there
is a convicted rapist or a convicted felon who
is going to be near those children, you've
done nothing. The greatest system in the
world falls down unless you check the people
involved.
It's the service provider. And
unless that person is free from guilt in some
crime or free from a background, the parent
who put their child in the childcare system
has a right to know that the child is going
into a safe situation and is going to be
handled and treated and talked to and dealt
with by people who are professionals and who
are -- whose background is checked.
When I went into teaching, every
time we passed another test and moved into a
3040
different level -- that was back in the Stone
Age. We were still carrying our loincloths
and our stone tablets over our shoulders. But
we were fingerprinting at every step of the
way. And we would check so that everybody's
background was full well known.
I see no problem in this
fingerprinting. I see no risk added. If you
want safe and quality childcare, then you've
got to provide them with, yes, the funding,
yes, the facilities, but the providers have to
be good, quality people. There's no shortcut
to that. There's no easy way to that. You
just have to do it.
And I understand the people who are
concerned about fingerprinting. But when it
comes down to it, how else are you going to
check? Take their word? Unfortunately, in
the real world, people don't always tell the
truth. So you have to check. And there is no
substitute for a good clear check.
Madam President, I'm proud to be a
sponsor of this bill. Senator Velella is
doing a yeoman's work on this. And I give the
Governor great credit for bringing this bill
3041
to our attention. Thank you, and I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Just on the
bill, briefly, also.
I think this is a bill that has to
be. And I've often said, I think -- maybe
some of you have heard it, I've said it on the
floor -- that in order to avoid the onus that
seems to occur when there's fingerprinting -
and, as I have mentioned before, my daughter
is fingerprinted because she was seeking a job
teaching in New York City. So, I mean,
fingerprinting is really not -- should not be
the onus.
And I had mentioned that if we
could somehow devise a law that required
fingerprinting at birth of every person in our
country, we would then avoid this kind of onus
which we now -- people seem to place on
fingerprinting.
But my point in getting up is
something else. And that is while I concur
with Senator Dollinger that we want quality
childcare and we want the very best we can
3042
achieve for our children, the fact is until we
as a state determine a policy that will pay
our childcare workers more than they are
currently being paid, we are not going to see
some of our finest citizens coming into
childcare.
And if you want to look at the crux
of the problem, that is the crux of it, that
you can't pay someone $15,000 or $14,000
coming out of college with a bachelor's and
not elevate that over a period of a decade and
expect to see really quality people coming in.
There were a lot of wonderful
people who are now in their ages of 60s and
70s, and they just did it because they loved
the work, and they got recompensed terribly.
And that is not the situation that we are
seeing with young people today.
So until we handle the main
problem, which is the way we pay our childcare
workers, we are not going to see an
improvement.
SENATOR VELELLA: Would Senator
Oppenheimer yield for a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
3043
Oppenheimer, will you yield for a question
from Senator Velella?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Of course.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, would
it change your mind any if I told you that
between the budget we will be voting on
shortly and this bill, $40 million is being
put in by the Governor of this state and the
Legislature to upscale and retain and find a
career path for those employees?
So exactly what you're saying,
until we do that -- we're doing it now.
$40 million for upscaling the job training and
the development of a career path for those
very workers you're talking about, who deserve
it. Would that change your mind?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Let me say
that this is certainly a step in the right
direction, and certainly the additional
training is something that we have been
begging for for a number of years now. It
doesn't actually affect the salaries that will
be achieved after this training is done.
It will perhaps give us a more
professional work staff, but it still does not
3044
address the issue of the salaries that are
paid to our childcare workers. And it is
still true that someone working in a zoo makes
better money than a childcare worker.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 17. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, on the
issue.
I echo some of the comments and
statements that were made in the chamber,
especially the last statement by Senator
Oppenheimer and Senator Velella's response,
the need for higher wages and the desire to
create a higher standard of
professionalization in this field.
And if this bill moves in that
direction, then I am heartily supportive of
it. I would hope the movement would be more
rapid.
I would also like to speak on the
issue of fingerprinting. I was faced with a
very difficult decision on fingerprinting when
3045
I was president of the New York City Board of
Education. Theoretically, I was opposed to
it. Theoretically, it turned me off.
Theoretically, it made me review many of my
basic principles, in theory.
But in reality, I discovered that
fingerprinting does make a difference in the
area in which we instituted it when I was
president of the Board of Education, in the
area of security guards.
And there is now, there has been
for the last 20 years a fingerprinting bank
throughout the fifty states. We were at one
time hiring security guards in the state of
New York, and we didn't realize that they had
a criminal record in the state of Wyoming or
Utah or Oregon.
And I no longer believe that
fingerprinting is an onus. If handled
properly and carefully, it can enhance the
educational experience. And it has eliminated
people from serving as security guards in the
public schools of the City of New York who
would do untold damage, not only to the
schools but to our most precious possession,
3046
the children who attend these schools.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 17. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, to explain your vote?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, very
briefly, Madam President.
I know that I said I would vote for
this bill, but I understand that we don't have
an agreement. And certainly there is an
opportunity to vote again on this legislation.
I hope that some of the comments and issues
that were raised here today will be taken into
consideration when we negotiate a final bill.
So I'm going to vote no on this
version, because I understand we're going to
have another opportunity. And thank you. I'm
voting no. I changed my mind.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
3047
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 891 are
Senators Duane, Montgomery, and Schneiderman.
Ayes, 55. Nays, 3.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 892.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 892, Senator Bruno moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 11005 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 7838,
Third Reading Calendar 892.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered. The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
892, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 11005, an act to amend
the Education Law, in relation to
establishing.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
3048
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there a message of necessity at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will Senator
Padavan yield for a question? I think it's
Senator Padavan's bill.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Rather than
an explanation, Madam President, if he would
just yield for a question.
3049
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President.
Senator, I'm concerned about this
bill, that one aspect of this bill is the
definition of a teacher shortage, which
triggers the application of the repayment of
loans and the other incentives that are
contained in this bill.
And my question is, does it apply
in areas even though there's an abundance of
teachers in the area but nonetheless the
school district has a difficulty recruiting
them because of working conditions or pay and
benefits? Would that apply in this instance
for these teachers?
SENATOR PADAVAN: First, Senator,
the -- there are six different components of
this legislation, which build upon the Senate
program called TEACH and the Executive's
Teachers of Tomorrow program. The State
Commissioner of Education will make the
determinations as to low-performing school
districts and districts that are facing
significant teacher shortage.
3050
And, based on those determinations
criteria, monies -- and this bill provides for
$25 million in the budget to implement this
program -- those monies would then be
allocated in that fashion.
However, even within that grouping,
there are levels of priority. First priority
would be given to a school district under
registration review, a school that is under
registration review. The second priority
would be to any school performing
significantly below state standards, as
defined by the Commissioner. The third level
of priority would be to any school that is
designated as a teacher-shortage area.
So what we have are specific
criteria to be implemented by the Commissioner
and the funds to be directed toward those
areas that meet those criteria on a priority
basis.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Padavan would
continue to yield.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do I
3051
understand that this proposal is
building-specific, then, and not school
district-specific, that it can be actually
building-specific -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, it can be.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- if there
are those three critical -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Absolutely. In
the bill itself, if you turn to page 2, lines
24, where it outlines "within a school
district, to a school under registration or a
school performing significantly below." So it
is school-specific within a district.
Now, there are districts in this
state that obviously are facing a greater
problem than other districts. And certainly
that's true of the City of New York, which in
the next five years we anticipate losing
54,000 teachers, for a variety of reasons.
Statewide, there are over 11,500 teachers who
do not meet the minimum standards.
So the need to provide all the
various components that this bill provides -
encourage teachers to work in underserved
areas, to provide stipends to teachers so they
3052
can take the courses, up to $2,100 per year,
that are required to achieve their
certification, to provide incentives for
master teachers, $10,000 a year, so that they
can help new teachers -- all of these issues
and programs and components have one basic
goal, to increase the number of teachers, to
improve the level of their qualifications, and
to encourage them to teach in areas that are
fundamentally underserved.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Final
question, through you, Mr. President, if
Senator Padavan will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What happens
if both with respect to the schools under
review or those that are significantly below
state standards, what happens if we achieve
the goal that we're hoping for, a dramatic
improvement in importance? Will the benefits
still flow to the teachers at those schools
3053
even if they're no longer under review or
they're no longer performing below standards?
SENATOR PADAVAN: In each of the
stipends or awards that are given, there are
time limits. For instance, the Master
Teachers program, where there's a $10,000
addition to the base salary -- but it's up to
three years. So at that point in time,
obviously the award would be reviewed.
Similarly -- well, obviously for
those who are getting up to $2,100 per year to
meet their course requirements for
certification, when they accomplish that goal,
obviously that amount of money is no longer
forthcoming.
So there are time frames as well as
limits to these grants given to teachers for
various reasons.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Just on the bill, ever so
briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
Senator Padavan's cogent explanation of this
3054
bill and the specifics with which it is
drafted. That is, that we will deal with,
building by building, teacher problems or
teacher shortages or buildings or schools that
are under review by the State Board of
Regents. I know I have a couple of those in
my districts.
And it seems to me it's critically
important that we make sure that we drive
these resources where they are most needed.
It appears the bill does that.
I know Senator Padavan has said
that the Board of Regents can define those
teacher-shortage areas. That will be a
difficult decision, I think, because in a
community like Rochester, where we certainly
have teacher shortages in some parts of our
community, we do not have it in others.
But it seems to me this bill has
the flexibility we need to bring teachers to
where they are most needed. And I am going to
vote in favor on the basis of that, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Lachman.
3055
SENATOR LACHMAN: Through you,
Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator
be available for a question or two?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Padavan, do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I think you're
talking about me, Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I am.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
distinguished Senator yields, Senator.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Certain
technical words might need an elaboration or
an explanation.
For example, you mention "such
grants shall be awarded to school districts
within the limits of funds appropriated
thereof through a competitive process that
takes into consideration the magnitude of any
shortage of teachers in the school district."
How do you interpret "magnitude"?
SENATOR PADAVAN: The what,
Senator?
SENATOR LACHMAN: How does one
interpret "magnitude"?
SENATOR PADAVAN: The magnitude?
3056
The criteria for determining, as in responding
to the prior questioner, will be determined by
the Commissioner on a priority basis. The
priorities are articulated on page 2,
beginning on lines 22, where these priority
levels will become the basis by which the
Commissioner will allocate.
And there are some limiting
factors, and there obviously should be, such
as the amounts that I discussed earlier which
are individual grants to individual teachers.
So we have to rely upon the
Commissioner to evaluate all the districts
throughout the state -- as we know, there are
700 school districts -- and, further, those
districts to determine, based on an individual
school, where the need is justified.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, will the Senator continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. On the
issue that my colleague, Senator Dollinger,
raised on the low-performing schools, and the
3057
school buildings performing significantly
below state standards, as defined by the
Commissioner, does the Commissioner of
Education have the authority to set throughout
the state what those significantly-below
state-standards are, be they 10 percent,
20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent, 50
percent?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, as you
know, Senator, standards are developed by the
Board of Regents, and the Commissioner
implements them. So obviously we have the
relationship of both.
SENATOR LACHMAN: And this would
be uniform throughout the State of New York?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Absolutely.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Mr.
President, through you, will the Senator
continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: The bill also
3058
mentions that "not more than 60 percent of the
funds allocated pursuant to this section shall
be made available to any one school district,
and provided further that a school district in
a city with a population" -- et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera, as a famous King of Siam
used to say. On this issue, why 60 percent?
Why was that selected?
And corollary to that, Senator, are
we referring to local education authorities
throughout the state and not specifically to
community school boards in the City of New
York?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, that
part of the 60 percent, that paragraph you
were reading obviously relates largely, if not
basically, to the City of New York. Because
if we didn't have that limiting factor, this
entire 25 million would probably end up in the
City of New York, and that wouldn't be fair.
So we have 60 percent limited to a
given school district, which for all practical
purposes means the City of New York.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
final question on this -
3059
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR LACHMAN: People from the
City of New York sometimes interpret school
districts to be community school districts.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, that's
not -
SENATOR LACHMAN: You're
referring in this to an LEA, as a local
education authority -
SENATOR PADAVAN: School
districts are defined by the -
SENATOR LACHMAN: -- the total
school district of the City of New York?
SENATOR PADAVAN: School
districts are defined by State Education Law.
There are 700 school districts. The City of
New York is a singular school district.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I agree. I
know that.
Mr. President, on the item under
consideration, I strongly support this. I
think it's long overdue. It's a first step in
many steps towards increasing the quality of
3060
education in the City of New York and in
devising innovative methods to do that. I
support this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. President,
I rise to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: May
we call the roll first, Senator.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Please read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator LaValle, to explain his vote.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. President,
I rise to congratulate Senator Padavan,
3061
Senator Bruno, the Governor.
I think this is a very, very
important piece of legislation that will
provide the kinds of incentives that we need
to attract some of the best and brightest
teachers to those areas of our state, within
our Senatorial district and the state, that so
sorely need help in the classroom for students
who may not be getting the best guidance.
I have the opportunity to meet with
Commissioner Mills on a regular basis. And
we've talked about this teacher shortage
issue. And both he and I came to a conclusion
that if the Commissioner of Education and
myself, because of our roles in education and
the state, tried to attract 50 teachers, 50
individuals to serve in the areas that Senator
Padavan delineates in this bill, that we would
be playing a very important role.
So I rise in support of this bill
to also extend to each and every Senator in
this district to promote this legislation, to
make individuals aware that there are
incentives, that there are needs beyond the
monetary value, that there is, for many people
3062
who go into teaching, the humanitarian value,
the thrill of advancing an individual so that
they can achieve their dreams, their
aspirations.
Those who have taught know
perfectly well what I have just said. But we
have in the Padavan legislation covered all of
the bases in terms of the incentives. So I
would hope that my colleagues would extend,
through press releases and talking in your
Senatorial district, so that we can attract
the best and the brightest in our classrooms
that need this kind of help.
Thank you. I vote aye, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator LaValle will be recorded aye on the
bill.
Senator Stavisky, why do you rise?
SENATOR STAVISKY: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky is recognized to explain her
vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I'm going to
3063
vote for this bill.
As a former high school teacher, I
taught at some of the best high schools in the
City of New York and also some of the most
difficult. And the only reservation that I
have about this legislation is the -- almost
the encroachment upon the concept of merit
pay, which I think is a mistake, as a former
teacher who, as I said, has had not very many
years of experience. I'm still out on
maternity leave, so -
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAVISKY: -- so I
haven't been in the classroom in quite a
while.
But like you, Mr. President, we are
both former high school teachers. And I think
this is a terrific bill, and I'm delighted to
vote for it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Couldn't agree with you more, Senator.
Announce the results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
3064
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if you could call up Calendar Number 860,
Senate 6077.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
860, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 6077, an act to amend the Social
Services Law, in relation to medical
assistance exclusion.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Meier, an explanation has been
requested by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Mr.
3065
President.
Just a personal note first, if I
could. Some of you know that my first
association with the Senate was as counsel to
the late State Senator James Donovan. And my
only reservation at rising today is the
apprehension that I may not be as eloquent as
he was when it came to this very subject.
Senate 6077, simply put, provides
that Medicaid will not pay for an abortion
unless that abortion is necessary to save the
life of the mother, the pregnancy results from
a rape or act of incest that has been reported
to a law enforcement agency, or if required
under other conditions necessary as a
condition for state participation in the
Medicaid program.
That's the brief summary of the
bill. But I suppose the question really is
why.
This bill would bring New York into
conformity with the federal government and 36
other states around the United States which
provide Medicaid funding for abortion only
under more limited circumstances, usually
3066
including medical indications. So because of
that, Medicaid in New York State, when it is
used to pay for abortions, is paid for
50 percent by the state, 50 percent by the
locality.
Generally speaking, we're talking
about around 145,000 abortions per year, of
which 40 to 45 percent are paid for out of
Medicaid, at an annual cost of about
$33 million.
Well, what, then, as I say, is the
why involved in this proposed piece of
legislation? Abortion is unlike just about
any other medical procedure or service
provided under Medicaid. If you examine the
legislative history behind Medicaid, it is
replete with references about providing health
care for the purpose of curing illness and
aiding people in infirmity.
Correspondingly, even under the
most generous rendition of the menu of
Medicaid optional services, you will find that
not all medical procedures are covered under
Medicaid.
Now, with regard to abortion, when
3067
an abortion is performed in this state under
the Health Law of this state, the physician
must complete a fetal death certificate. Part
of the certificate is named "indication for
termination," and then it lists reasons for
the physician to check. Those reasons include
maternal medical condition, fetal abnormality,
psychiatric. In other words, medical reasons.
If you examine the statistics that
have been compiled over the last few years,
those classifications that I just mentioned
account annually for about 10 percent of the
abortions performed in this state. The
catchall reason, "patient request," consists
of around 90 percent. In other words, for
nonmedical reasons.
And yet we know from a New York
Times survey, and from surveys and polls that
have taken from around the country, that the
American people and indeed the people of the
State of New York oppose abortion for purposes
of birth control and oppose public funding of
abortion for elective reasons.
Now, it's sort of interesting that
even those -
3068
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me, Senator.
SENATOR MEIER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: If
there are conversations, can we please take
them outside the chamber so we can have some
order in the house.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Now, let's be clear. Even under
the greatest stretch of the term, abortion
really doesn't cure anybody or anything in the
usual sense of the word. And let's also be
clear about what we're talking about and why
public funding of abortions troubles many
people, even those who might describe
themselves sometimes as pro-choice.
Let me read for you a quote about
this subject from the New York Times of
February 26, 1997. The speaker is talking
about the subject of abortion. Quote, it is a
form of killing. You are ending a life,
quote, unquote. That was not said by Cardinal
O'Connor. It wasn't said by the head of the
New York State Right to Life Committee. The
3069
speaker was a gentleman named Ron Fitzsimmons,
who was then executive director of the
National Coalition of Abortion Providers.
Now, Mr. Fitzsimmons' candor did
not permit him to extend to the point of the
completing the thought. What kind of life are
we ending, Mr. Fitzsimmons? A human life.
And even many of those who would call
themselves pro-choice would have to admit at
least that we are talking about ending human
life at a stage that, left undisturbed, would
develop into a recognizable human being. For
millions of New Yorkers, that is a troubling
prospect.
Well, now some may say, and I
anticipate we'll hear someone say, Well,
that's your point of view, I respect it, but
millions and millions of other New Yorkers
disagree, and they should have the ability to
exercise choice and we should resident that
regardless of our point of view.
Well, that argument always
interests me, that we should respect choice.
I respond, what about the choice of the
millions upon millions of New Yorkers who find
3070
abortion under most circumstances abhorrent
but who are compelled to pay for it with their
tax dollars and to be complicit in it? What
about their choice?
If I understand the position of
some of the pro-choice advocates correctly, it
is that government ought to keep its nose out
of abortion except to pay for it. And we all
know, if history teaches us anything, that the
ability of government to tax and to spend
public funds is indeed the most intrusive
function that it can perform.
Now, let me briefly anticipate a
couple of points that may well be made during
the course of this debate, if there is to be
one, and I'm anticipating, based on some of
the transcripts of this discussion in years
past, including last year.
Last year it was argued that
Medicaid-funded abortion is the only
alternative for many poor women who find
themselves in an even more desperate
circumstance because of pregnancy. And it was
even argued last year and in past years that
Medicaid-funded abortions are a great benefit
3071
to the state's treasury because it prevents
the births of people who would likely receive
public assistance and become a burden on the
public treasury.
Absolutely breathtaking. And
probably nothing so chilling has been
suggested since 1729 when Jonathan Swift
authored "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the
Children of Poor People in Ireland from being
a Burden to their Parents or Country." And at
least that was a satire.
What a bleak commentary. And what
a chilling prospect. What -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me, Senator.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If you
would just -- I request an explanation of what
you just said, because I don't believe it was
ever said.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, the -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Point of
order, that's what it was. Sorry.
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President, I
3072
believe I have the floor.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If you
could yield for a question just so I could
find out when it was said.
SENATOR MEIER: I'd like to
complete my explanation, and then I'd be happy
to yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator has the floor, and he'll yield after
he completes his statement.
Senator, you have the floor.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you.
My point is this. And the thought
I want to complete, because I think it's an
important one, is that's a pretty chilling
prospect for anyone whose condition in life,
whatever it may be, puts them in jeopardy of
becoming a burden on the public treasury.
And I will finish very quickly.
We have just passed a budget that
makes some significant investments, makes some
significant investments in childcare, in job
creation, in medical assistance, in various
kinds of assistance for the poor.
And I would suggest that based on
3073
the great tradition of this state that we can
certainly fashion a vision for the poor and
for their unborn children that is more
ennobling and more visionary than helping poor
mothers and fathers to abort their children.
This bill, I submit to you, returns
Medicaid to its original intent. And I thank
my colleagues for the opportunity to explain
it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Goodman, why do you rise?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I'd like to
speak on the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Goodman, on the bill.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Mr. President,
in 1970 this house took a revolutionary step
in sharing in the responsibility for
legalizing medically safe abortions. And
since that time, unfortunately, repeated
efforts have been made to chip away annually
at that basic decision, which I'll remind this
house preceded Roe versus Wade by
approximately two years.
There is no question that the
3074
policy of the state has been established to
permit medically safe abortions in the
trimesters which are prescribed by law. And
in this instance we see once again the annual
effort to attack Medicaid abortions. I'm
sorry to say that this is unfortunately a most
inhumane approach to this question. And the
reason is very clear.
This house may recall, a few of you
who were here in the time of that original
debate, that I held in my hand a coat hanger,
which was the familiar instrument being used
for self-administered abortions in back rooms
where butchers would frequently take women and
unfortunately administer to them the former
procedure, which was totally killing in every
respect.
This is a tragedy which we sought
to avert by legalizing abortion, and indeed we
did so in a most humane and appropriate
fashion. It seems to me a pity that every
year it's necessary to go through what I must
and simply cannot resist calling a charade.
This is a charade because, as we well know,
this house takes its action, it invariably
3075
passes -- and I have no illusion that words of
mine are going to change the outcome in the
house today.
But I would remind you, ladies and
gentlemen, that this never passes in the
Assembly, and that what we are doing here
today is essentially a symbolic effort to show
protest to abortion generically, and it
singles out the poor women who are aided by
Medicaid as the objects of this particular
target. And it's unfortunate that this is the
way it is being done.
And I say it's unfortunate, but I'd
rather use the word "tragic." If you can
fancy yourself in the position of a poor woman
in need of an abortion for the legitimate
reasons envisaged by our law, you will
recognize quite rapidly that this slams the
door in her face. She is unable to find the
money for the abortion, and what then is her
option and her alternative? It is virtually
nonexistent.
It is difficult enough to get an
abortion legally. There are many procedures
that one must go through, including the
3076
medical arrangements which have to be made.
But if you're a poor individual and especially
a young one with little sense of capacity to
deal with the bureaucracies involved, you have
difficulty enough if it is a legal procedure.
But if you cannot obtain Medicaid funding, you
are absolutely estopped from any reasonable,
humane termination of the birth as prescribed
by law.
This goes against the law, and it
goes against the clearly stated intention of
this house, which dates back to 1970.
In my opinion, it's almost a tragic
misstatement of aim to try to single out the
Medicaid piece of this by suggesting that
taxpayers are involuntarily paying for
something which they do not believe. You can
take a look at the year 2000-2001 budget and
you could probably extract from it hundreds of
items in which each of us may not have
confidence and do not wish to see money
expended for these purposes. But nonetheless,
they are expended, because it is the will of
the majority of both houses and the Governor
that they become law.
3077
The selectivity of expenditure is
not something which has ever been excluded in
this house. Something which to say should
apply to abortion and not to any other area of
expenditure is simply outrageous, in my
judgment.
Mr. President, with all due
respect, I must say to my distinguished
colleague, Senator Meier, that he is a worthy
successor to Senator James Donovan, who every
year would bring this matter up and every year
have the satisfaction of passing it in this
house and every year understand the
uselessness and futility of the procedure
because it never goes anywhere beyond the
Assembly.
Nor would it survive a
gubernatorial veto, because the Governor has
made it very clear, I think, what his position
would be on this matter.
Ladies and gentlemen, just stop to
consider it in terms of strictly human terms,
and realize the extent of the damage that
could be done were we to pass this into law.
Let's be very specific. Medicaid-funded
3078
abortions dramatically improve maternal and
child health. Prior to 1970, the poor
suffered disproportionately high maternal and
infant losses due to illegal abortion,
high-risk, closely spaced pregnancies, and
too-frequent births.
Now, why are poor women more
vulnerable? Be very clear about this.
They're more vulnerable because they have
poorer nutrition, they have anemia, they have
excessive birth weights, they're more likely
to -- their children are much more likely
statistically, we know, to be born premature,
to have low birth weights, and with birth
defects or mental retardation.
Is it fair to withhold from this
particularly underprivileged segment of our
population the means by which to obtain legal
abortion? I think not. And I beg the house
to reconsider its votes. And perhaps with a
few of you sympathetic to this point of view
we might upset this annual charade, which I
think is to no purpose of any public
usefulness whatsoever.
Thank you, Mr. President.
3079
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
sponsor will yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Meier, do you yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I was
questioning when you were speaking before, at
what time did you take that quote about -- I
believe you said that it was preferable to
take the life of the fetus so there won't be
welfare payments. If you could document when
that was said on the floor. It sounds like a
rather outrageous statement to me.
SENATOR MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer, not to belabor it, but I'd be
happy to provide you with the transcripts of
previous debates in this house and point it
out to you.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, if
you can document that, I would be happy to see
that.
3080
SENATOR MEIER: Oh, I can
document it, and I'll be pleased to hand it to
you immediately after the debate.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: All right.
Okay.
I guess I want to talk on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: When the
sponsor was starting to talk, it sounded more
like this was a discussion of the validity of
abortion -- pro-choice, anti-choice. Whereas
this issue really does not have to do with
that, because that has already been determined
by the Supreme Court.
What this has to do with is do poor
women have the same rights that more affluent
women have. Because the basic issue has been
decided. And in our state, the right to
choose has never hinged upon whether a woman
can afford it or not. We provide in our state
equal access for either maternity care or
abortion care, and that has been our very
humane policy. And it's been a smart policy.
Funding for poor women's abortions
3081
has definitely dramatically improved the
health of mothers and the health of small
children. Prior to 1970, the poor suffered
disproportionate high maternal and infant
deaths, due to a variety of things -- due to
illegal abortion, to high-risk, closely spaced
pregnancies, and just to too many, too
frequent births. Poor women were more
vulnerable to pregnancy complications -- and
they still are, but there are options now.
And they were certainly, due to
poor nutrition, due to anemia, due to a
variety of causes, their health was poorer and
their likelihood of a healthy birth, a healthy
baby, was low. Their children were more
likely to be born premature, with low birth
weight, with birth defects, with mental
retardation.
But two years after it became legal
in New York State -- that was in 1970 -- two
years later there was a study done, and it
found that the annual rate of abortion-related
deaths in our state had fallen by over 50
percent. If we're considering the health of
women, we have to consider that fact.
3082
We have very few deaths now because
of abortion. Prior to 1970, when this
enlightened policy was put in place in our
state, we had a large number of women die
because they were having abortions illegally.
Many of our poor have only gained
access because of our Medicaid program.
Poverty should not deprive women who are
medically indigent from exercising what we
believe is their basic health-care right. But
as we all know, legal rights are useless if
you are financially unable to exercise them.
We all, I think, would support the
fact that unwanted, unloved, uncared-for
children should not be the result. We want
our families to care for their children, to
love their children, to be able to support
their children, to offer them the succor that
children are entitled to.
I think we have to continue this
enlightened and humane policy so that the poor
can continue to exercise this most fundamental
and legal right. Because abortion is not a
luxury for most women, most families. When
they make this choice, it isn't an easy one.
3083
It is considered a necessary component of a
woman's health care.
To deny poor women abortion
services is simply unfair. It prevents
reproductive freedom, and it defies both
common sense and humane public policy, for
which New York State has always stood.
So I'll be voting against this
amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator Meier, you are a worthy
successor to Senator Donovan, who always spoke
so eloquently on this bill. And let me just
say a couple of things -- Senator Goodman is
not here -- this is no charade. This is
something that a lot of people feel very
deeply about, very passionately about.
And as so many talk about, we're
not abolishing abortion. I wish we could, but
the Supreme Court has spoken. This brings us
into conformity with the rest of the United
States, basically. Thirty-six states have
3084
this law. What this does is restrict elective
abortions. You know, former Senator Nolan,
who always spoke so eloquently on this
subject -- and this is a bipartisan issue. He
said, you know -- he represented Albany
County, and he said, "I have some of the more
affluent and wealthier women of any Senate
district, and also some of the poorest." And
he says, "I have the very affluent women
coming into my office saying that these poor
women need a lot of abortions." He says, "I
have a lot of poor women that come into my
office. They have problems with their rent,
they have problems with paying bills. They
have all kinds of problems with health care.
Many problems." He says, "I've never had one
of them say, We need more abortions."
It's always -- I recall a former
Congressman saying, "Either pay for them now,
or you pay for them later." And a press
person asked me what I thought of that. I
said, "A lot of people grew up poor. I think
it's an elitist statement."
Let me say something. Governor
Pataki, Senator Goodman, voted for this bill
3085
every time he sat here in this house. So I
doubt very much if he would veto it.
Let me say something else. Partial
birth abortion, which passes with 40-some-odd
votes in this house, that would pass in a
heartbeat over in that house if they ever let
it on the floor. They're not going to let
this bill on the floor either. This is a bill
that goes over there and sits. They're not
going to vote on it.
But I'll tell you, partial birth
abortion would become the law of this state,
because the Governor said he would sign it.
As do about 85 to 86 percent of this state
that think that that is infanticide, as
Senator Moynihan once said.
You know, this is an issue I know
that we bring up late, we bring it up with the
budget every year. But ever since I have been
here in this Senate, 24 years, it has always
passed. It's been a statement of this house
on both sides of the aisle. I think it's an
important statement. We're not outlawing
abortion. It is just bringing us into
conformity with the rest of the nation.
3086
Thirty-six states have this.
What we're doing is saying that
abortion is a personal and a private decision
and it should be paid for with personal or
private funds, particularly elective
abortions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Maltese is recognized.
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President,
first of all, I too, as one of the people in
the house -- although not a senator at the
time -- that had the pleasure of hearing
Senator Donovan debate this issue, I too join
my good colleague Senator Farley in commending
Senator Meier.
Senator Meier's approach was not an
emotional approach, although, as he's
indicated, it is an issue of principle, it is
an issue that arouses emotion in people on
both sides, people of principle on both sides.
At the same time, Senator Meier's
statement alluding to prior debate concerning
legislators who would advocate abortion as a
method to save money in the future on the
backs of poor children, unwanted children, is
3087
truthful but at the same time is a terrible
commentary on us and our society. I think
there are many people, many statements that
are not made, many whispered statements and
many people that have those thoughts.
I think the much more humanitarian
approach is the approach that has been
espoused by Senator Meier and Senator Farley,
is not to pay for these abortions. Certainly
some of the legislation that has come to the
floor, especially in the last few years, and
has been espoused by my colleague Senator
Nancy Larraine Hoffmann and others, to provide
that unwanted children at birth can be
provided for by placing them under
circumstances with a safe house, if you would,
where they could be taken care of rather than
put to death.
The daily newspapers just I think
within the last week or ten days spoke about
the discovery of a body of an unwanted baby
girl that was disposed of in the woods. I
think this is not only a commentary on the
unfortunate mother -- because what mother in
her right mind would dispose of her child
3088
after, after birth in such a manner. And yet
at the same time, it is a commentary on the
ease of obtaining abortions, the partial birth
abortion alluded to by Senator Farley, a
heinous procedure that has no place in
society.
I think we can't always cop out by
blaming society and blaming others. This is
an opportunity for all of us in this house and
in the other house, if the Speaker chooses to
free his members on this question of
conscience, for us to speak out. It is not a
charade. It is not something that is useless
or inane. It is something very, very
important, an opportunity for all of us to
take a stand, literally and figuratively, on
the side of the angels.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you.
Just to let the house know, we're
keeping a list up here and we've got Senator
Padavan, Schneiderman, Stavisky, Duane, and
Marchi on the list. So that everyone knows
the order.
Senator Padavan.
3089
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, Mr.
President. I will not repeat the words that
were spoken by Senator Farley and Senator
Maltese and others, except to repeat their
words relevant to the excellent presentation
you made, Senator Meier, in bringing this
before us.
I don't think it's a charade at
all. As a philosopher once said, those who
would separate mortality from politics will
never understand one or the other. And the
fact that you bring up this issue, bring it
before us so that we can express our view, is
important irrespective of what does or does
not happen in the other house.
And yes, there are many issues in
our state budget that we would find troubling
and not wish to have there. But not one of
them, to my knowledge, deals with taking lives
of the unborn.
And so I make a major distinction,
Senator Goodman, when you draw that analogy.
You were reading from a memo from, I believe,
Planned Parenthood. Similar memos from NARAL
and NOW. Well, I would take all these
3090
dilettantes, all of these affluent ladies who
are the most obvious members of those
organizations and say, If you find this so
troubling, why don't you take all that money
you've got and you pay for it.
The Congress of the United States
clearly -- and it wasn't a Republican
Congress, it was a Democratic Congress -- said
we're not going to pay for that half of
Medicaid funding for this particular
procedure. We'll pay for everything else but
this.
So if it's the will of the land as
reflected by the Congress of the United
States, why should it not be the will of New
York State, as it is, Senator Farley pointed
out, in the case of the majority of states
throughout the nation.
Senator Meier, thank you very much
for leading the charge this year.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
I respect the sponsor's
3091
presentation on this also. I didn't hear the
earlier sponsors, but I thought it was very
candid. And I have to say that Senator Farley
was also quite candid in expressing the fact
that he would like, he wishes that we could
eliminate abortions entirely.
I think that this is an issue as to
which people of good conscience disagree. But
anyone who wants to suggest they're at all
pro-choice should not under any circumstances
support this legislation, for a very simple
reason. You may view abortion as this
unjustifiable termination of life. I view
abortion as a fundamental element of personal
freedom. Women who cannot control their
bodies are not free.
But whatever our philosophical
disagreements are, the United States Supreme
Court has ruled on what the law is. And the
law is that it is a right in this country -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me, Senator, for one second.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
I've discussed this with Senator Padavan.
3092
Excuse me, Senator Schneiderman.
If we could have the last section
read for the purposes of Senator Saland
voting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Read the last section, please.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator
Paterson, I meant.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: I vote in the
affirmative. Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Saland will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Withdraw the roll call, please.
Proceed, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
3093
As I was saying, whatever our
personal philosophical disagreements are on
this issue, the Supreme Court has ruled that
abortion is a right in the United States.
So what we're talking about here is
discrimination against poor people. What
we're talking about here is taking money away
so that poor women can't exercise this
fundamental right.
I would urge on you that this is -
there's been a lot of talk about
bipartisanship. There's a lot of bipartisan
support on what I believe is the only
constitutionally and morally permissible side
of this debate. And I would urge you to look
at the very-well-thought-out position of
Rudolph Giuliani on this issue, who is opposed
to this legislation and is also opposed to the
so-called partial birth abortion ban.
People of good conscience disagree
on the fundamentals on the issue of abortion.
But I don't really think there can be a
disagreement on the fact that this is a right
in the United States and that this legislation
seeks to discriminate against poor people.
3094
We are trying to move, and I think
this house's position is to try and move
towards more coverage for health care. Money
we put into HCRA, the efforts nationally and
at the state level, we're trying to expand
health coverage for people. This legislation
goes in the opposite direction, the wrong
direction. This would deny the most desperate
people their ability to exercise this
fundamental right.
And I have to say I am astonished
by the statements that this is a matter for
the elite and that this is not something that
poor women care about.
I mean, I guess as most people here
know, I worked in an abortion clinic. Most of
our clients were poor women. I am appalled by
the suggestion this is a matter for the elite
and that poor women don't care about it. This
is a major issue for poor women in my district
and in many of the districts around the state.
And I think that if you're one
hundred percent anti-choice, as Senator Meier,
Senator Farley are, okay, you want to take any
means necessary to get rid of abortion. This
3095
is a tactic. I may not like it; I can
understand it.
But I would urge anyone here who
wants to go back to their district and tell
people that they are pro-choice at all, that
you are not pro-choice if you vote no on this
bill. And that it really violates the basic
elements of conscience to say, oh, we're going
to single out this one thing in a state where
we all -- there are things in the state budget
none of us like. We don't want to pay for
things we don't like.
And I notice Senator Padavan
corrected himself when he said this is the
only thing in the state budget that takes away
life. Well, you know, there are a lot of
people of good conscience who oppose the death
penalty who would disagree with that.
But if you're principled on this
issue and you're consistent, I can understand
it. This is a tactic to undermine abortion
rights. And if you pretend you're pro-choice
and you vote for this legislation, I think
that you really have to look into your
conscience about it.
3096
I vote no. I urge everyone to vote
no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I'm voting
against this bill because it singles out one
particular separate class of people, poor
women. And I think that's terribly unfair.
It singles out, in a sense, a
second class of people, and that's children,
who -- unfortunately we have the situation of
children having children, and that too is
unfortunate and terribly unfair.
It's discriminatory against a class
of people, and I think that is unfair.
Studies have shown that where Medicaid funding
has been disallowed, there has been a
disproportionate share of poor women who have
had to undergo the illegal abortions and the
so-called late-term abortions.
And lastly, nobody has questioned
3097
the motives on the other side of the aisle.
We have a difference of opinion. And I know
the members on this side who feel very
strongly understand your position and respect
it. And we are sure that you will respect our
positions as well.
And lastly, one comment it did
trouble me. Somebody said that this is a
cost-saving measure. Nobody is inferring,
nobody, that we are supporting Medicaid
funding of abortion to save money in the
budget. That is reprehensible, and I think
it's wrong.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: My reasons for
voting no on this piece of legislation are
very simple. I believe very strongly that
reproductive health care, including abortion,
is something which should be accessible to all
3098
women, regardless of their ability to pay.
That is something which I think health care in
general should be accessible to everyone in
the State of New York, regardless of their
ability to pay.
That we provide abortion as part of
reproductive health services to anyone in our
state is the correct thing to do. And we have
to ensure that women that are not economically
advantaged may also be able to receive
reproductive health care, including abortion,
when that service is necessary.
I also think this goes to the core
of people's ability to and right to control
their own body. Certainly it's something very
important in my life. We've never witnessed
taking away the ability of a man to control
his body. I see no reason why it is that we
should infringe on the rights of any woman to
control her body.
I urge all my colleagues to vote no
on this. It's a very, very simple issue. A
woman's right to choose is fundamental and is
protected by the Supreme Court, appropriately.
And as part of health care, we have an
3099
obligation to provide this service to all of
the women of New York regardless of their
ability to pay.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President, I
participated in an adversarial way with
Senator DeWitt Clinton, who was an intimate -
still is an intimate friend of mine. And I
have endless affection for him. And, those of
you who have never had the pleasure of knowing
him, one of the great institutional senators
of this or any century.
But the basic question, I think the
question has been raised about the nature and
quality of the proposal that is before us,
whether it affects a particular class of
people. Senator Meier is reflecting the
concerns that were expressed here many times
by Senator Donovan and others on this
question. It is not a question that's going
to come to rest.
Is this my choice, if I were -- if
it were before me as a Governor, would I sign
3100
it? I would have trouble because of some of
the contentions that were raised here. But we
are dealing with human rights and when can
they be abrogated. By a Supreme Court
decision? Tell Justice Taney in the Dred
Scott case.
We've had so many circumstances
that we have confronted on basic human rights,
and we have confronted them and ultimately
come to a decision. This was the product of a
judicial determination. Today we have all
kinds of questions on viability, on what is
the post -- post-birth or -- natal -- partial
birth abortion. There are so many questions
that go to the original premises.
But the basic thrust is that the
reproductive rights are there, and they're
sacrosanct. Never established by Congress.
It was never established by the set law of
this country. It was a decision that was made
in reflection, on very serious concerns which
were raised here today on both sides.
I have the same feeling about life.
Life. I've been against capital punishment as
far back as I can remember. You cannot say
3101
you must die and say that there are no reasons
that we can advance in justification of that
defenseless person. When does it become a
person? When is that principle sacrosanct?
There is a difference.
And I suspect that the answer is
going to be when, through an evolutionary
experience that we have, we raise the level of
consciousness about this problem. I don't
think it will be resolved on any other basis.
These vehicles preserve the arena and the
forum for a discussion, thoughtful discussion.
Do I assume that or presume that
this will advance it to any measurable degree?
No, I don't. But it's not going to die. It
is not the prerogative of any person to say
you are going to die, unless we have the very
delicate question of the life of the mother or
the child involved.
And I say the same thing with
capital punishment. You cannot say you must
die. And the same arguments. Do you save any
money? I don't want to put a dollar sign on
that. Human life is very precious, I don't
care who it is or how bad they are.
3102
But this is -- this is the basic
question that we have to resolve. And I
applaud you, Senator, Toby, you -- I think
that we have a mutual respect for each other
and our basic concerns. And I can identify
and be sensitive to many of the arguments that
have been made.
But I cannot reconcile that. There
been over 40 million, 40 million abortions
since Roe v. Wade was passed. Were all of
them medically necessary? Were all of them in
fulfillment of this great principle?
And certainly we cannot point
accusing fingers at people, people who are
faced with the frightful problem of life and
how am I going to continue in the
circumstances that I am in, with many
children, perhaps. And this is not the ideal
vehicle.
But is there an ideal vehicle to
bring this level of consciousness raised and
elevated about the importance of life? The
only way we can address it is hopefully as we
support life. If we don't, if we abandon the
baby when it's born, if we are -- we have a
3103
cold heart towards being compassionate and
careful and supportive of people who are in
want and need, that is in effect a death
sentence too, or it can shorten life.
There are many ways in which we can
manifest this. And I believe that this body
as a body has done this traditionally and
historically, and I hope with great profit, to
the sustenance of life as we see it and
recognize it.
But I am not going to accept a
dicta that was never the product of our
jurisprudence and simply does not, does not
respond to many of the urgent questions that I
believe even in the 40 million cases that
there were 40 million experiences of
self-examination and agony.
So I would hope, I would hope that
the issues will draw down and we find better
and more acceptable ways of sustaining life
and not to anticipate the circumstances and
draconian policies that run counter, I think,
to our emotions, to our spiritual backgrounds,
which all of us share. And it's essential, I
think, that we keep these foremost.
3104
This bill will pass, and as Senator
Farley pointed out, will suffer an unlikely
fate in the Assembly. But I don't exclude the
possibility that the sensitization of the
American public and the disinclination to give
moral credence and support to the arbitrary
termination of life -- very difficult to
define.
You know, if we defined the bill,
redefined it away from those targets which you
outlined, I don't think it would change your
vote, because there are certain fundamental
feelings that you have about it. I've got to
respect them. And we have to live with each
other.
So that even if we change the law
and we had something here that you would say,
gee, this is beautiful now, it only applies to
somebody else -- but it would not change your
vote. You have certain basic feelings about
this.
And until we reach a common ground
where we can embrace each other in a more
direct and beneficial way, I just say that we
are going to continue to have this issue
3105
before us in some fashion.
Now, I have a feeling that -- you
know, it's a birth control measure in Japan.
It's not -- it's the most availed use of birth
control in Japan, according to what we read.
I don't think that -- I don't think we're
wedded to that. I think we have -- the very
fact that certain arguments have been raised
in opposition, have been raised because of
concerns, honest concerns.
But nevertheless, the answer is not
death. Death is not the answer to homicide.
These are capricious resorts that I will not
join. We must find better ways.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Read the last section, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2 -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. Mr.
President, I just want to say briefly that -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- on this
3106
issue, I think there are answers to this
problem that we have with the 40 million
abortions that Senator Marchi refers to. If
we -- and it's been proven, because in other
countries, in European countries, this is what
they do. There is sex education from
kindergarten through high school and beyond.
And it is a matter of the regular curriculum.
It's not that you can decide
whether or not there is sex education in the
school, and you cannot decide whether or not
you want to teach it, and you cannot decide
whether or not you want your child to learn
it. It is part of the curriculum.
So children begin to learn about
their bodies, about sexuality and all of the
other issues from the very beginning. So that
by the time they get to the point where
they're 13 and 14 and 15, they already have a
base of knowledge about themselves and about
how to prevent pregnancy, so that they do not
engage in risk behavior, behavior that ends
them up with premature and unwanted
pregnancies. So that's one thing.
We also know that if we have
3107
school-based health clinics where there is a
staff of health professionals available to
young people, they will have access to
professionals who can help them navigate
through some of the very difficult issues that
adolescents, in particular, have in their
lives, especially as it relates to their
sexuality: how to say no, how to conduct
yourself and your relationships so that you
can abstain, in fact.
So we have the answers. If we did
that, we would not have to stand up here every
year and go through this absolutely
horrendous, ridiculous ritual of arguing with
each other about this particular aspect.
Because we would have addressed it on the
preventive end, and then we would not have
40 million abortions to worry about.
The second point that I want to
make is we all know -- at least we, the women
in this house, know that the one factor, the
single factor that makes it possible for women
to advance in history is the opportunity and
the ability to have control over your body.
So if we want to remove that from
3108
women, starting with poor women -- and poor
women need it even more, because poor women
are poor because they have children, period,
that they cannot support and that we don't
help them support. So if we -- if that is
removed from women in this country, starting
with poor women and moving up to all women,
because that's where eventually we want to go,
it means that we are going backwards.
And certainly I as a woman have no
intention of supporting something that will
take me backwards. Not me, but other young
women.
So certainly, Mr. President, I'm
voting no on this legislation. And I think
all of us should vote no on it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR CONNOR: Slow roll call.
Slow roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: A
call has been made for a slow roll call. I
see five Senators standing.
3109
Can we call the roll slowly,
please. Sound the bells. Let everyone know
there is a slow roll call in process.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was recorded as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: To briefly
explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Connor, to explain his vote.
SENATOR CONNOR: I'm going to
vote no on this because I don't like the
economic discriminatory aspects of it, because
as a matter of public policy I don't believe
it's the best way to eliminate abortion, to
make abortions unnecessary. And based on
3110
that, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Continue the roll call, please.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger is recognized to explain his
vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, this isn't a bad thing to bring up.
Senator Meier, it's not the wrong thing to
bring up. It's not wrong to debate it,
Senator Farley, you're absolutely correct.
We do have the power to eliminate
Medicaid funding for abortion in the Supreme
Court case, Senator Farley, you're absolutely
correct. But it's a bad idea. And the reason
is simple.
3111
What the Supreme Court of the
United States said in Roe versus Wade was that
you couldn't use the power of a criminal
sanction to force a woman to make a choice
between her life, her health and the life of a
fetus. You couldn't use the criminal sanction
to effect that choice. It was
unconstitutional to do it.
I would suggest, Senator Farley,
what makes me vote against this bill is that
what this bill seeks to do is to take that
situation Roe against Wade was designed to
prevent -- that is, using a coercive tool to
force a woman to make a choice -- which is
going to be rekindled if this bill passes.
Because at this point we will
create a twofold process in which women will
be forced to make that difficult choice
because of their inability to pay for it. And
desperate women will face desperate and
enormously complicated choices, and they'll
have the same powerful if not punitive measure
of being unable to pay for it hanging over
their heads.
I would suggest that what the
3112
Supreme Court of the United States did was to
say to women: We will not force you into the
back alleys if you make this difficult choice.
I suggest if we pass this
legislation for poor women, we will force them
back into the back alleys again and have them
face this difficult choice without their
family, without their physician, without safe
abortion choices available.
And that, whether it's
constitutionally compelled or not, would be
bad and wrong. I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Continue the roll call, please.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Quickly to
explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Farley, to explain his vote.
SENATOR FARLEY: The Supreme
Court, Senator Dollinger, says that this bill
is constitutional.
I also just want to say, you know,
3113
they say this is a huge women's issue. The
women in my life that have had the biggest
influence on this issue to me -- my mother, my
wife, my daughters -- feel even more strongly
on this issue than I do. So it isn't just an
issue that we're coming from.
Quite frankly, I think that the
time has come that we do what the rest of the
United States has done, and the vast majority
of 36 states, and adopt this bill.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Continue the roll, please.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
3114
SENATOR HEVESI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
3115
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
3116
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: To explain
my vote, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer, to explain her vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I wanted to
just address something to Senator Marchi, by
saying that we concur that there are way too
many abortions in our country.
And the way most family planing
advocates have tried to address this -- and
they're real focused now, for the last several
years -- has been that we need more family
planning information out there.
We have to avoid the pregnancies
from happening in the first place. And once
we avoid those pregnancies, we won't have to
go back to discussing the two sides that we
see here in this chamber on abortion.
All of us think it would be much
better if we didn't have the abortions. It
would be much better, and I support so highly
what Senator Montgomery has said, it would be
so much better if we had family life planning
in all of our schools so that we would be more
similar to Europe, where they have as much
3117
sexual activity, if not more than we have in
our country, but this problem that we have is
totally unheard-of there.
I remember going around the state
on this issue about eight years ago and having
a German gentleman get up and say, "I don't
understand what your problem is. We don't
have this. I'm a science teacher in Europe,
and I don't understand. What is this problem
that you Americans have?"
Well, the problem is we aren't
doing the right job on educating. We would
not have this horrible abortion problem if we
had the proper education and the proper tools
available to young people. That's my first
point.
When Senator Farley says that 37
states don't have this, remember, there are 13
states that do have Medicaid funding for
abortion. And of those, several of them -
I'm not sure, six or seven -- are under court
order to have it. So this is not something
that is unheard-of and we are the only
example.
And I think it's -- I think
3118
basically it is how do you view this
procedure. I view this procedure of abortion
as being one of the many choices available to
us in women's health care.
And someone said this earlier, but
if someone, a woman, has to go ahead with an
unplanned pregnancy and truly doesn't want it
and truly is not at a point in their lives
when they support a child, when they can
support them either financially or
emotionally, they should not have that child
and they should not end the options that are
possible for their lives as young women
because they have a child.
So I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Continue the roll call, please.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado.
SENATOR ROSADO: Aye.
3119
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Sampson, excused.
Senator Santiago, excused.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: To explain
my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Schneiderman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I want to
echo something that Senator Oppenheimer just
mentioned. I think that you can't -- no one,
I think, of good conscience could listen to
Senator Marchi's remarks without reflecting on
the fact that we're talking about an extremely
difficult, serious, moral, spiritual issue
here, as well as a legal issue.
But I would urge that anyone who
takes seriously the desire that I think is
shared -- certainly I think is shared by
pretty much all of my colleagues that I've
spoken to about it, to reduce the number of
abortions, it is within our power to do that.
This is not the way to do it.
But we've brought to the floor two
3120
bills this session that have -- I hope will
move before the end of the session to provide
for more contraception, including to provide
emergency contraception to rape victims.
Survivors of rape do not get
emergency contraception in more than half the
hospital emergency rooms in the State of New
York. Some of those people are forced to have
abortions of the babies of their rapists.
We have the power to do something
about that. We have the power to require
insurance companies to provide contraceptive
coverage. Let's move forward and try to do
something about this issue.
I vote no, and I hope we will see
these other issues before the session is out.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Continue the roll, please.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
3121
SENATOR ADA SMITH: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
3122
Please tabulate the results and announce them.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 33. Nays,
25.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Skelos, why do you rise?
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
return to reports of standing committees, I
believe there's a report of the Rules
Committee at the desk. I ask that it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read the report of the Rules
Committee.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 7843, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to subordinate
certain loans.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
motion is to accept the report of the Rules
3123
Committee. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Rules Committee report is accepted.
SENATOR SKELOS: Call up Calendar
Number 893.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
893, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 7843, an act to subordinate certain
loans made to a nonprofit racing association.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there a message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, there is, Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
motion is accept the message at the desk. All
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
3124
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
message is accepted.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, there is, Senator.
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
I move the following bills be
discharged from their respective committees
and be recommitted with instructions to strike
3125
the enacting clause:
Senate Number 7599, on behalf of
Senator Spano.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: So
ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please recognize
Senator Paterson.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
with unanimous consent, I would like to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
885.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: You
will be recorded in the negative, Senator
Paterson, on Calendar Number 885.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there being no further business to come before
the Senate, I move we adjourn until Monday,
May 8th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening days being
legislative days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senate will stand adjourned until Monday,
3126
May 8th, at 3:00 p.m. Intervening days will
be legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 1:26 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)