Regular Session - March 20, 2001
2456
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 20, 2001
11:19 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR JOHN R. KUHL, JR., Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
2457
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will come to order. I ask the members
to take their places, staff to find their
places.
I ask everybody in the chamber to
rise and join me in saying the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: In the
absence of clergy, may we bow our heads in a
moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, March 19, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, March 18,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Hearing
no objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
2458
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
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: Mr. President, I
believe there's a substitution at the desk.
If we could make it at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is,
Senator Skelos. I'd ask the Secretary to
read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 21,
Senator Lack moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Judiciary, Assembly Bill Number
5305 and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 2967, Third Reading
Calendar 250.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
2459
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the Finance Committee, immediate
meeting of the Finance Committee in the
Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could adopt the Resolution Calendar at
this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept and adopt the Resolution
Calendar on the members' desks. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk,
911, by Senator Maltese. May we please have
2460
it read in its entirety and move for its
immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Privileged Resolution 911,
by Senator Maltese, which is at the desk, in
its entirety.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Maltese, Legislative Resolution Number 911,
commemorating the 90th Anniversary of the
Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire on March 25,
2001, and acknowledging the efforts of UNITE!,
the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and
Textile Employees, to make American working
conditions the safest in the world.
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this
Legislative Body to commemorate the 90th
Anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory
Fire on March 25, 2001; and
"WHEREAS, It is the further intent
of this Legislative Body to recognize the
ongoing efforts of UNITE!, the Union of
Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile
Employees, in striving to make working
conditions for the American people the safest
in the world; and
2461
"WHEREAS, Each year UNITE!
commemorates the anniversary of the Triangle
Shirtwaist Factory Fire with a wreath and
speeches, and members of Ladder Company 20,
the first to respond to the fire, toll their
bell and raise their ladder to the sixth
floor; and
"WHEREAS, The shirtwaist was the
uniform of the new woman. The first women to
go out to work as 'typewriters' wore it; so
did the 'Gibson Girls' that Charles Dana
Gibson drew playing golf or croquet. It was
the first civilian garment simple and loosely
fitted enough to be made in factories by the
dozens, instead of custom-made one at a time
by dressmakers or tailors; and
"WHEREAS, By the early 1900s,
shirtwaists were being made in modern
factories, at long rows of sewing machines
powered by electricity. Max Blanck and Isaac
Harris, owners of the million-dollar Triangle
Shirtwaist Company, with operations in
New York and Philadelphia, were the
'shirtwaist kings.' Their biggest factory
occupied the top three floors of a new,
2462
fireproof building a block from Washington
Square in New York and employed about 600
people; and
"WHEREAS, The employees were
putting on their hats and coats at quitting
time on Saturday, March 25, 1911, when someone
noticed smoke curling from the long rag bin
under the cutting tables along the windows on
the eighth floor. The month's accumulation of
linen and muslin scraps caught fire, then the
fabric that was laid out on the tables, then
the paper patterns strung open on the wire
above them, then the big wicker baskets full
of bundled work that stood by each sewing
machine; and
"WHEREAS, There were no sprinklers.
Only three weeks before, an association of
property owners had met to oppose the fire
department's campaign to require them; and
"WHEREAS, In the Triangle fire, all
but one of the terrified seamstresses and
cutters on the eighth floor escaped, either by
one of the two small elevators or down one of
the building's two narrow stairways, each wide
enough for only one person to descend at a
2463
time. Somebody telephoned a warning to the
executives on the 10th floor, where the fire
quickly spread, and many from the offices and
the pressing and shipping rooms on the
10th floor, including the shirtwaist kings
themselves, caught an elevator or escaped over
the roof; and
"WHEREAS, Tragically, nobody told
the ninth floor. By the time they knew, they
were caught between fires above and below
them. Some ran for elevators, others for the
doors to the stairs. One set of doors was
locked to keep girls from leaving early. The
doors to the other stairway opened inward, and
almost immediately the crush made it
impossible to open them. Soon the stairs were
cut off by the fire; and
"WHEREAS, The elevator operators
did their best, each making seven or eight
trips through the smoke and flames, but as the
fire grew, it forced one after another of the
desperate, waiting crowd to leap into the open
shaft, until finally the elevators could not
rise because they were jammed by bodies; and
"WHEREAS, The rest of the
2464
ninth-floor workers were forced to the
windows. They stood on the ledges as long as
they could, waiting for the fire ladders, but
the city's longest ladder reached only to the
sixth floor. And as the fire reached out the
windows after them, they began to jump; and
"WHEREAS, The date of March 25th
holds a special significance for all working
people because of this tragic Triangle
Shirtwaist Company Fire in New York City that
took the lives of 146 garment workers, a
tragedy that occurred on March 25, 1911, and
led to the first major safety laws in the
country; and
"WHEREAS, Every year UNITE!,
together with the New York City Fire
Department, commemorates the anniversary of
the Triangle Fire with a ceremony at the
original site of the tragedy; and
"WHEREAS, The death of 146 mostly
young, female garment workers at the Triangle
Fire started a movement to fight sweatshops
which continues to this day; and
"WHEREAS, Mrs. Rose Freedman, the
last survivor of the Triangle Fire, passed
2465
away on February 15, 2001, at the age of 107;
and
"WHEREAS, Upon the occasion of the
90th Anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist
Factory Fire, it is the sense of this
Legislative Body to join with UNITE! in
commemoration of a tragic event of such
meaningful significance to the history and
purpose of the American labor movement; now,
therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to commemorate
the 90th Anniversary of the Triangle
Shirtwaist Factory Fire on March 25, 2001, and
to acknowledge the efforts of UNITE! to make
American working conditions the safest in the
world; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to Jay Mazur, President, UNITE!; Edward W.
Clark, Executive Vice President, UNITE!; David
Melman, Vice President, UNITE!; Bruce Raynor,
Secretary-Treasurer, UNITE!; Thomas Von Essen,
New York City Fire Department Commissioner;
Vincent C. Maltese, President, Triangle
2466
Shirtwaist Factory Fire Memorial Society; the
Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile
Employees; Acting Commissioner of Labor, Linda
Angelo; and the family of the late Rose
Freedman, the last survivor of the fire."
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there's another privileged resolution at the
desk by Senator Maltese, 908. May we have it
read in its entirety and move for its
immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the privileged resolution,
Number 908, by Senator Maltese, in its
entirety.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
2467
Maltese, Legislative Resolution Number 908,
honoring and paying tribute to the remarkable
and charmed life of Rose Freedman, last
survivor of the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist
Factory Fire.
"WHEREAS, It is with feelings of
great sorrow and deepest regret that this
Legislative Body records the passing of Rose
Freedman, last survivor of the infamous
Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, noting the
significance of the loss of a woman with an
indomitable spirit; and
"WHEREAS, Rose Freedman died on
Thursday, February 15, 2001, in Beverly Hills,
California, at the age of 107; and
"WHEREAS, Born on March 27, 1893,
in Vienna, Rose Rosenfeld came to the United
States from the Austro-Hungarian Empire in
1909 aboard the steamship Mauritania; and
"WHEREAS, Shortly after her
arrival, Rose went to work for the Triangle
Shirtwaist Company in New York City. The
historic Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire
claimed the lives of 146 Lower Manhattan
garment workers on March 25, 1911, and spawned
2468
industrial safety reforms; and
"WHEREAS, Rose returned to Austria
after the 1911 fire. Following the beginning
of World War I, she returned to the United
States and started a family.
"Rose Freedman became an outspoken
advocate for the working class and a
passionate promoter of workplace safety.
"Surviving the fire, Rose Freedman
often remarked, was the first of three
miracles in her life. Saving the life of an
Austrian spy at the onset of World War I was
the second miracle. Seeing two of her
children recover from polio was the third; and
"WHEREAS, A painter and avid fan of
the Los Angeles Lakers, Rose Freedman was a
unique individual with an ageless personality;
and
"WHEREAS, Rose Freedman is survived
by her three children -- Arlene March, Robert
Freedman, and Herbert Freedman -- eight
grandchildren, and one great-granddaughter;
and
"WHEREAS, The key to Rose
Freedman's longevity was her unwavering
2469
attitude. She lived her life with honor,
dignity, character, and class; now, therefore,
be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to honor and
pay tribute to the remarkable and charmed life
of Rose Freedman, last survivor of the
infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire; and
be it further
"RESOLVED, That a copy of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to the family of Rose Freedman."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President. The resolutions have been read in
their entirety, and the history of the
Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire has been
memorialized many years here in this
legislative chamber and at the site in Lower
Manhattan where, this coming Tuesday, a
memorial ceremony will be conducted by UNITE!
and the survivors' memorial society, as well
as Ladder Company 20, which was the responding
company on that Saturday afternoon on
March 25, 1911.
2470
The resolution indicates that the
majority of the workers were on the ninth
floor. Unfortunately, the ladders of the time
only reached to the sixth floor, when those
survivors that managed to survive the first
fire and smoke assembled at the windows,
trying to reach the ladders.
The working conditions had been
spelled out in the resolution. And these were
the sweatshops of the day, sweatshops that as
a matter of fact in some parts of our city
survive even now and which we are attempting
to do something about so that the immigrants
of today will not have to suffer a similar
tragedy as those immigrants in 1911.
The 146 victims were mostly women,
just a few men. As was indicated, the
executives on the tenth floor, most managed to
escape. Most of the women were young women,
ranging in age from 13 to 18, as was Rose
Freedman, who was 17 at the time and the last
survivor. She exemplified the spirit of many
of those women of 1911 trying to earn a
living.
Almost all of them were Jewish and
2471
Italian immigrants, recent immigrants from
their native lands. Most of them worked a
six-day week. This was a Saturday at 4:40
when they were preparing to leave.
The tragedy was accentuated by the
fact that the owners had locked the exits to
prevent alleged thefts by the employees. As a
result, as was indicated in the resolution,
the two narrow staircases first filled up.
The elevator unfortunately was unable to
continue running because so many of the
panicked ladies were throwing themselves into
the elevator shaft.
It was a terrible tragedy, one that
we should ensure never occurs again. It's a
tragedy that could possibly occur again,
because so many of the abuses of those days
are repeated today.
My brother Vinny is the president
of the memorial society. I think many times
of my grandfather who, in the morning, bid
goodbye to his wife and two daughters and
never saw them again.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, Madam
2472
President. I certainly want to thank Senator
Maltese for bringing these resolutions to the
floor. And I appreciate his family's
commitment through a couple of generations,
really, commemorating their personal loss as
well as the loss of so many other lives.
I commend to my colleagues the
segment of the documentary called "New York,"
which has probably a 45-minute segment on the
Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, has some
moving, shocking pictures in that documentary,
as well as a lot of eyewitness testimony,
people who stood on the sidewalk and literally
described how it was raining bodies as these
desperate young women would jump from the
ninth floor.
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory
Fire mobilized working people, working
immigrants in New York City as they'd never
been mobilized before. The funeral
processions involved well over a hundred
thousand workers, marching with the banners of
their then-nascent unions that had been
unsuccessful.
Indeed, the Triangle -- indeed, the
2473
shirtwaist manufacturers had broken an
organizing strike but a couple of years before
the tragic fire. That was never to happen
again in the garment industry in New York.
The ILGWU and the Amalgamated proceeded to
organize, they organized an industry on a shop
basis as well as an ethnic basis, the entire
industry.
This Legislature, Madam President,
in the follow-up to the Triangle Shirtwaist
Factory Fire, instituted what was known as the
Factories Commission. And the then-boss of
Tammany Hall, Silent Charlie Murphy, who had
been frankly rather conservative, rather cozy
with the business interests, the small
business manufacturers, the garment
manufacturers up until that point, in the
aftermath of the fire and the huge outpouring
of citizens into the streets, summoned my
predecessor, as the Democratic leader of this
conference, the first great Senator Robert
Wagner, and the then Democratic leader in the
Assembly, the great Speaker Alfred E. Smith,
and said: "We're getting behind these folks."
And they came to Albany -- by the
2474
way, Silent Charlie didn't say much more than
that. That's why they called him Silent
Charlie. He just said: "We're getting behind
these folks."
And they came to Albany and
instituted the Factory Committee, a joint
commission of the Legislature that toured the
entire state. And from this documentary, they
commented something that's no surprise to any
of us. The commission went around the state,
and at various times various members
accompanied the commission because not
everyone could do all the trips. With one
exception. Alfred E. Smith never, ever missed
a single factory inspection, visit, or hearing
of this commission that went on for a couple
of years.
And as many of the reformers of the
day described it, this man, Al Smith, that
they thought was nothing more than a partisan
hack who had never completed a grade beyond
the fourth grade -- he went to school in my
district. There's still a plaque on the
school -- stood up on the floor of the
Assembly day after day after day and fought
2475
for the workers.
Laws were passed limiting hours of
work for children. In one instance, visiting
a factory upstate, he was assured there were
no children employed there. A worker winked
at him and pointed at the elevator, which was
stuck mid-floors. And when they lowered it,
it was crammed full of 11- and 12-year-olds
who had been working in the factory, were
hidden when the legislative Factory Commission
showed up.
The bills passed by that
Legislature under the leaderships of Senator
Wagner and Speaker Al Smith were really among
the first workers' rights legislation in
America, limiting employment of children,
limiting hours of employment for women and
children, providing for sanitation facilities,
providing for safety measures. Indeed, it
propelled Al Smith a few years later into the
governorship. More such progressive
legislation came forth.
State Senator Wagner went on to
become United States Senator Wagner, passed,
under the leadership of President Roosevelt,
2476
the Wagner Act, the fundamental labor
relations act in the United States. And
indeed, the great New Dealer, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, really copied a lot of his program
from the intellectual product of Alfred E.
Smith when he was governor of this state and
put forth similar measures in this state.
So tragic though the Triangle
Shirtwaist Factory Fire was, it became first a
wake-up call for New York City, a wake-up call
for New York State, and indeed a giant wake-up
for the whole United States when it comes to
workers' rights, workers' safety, and worker
protection.
So it is fitting indeed,
particularly in this legislative body, where
our predecessors played such a role in the
aftermath of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire,
that we commemorate and remember -- and never
forget -- the reasons why it happened and the
humanity of the victims who were so tragically
lost.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: On the
resolution, all those in favor signify by
2477
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Environmental Conservation Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Environmental
Conservation Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
106, by Member of the Assembly Lentol,
Assembly Print Number 1437, an act to amend
the Civil Practice Law and Rules, in relation
2478
to requiring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Paterson.
Excuse me, Senator Paterson, we're
on the noncontroversial calendar. We're
moving ahead.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I apologize. Would you please
lay -
THE PRESIDENT: I accept your
apology.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- lay that
bill aside. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is now
laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
167, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print Number 7,
an act to amend the State Finance Law, in
relation to changing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2479
177, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1040, an
act to amend the Election Law, in relation to
deadlines.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
205, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 1158, an
act to amend the Military Law, in relation to
extending.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
207, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 2133, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
requiring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
227, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2678, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
designating.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
2480
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
244, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 6,
Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and
Assembly.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
256, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3398, an
act to amend Chapter 705 of the Laws of 1993.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
261, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 1445, an
act to amend the Social Services Law -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day, Senator.
2481
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could call up Calendar Number 256, by
Senator Saland.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
256, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3398, an
act to amend Chapter 705 of the Laws of 1993,
amending the Economic Development Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, the Linked Deposit
Act is one which permits a combination of the
private and public sector to encourage small
business development by way of loans at below
market rates. The original legislation, which
was introduced by Senator Bruno, passed in
1993.
2482
The language of the bill provided
for sunset provisions. The original bill I
believe sunsetted in '95, was subsequently
extended, sunsetted, I believe, in '98, and is
due to sunset on April 1st of this year.
What this bill proposes to do is to
permanentize the linked deposit program and
also at the same time to deal with the
definition of distressed areas by requiring
the use of the most recent census data instead
of what I believe was reference to the 1990
census in the original legislation.
The program has been successful,
it's a revolving loan fund, and it's a program
which provides below-market loans by banks
that agree to participate and accept deposits
from the state and certain state authorities
similarly at below-market rates.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if I could interrupt, there will be an
immediate meetings of the Investigations,
Taxation and Government Operations Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
2483
immediate meeting of the Investigations,
Taxation and Government Operations Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. And if Senator Saland would
yield for a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, has
anybody conducted a study or prepared a report
about the statewide efficiency of the linked
deposit program?
SENATOR SALAND: In terms of
efficiencies? Well -
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Perhaps if I
continue the question.
To be more specific, what I'm
getting at is that it's my feeling or just
2484
from my experience that the program, while
it's effective, has really benefited the
upstate communities in a rather larger degree.
And those of us who don't live there would
certainly like to see this type of planning
extended to include some of the five boroughs.
SENATOR SALAND: Senator, I
recall, although not exactly the context in
which we had a similar exchange dealing, I
believe, with this subject when we expanded
the program to provide for yet additional
types of lenders.
The information which I have, which
I believe comes from the economic development
people, is that some 42 percent of the
projects that had been approved have gone to
what are termed targeted businesses. Those
are defined as businesses in highly distressed
areas, Empire Zone-certified, or minority- and
women-owned business enterprises.
The numbers of projects that have
been approved in New York City are some 69
projects representing some $27 million in
linked deposit assistance. And the
definitions again basically control those who
2485
are eligible.
And I think it's important to note
that no ineligible applicant -- let me
rephrase, no eligible applicant has ever been
turned down for a loan. There have been those
who have been ineligible. But of some 375
applications, 318 were deemed to be eligible,
and all of those 318 were granted loans.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If Senator
Saland would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
apologize if I in any way implied that there
was not a willingness to cooperate with some
of the businesses in New York City, because
that certainly was not my intention. I was
just addressing the reality that my
information is that only 6.8 percent of the
2486
approved programs come from New York City.
And I was wondering if you could
give any further specificity to the notion
that 42 percent of minority and women business
enterprises have been approved. Because with
such a small percentage coming out of New York
City, I was just wondering where all these
businesses are.
SENATOR SALAND: If I led you to
believe that 42 percent of the applications
that are approved were approved for minority
businesses, I apologize. That is not what I
thought I had said. And let me rephrase what
I said previously.
What I believe that I said was that
some 42 percent of the projects that were
approved were to what are called targeted
businesses. And within targeted businesses
are businesses defined as those in highly
distressed areas. That doesn't necessarily
mean that it's a minority-operated business.
Also, Empire Zone-certified or
minority- and women-owned business enterprises
are included within that category.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
2487
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If the Senator
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
think that is exactly what you said. And I
misunderstood it. I'm glad you clarified it
for me.
Being that they are designated or
in a sense intended for highly distressed
areas, can you be more specific as to how many
of these businesses are minority and women's
business enterprises?
SENATOR SALAND: If you have that
information, I'd be very happy to acknowledge
it. I don't have it readily available.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Saland would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you yield?
2488
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President, I certainly would.
I would just continue to suggest,
Senator Paterson, that given the data that
I've received insofar as applications that
have been accepted, it would seem that if
there were a minority-operated business that
made an application and was eligible, they
received that loan.
Because again, what we're being
told is all eligible applicants have had their
requests accepted. Only those who were
ineligible under whatever the criteria might
have been were declined.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: In answer to
Senator Saland's question, I -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you on the
bill, Senator? I thought you had a question.
Senator Saland did yield, and then he did an
explanation. But he yielded for you to ask a
question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes. And I'm
2489
now going to ask my question, but he inquired
of some information from me.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. You
may proceed with either/or.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
On that issue, I don't know what
the specific numbers are, Senator Saland. I
was really not asking the question to then
attempt to snow you with the answer. I really
don't know the answer and would be happy to
work with you in trying to find it.
My question relates to the
publication and the ability of a lot of these
businesses to become aware of how effective
the linked deposit program could be for them.
And I wanted to know what action hopefully
will follow this legislation in order that we
make this opportunity available for more of
the businesses that I'm referring to.
SENATOR SALAND: Well, Senator
Paterson, certainly your point and your
concern is one which has validity. If you
look at the program, it's been an extremely
successful program.
If in fact their message is not
2490
resonating far enough and deeply enough
throughout the corners of the state, then
perhaps it's incumbent upon them to endeavor
to get that message out through some type of
notification or notice-type proposal, whether
it be advertising or general mailings.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
Madam President, if the Senator
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
notice that you changed a term in the
legislation. What is the current-law legal
definition of a highly distressed area?
SENATOR SALAND: If you're
referring to subsection 2 -
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, I am,
Senator.
SENATOR SALAND: What we have
really done is merely omit reference to 1990,
2491
that being the base year when this initial
legislation was enacted in 1993, and said that
the relevant data must be for the most recent
year. And that will enable us to use both a
higher wealth ratio, where the Comptroller is
called upon to determine wealth ratios, and
over in the last part of the bill, the last
several lines also makes reference to the most
recent census in order to get the more
appropriate census data, instead of 1990 data.
So in terms of definition, nothing
has changed. What we've done is to try and
update the available data upon which these
decisions will be made.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you very
much, Senator.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I appreciate
Senator Saland's interest in trying to
encourage other businesses to become eligible.
I just think that -- there's nothing wrong
with this legislation, but I just think that
the New York City participation is way too
2492
low. And even though there is a designation
and an intent to go into highly distressed
areas, and we certainly appreciate the intent,
but the results, if you look at the results,
they're -- I see it not acceptable.
Perhaps this legislation will be a
prelude to that, and in good faith I'll vote
for the legislation. And I'll work with
Senator Saland on trying to identify how many
MWBEs are actually involved.
I appreciated his interest and his
answers and his intentions, but I guess that
more than just what has been done to this
point is going to have to occur for us to have
what would really be a true representation
with all of the small businesses and
enterprises that could benefit from this
legislation.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
thank you. Madam President, through you, if
the Senator will yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
2493
yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Certainly, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator. I apologize, and I realize you
must have answered this question, but I'm just
going to ask you to answer it again for my
benefit, because I did have to step out. And
I apologize for that.
But what is the present definition
of highly distressed areas? And then, what is
the advantage of the redefining as you see it?
SENATOR SALAND: We have done
nothing to change the substance of the
definition in order to use current data. And
the Comptroller is a participant in defining
what shall be a distressed area.
In order to use current data, we
are getting away from what the original bill
provided. The bill, being enacted in 1993,
used 1990 data. So in terms of property, the
value of property, certainly there are more
current evaluation rolls than 1990. I know
they're generally a year or two behind. I'm
2494
not going to say I can tell you off the top of
my head what year it is, but I have to assume
it's somewhere '97, '98, '99, would be the
relevant year.
And where there's census data
required, we add language also in the
subsection 2, which I referred to in my
exchange with Senator Paterson, we add
language to make reference to the most recent
census.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Right.
SENATOR SALAND: So substantively
there is no change in the definition, merely
the base formulae that are being used are
being adjusted to reflect the most currently
available data.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Madam
President, if the Senator will continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
2495
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Again, if you answered this, again, I
apologize.
Why have you chosen to make this
program permanent instead of just extending it
for a two-year period?
SENATOR SALAND: Well, we have
now been through three extenders. The
original program, as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, was enacted in '93, I believe
expiring on March 31st of '95. It was
extended, I believe, from '95 to '98. And its
most recent form was extended from '98 to
2001.
It has apparently, by -- it is
acknowledged by all that it's been a very
effective program. The Governor has said that
he believes that it has either created or
retained some 25,000 jobs during the course of
its life span to date, has resulted in
hundreds of millions of dollars in loans that
have also leveraged a greater amount of
private capital as well. The combination of
the loans and the private capital comfortably
2496
exceed a billion dollars.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Thank you, Senator.
On the bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Thank you, Madam President.
Normally when I stand here I talk
mostly on issues that seem to reflect social
services where, for a short period, a window
of my life, I served on the former Governor's
Task Force on Minority and Women Business
Development and helped to write a lot of the
language that now exists in 15A.
And so I am appreciative of these
kinds of efforts to make this permanent,
primarily because we have been -- I think
we've been very successful, particularly -
and your statistics help to bear out some of
the belief that I have, is that we are better
able to create employment opportunities
through these small businesses, more so than
in large businesses. And by encouraging and
by doing those things necessary to make their
ability to do business better and easier,
2497
somehow we indirectly help to create and
generate small business activities in our
communities.
So I'm very supportive of this
bill, and I congratulate you, Senator. Thank
you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any Senator
wish to be heard further?
Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Madam President. Madam President,
through you, if the Senator would yield for a
couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Senator,
I'm just a little curious with regard to -
SENATOR SALAND: Senator, can I
2498
ask that you just speak up a little louder?
THE PRESIDENT: That might help
too. Go ahead, Senator.
SENATOR SALAND: Absolutely.
Order will help.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes,
thank you.
With regard to New York City, I
note that I guess about 6 percent of the
approved projects were approved down in
New York City, which come to somewhere about
7 percent of the 300 and so million dollars
that has been awarded to the project. Has
anyone done any research or investigation as
to why that number is so low, given the
dollars and value that has been deposited in
New York City?
SENATOR SALAND: Quite candidly,
Senator, I couldn't hear all your data, but I
heard your question. And your question is has
anybody -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, I'm
going to ask for order again, because I think
part of the reason you both are having trouble
hearing is the noise in the chamber.
2499
Go ahead, Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
Your question was -- well, let me
ask you if would just rephrase or -
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Well,
basically the numbers, as it relates to
projects awarded and the value of those that
have been awarded in New York, seem very low.
And my question simply is has anyone done any
investigation as to why that is so.
SENATOR SALAND: To my knowledge,
there hasn't been an investigation.
My understanding is that there's
over 150 banks in New York City that
participate in the program. It may well be a
matter of marketing. Who's responsible for
that marketing, whether it's the banks or
whether it's Empire Development, certainly is
an open question. But you would think that
the banks would be interested in aggressively
marketing this type of program because it -
from all indications, it's been an extremely
successful program.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
2500
President, through you, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: This
question may be a little bit -- may seem a
question with some optimism, but has there
been any thought given to what happens when an
area is no longer distressed? And what does
that mean for the program and how is it exited
out of that area, or is it actually exited?
SENATOR SALAND: Well. What is
distressed, for purpose of this linked deposit
program, is defined in the State Finance Law.
You may have heard some of the earlier
discussion in which I said we're doing nothing
to change the existing definition of
distressed -- highly distressed areas are
defined in Section 213 of the State Finance
Law. And all we're doing is changing, in
effect, the formulae to reflect current data.
The aim of this program is to deal
2501
with businesses at least in part in those
highly distressed areas. If in fact an area
is able to succeed, whether it's in part or
large part attributable to this type of a
program, it certainly establishes a pattern
and a growth that only augurs well, and I
would assume would attract additional capital
simply because it has shown that it's an area
that is a growing area, that's responsive to
business, that's looking to create jobs.
So I think in part the market will
respond to an area that has expanded beyond
the definition of highly distressed. There
may be other programs that are out there. I
couldn't identify those programs for you,
Senator Smith. But it is -- it's a problem
well worth having to deal with.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
President, if the sponsor will continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: I also
2502
noted in the bill itself, the last section you
talk about -- let's go to Section 2(b), I
guess it's line number 5. But they talk about
the Empire Zones not being considered
distressed areas. And can you explain why
that is so and what's the disadvantages?
SENATOR SALAND: Well, the Empire
Zones are already benefiting by certain public
policy decisions that have been made to
provide tax credits, whether they be local tax
credits by way of property tax, wage credits.
There's a host of benefits that are focused on
Empire Zones. And they too, certainly in many
instances, have proven to be a very, very
strong barometer of success in terms of
economic development.
So what we're looking to do with
the linked deposit program is to try and
assist those areas who don't already have all
of those public benefits that have been
provided by way of policy when the Empire
Zones were created, expanded over the course
of this past decade or more.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
President -
2503
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Smith,
if I could just interrupt, there will be an
immediate meeting of the Labor Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Labor Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes,
Madam President, if the sponsor would yield
for one other question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for one question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: If in
fact there is a, quote, unquote, small
business, minority business that is in the
zone and given -
SENATOR SALAND: I'm sorry, would
you repeat that, Senator?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: If in
2504
fact there is a small business, a minority
business, woman-owned business that is in the
Empire Zone, however, they don't meet the
standards by which they can benefit from some
of the benefits that the Zone offers and a
linked program could be beneficial to them to
get them to that level where they can now take
advantage of the Empire Zone benefits, is
there a way in which a business can still take
advantage of that, or would this bill preclude
them from doing so?
SENATOR SALAND: Senator Smith,
let me stand corrected. Under the State
Finance Law that I referred to before,
Section 213, under the definition of eligible
projects, which is subsection 12, under
subsection (c) of that subsection, it provides
for certified businesses located in economic
development zones and for retail business
located in highly distressed areas, projects
that will create or retain full-time,
permanent jobs within the economic development
zone or highly distressed area, as the case
may be, would be defined as an eligible
project.
2505
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: All
right. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Senator
Saland, first of all, let me thank you for
that latter definition. Specifically in
New York City where Empire Zones exist,
sometimes we have some overlapping where some
of these businesses that are a little bit less
fortunate, they don't have the standards
necessary to meet the Empire Zone benefit
threshold. I myself am very concerned about
that, and I'm glad to hear that there is a
potential for them to still be a part of that.
What I do have some more concern
about, and I'm hoping through the bill and
maybe through some further discussion perhaps
Senator Saland and myself can have, is the
marketing aspect of this particular program.
It just sort of boggles my mind that in
New York City you can have 150 banks, as you
said, that are involved with the program and
only 6 percent of the projects approved
actually are in downstate. And of that
2506
$306 million I believe that was actually
approved for funding, only 7 percent went to
New York City businesses.
And clearly one of the things that
I think is important to the existence of any
program is you have to spend your money. And
there's no sense in coming back for more if
you can't spend what you already have. And I
think New York City can not only be helpful in
that regard, but the need is there.
So my hope is that there is at
least some discussion, and I would offer my
help in any great degree to make sure that the
marketing of this program is one that will
assure that these numbers adjust
proportionately, so that when we come back and
do the further enactment for another two years
that perhaps -- or it's permanent, I should
say, that New York City will be represented in
terms of the amount of dollars that it has
actually benefitted through the program.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown was
next.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
2507
President. Through you, would Senator Saland
yield for several questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a few questions?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a few questions, Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
Senator Saland, I just listened to
some of the statistics on the linked deposit
program in the year 2000, indicating that
there were 878 projects approved for a total
of 306 million. And I see how little the
New York City area -
SENATOR SALAND: Would you suffer
an interruption, or point of order, if I may.
SENATOR BROWN: Sure.
SENATOR SALAND: I didn't present
that data.
SENATOR BROWN: No, I understand.
SENATOR SALAND: Oh, okay. I
haven't seen that data. Okay?
SENATOR BROWN: Yeah, I
understand. I understand. It's actually in
2508
the annual report, Senator Saland, which
breaks out the success of the program.
And in the annual report, just from
looking at which areas received money, I was
able to see an amount for New York City. But
I'm wondering, do you know how well the
upstate region -- Buffalo, the City of Niagara
Falls -- has done in terms of receiving some
of these loan funds?
SENATOR SALAND: I do have a
table. Let me see if I can identify it.
Your question is dealing with the
most recent year, the year 2000?
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, Senator.
I believe the total amount approved
was $306 million. And it looks like the
percentage to New York City is low. I'm
hoping equally the percentage received by the
upstate region, cities like Buffalo and
Niagara Falls, is not as low as the percentage
received in New York City.
SENATOR SALAND: Perhaps, if we
could, so that we're on the same page, could
you tell me whether you're looking at the
linked deposit report or the small business
2509
development center report? Because if it's
the small business development center, linked
deposit is only a portion of that.
SENATOR BROWN: It's information
that was taken out of the linked deposit
program annual report.
But perhaps you don't have that
data, Senator, in front of you. So if I may,
let me ask another question.
Madam President, through you, may
I -- with Senator Saland's -
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with another question. You had authorization
for a few.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you very
much.
Senator, are there certain
businesses that are not eligible to -- small
businesses that are not eligible to
participate in the linked deposit program in
certain categories?
SENATOR SALAND: Generally there
are limitations on retail, loans to retail
businesses. They have to meet certain
criteria, including being in a highly
2510
distressed area. And I believe there are
certain job growth criteria that they have to
meet also.
There are limitations. They don't
have blanket authority to be in the program.
SENATOR BROWN: Then, Senator,
basically what your legislation is doing is
just updating the census data?
SENATOR SALAND: It's doing two
things. That is one of the two things that
it's doing. It's providing for most recent
data, both property valuation and census
data -- that's one component. And the other
is taking a program that has sunset twice
previously, and is due to sunset by the end of
this month, and permanentizing it.
SENATOR BROWN: And, Senator, I
know that you have spoken to this. In my
community, I'm not aware of it being
well-known or well-utilized. And also, I'm
concerned about how it works for minority- and
women-owned businesses. Do you have any data
for the upstate region at all?
SENATOR SALAND: I have some
breakouts. And you may have heard me earlier
2511
respond to Senator Paterson regarding
projects. Nothing that I show on the table
that I have corresponds to any of the
information that you just gave me.
So, you know, I can -- there's a
host of regions, 10 to 12 regions that are
listed, and it shows projects on those
regions. As I've said previously, certainly
this is in part -- I think in part your
concerns have to deal with marketing. I don't
believe they have to deal with the substance
of the bill. I'm not aware of anybody who
would claim that this is not an effective
program.
And I don't know if you were in the
chamber at the time, perhaps. In my opening
remarks, I mentioned that there has never
been, apparently, an application for which the
applicant was eligible to receive the loan
that didn't receive the loan, although there
are a number of ineligible applicants who were
declined.
And it's a revolving loan program.
The loans are of short duration. That may
influence the decisions of some as to whether
2512
or not to get into the program. Because the
loans are generally of a duration of a couple
of years. So people may decide that's not a
long enough term for them to try and
participate in this type of a program.
But the program has been, by any
standard, a success. And I can only suggest
to you that if the marketing has been
inadequate in your area or your district, you
may want to at least participate in making it
better known by working through your local
chambers or chambers of commerce or trying to
work with perhaps your local media to
highlight the success of it.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you,
Senator.
Madam President, if I may, on the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown,
you may proceed.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you. I
want to thank Senator Saland for responding to
my questions.
I just recently received some
information on the program from Mr. Gargano
2513
and was interested in receiving the
information and reading about the program and
learning about the kind of services that it
provides to small businesses. Upon reading
about the program, though, I was struck
because during my tenure as a City Council
member in the city of Buffalo, I had not heard
a lot about the program.
And as a council member, of course
I'm always approached by small businesses,
minority-owned businesses, and women-owned
businesses looking for ways to access
resources. And this did not appear to me to
be a program that the business community in
the area that I now represent as a State
Senator -- Buffalo, Niagara Falls -- and I'll
be looking more into this, had a lot of
information about or was accessing, and I'm a
little bit concerned about that.
Particularly in Buffalo and Niagara
Falls, the urban areas where a large
percentage of minority businesses are located
are tremendously distressed, with a very high
unemployment rate. And this certainly sounds
like a program that those types of businesses
2514
could benefit from.
So, Senator Saland, I will be
following your suggestion to reach out to the
regional Empire State Development Corporation
Office and try to get some data on the program
and how it's operated in the upstate region
and see what service that I can be in trying
to get this information about the linked
deposit program to businesses in my region so
they can take advantage of it.
Just recently, as probably you all
know, the census data was released, and
Niagara Falls lost about 10 percent of its
population and the City of Buffalo lost about
10 percent of its population. And I think
that this can be attributed directly to the
poor economy in those areas. And certainly
anything that can be done to energize those
economies and help businesses to grow and
create jobs is important to the health of
those communities and their citizens.
So I do support this legislation
and will be working to try to bring this
linked deposit program to the attention of
businesses in my district.
2515
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm very
supportive of moving to the current census
figures, because that will definitely benefit
my area.
I have one small question, if the
Senator would yield for a question. It
probably takes one word in response.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: You might
have answered this. Are there any plans to
expand priority lending beyond just government
contracts to the women- and
minority-owned-business program?
SENATOR SALAND: There's
nothing -- I might not be the appropriate
person to answer your question, Senator.
There's nothing substantively that changes in
the program. We're permanentizing a program
2516
that's due to sunset, and we're providing more
current data in order to help make decisions
with regard to highly distressed areas.
There may be initiatives that do
what you have just alluded to, but I can't
tell you that I'm personally familiar with
them. You might want to contact Empire
Development and check that out with them.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you
very much, Senator Saland.
On the bill. It's a pleasure to
see us using current statistics. It doesn't
happen all that often in state government.
And I think that will be beneficial to
downstate.
And I think we do have to address
the issue of having a better outreach
downstate than we have had, because we really
ought to be accessing a whole lot more than 6
to 7 percent of the funds.
But in the case of my county, we -
there are two reasons that really make me
appreciate this bill. One is that we view
small business as being what we call big
business in Westchester. Because our big
2517
business, we have had many large corporations
downsize in our county. I mean, some of the
Fortune 500 companies. And when they
downsize, it's many, many thousands and
thousands of jobs that get taken away. And we
have had -- many people have decided to stay
in Westchester and start small businesses.
So I think that this can be more
beneficial to us in the future, particularly
in light of the new census figures. Because
the new census figures show us as having an
enormous increase in the amount of immigrants
in our county, and they are looking to
starting small businesses.
So while we have not utilized these
funds too much in the past, I am hopeful with
the new census figures that my county will be
able to access some of this linked deposit
money and benefit some of our newest residents
in the county, the immigrants that have come
in in the last decade.
So thank you, Senator Saland.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any Senator
wish to be heard further?
Then the debate is closed. Read
2518
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, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Transportation Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Transportation
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you call up Calendar Number 106, by
Senator Volker.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 106.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
106, by Member of the Assembly Lentol,
Assembly Print Number 1437, an act to amend
2519
the Civil Practice Law and Rules, in relation
to requiring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
Senator Paterson has requested an explanation.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
this is one of our early session success
stories, I hope. This is a bill that came
initially from the New York City Bar
Association. And it has been adopted by the
New York State Bar Association -- what is it,
trust and estates section, I guess -- in an
attempt to straighten out some court cases and
law relating to the waiver of professional
privileges.
It tries to set up a uniform
procedure for the waiver of professional
privileges when the person, the communicant
has died or is incapacitated or disabled.
There have been various statutes and, in
addition to that, there are some court cases
that have left this area in some cases in
limbo.
What it means is that -- what this
bill attempts to do is to provide the ability
2520
to, for instance, a representative, an
executor, an administrator, or in some cases
trustee or whatever, to be able to get around
the so-called waiver that we used to call the
dead man's statute waiver in these cases, and
allow a court to deal with all the facts in
the case.
It does have a procedure to refuse
to disclose if it would disgrace the memory or
reputation of the communicant and so forth,
which -- and there are some protections in it
to try and make sure of that.
The bill, as you heard, has already
passed the Assembly. Joe Lentol and I have
having working on this for a number of years.
And a lot of lawyers have told us that this is
something that could be extremely useful.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Volker would yield for a few
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you yield to a question from
Senator Paterson?
2521
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'd
assume that since the Bar Association is in
support that there would not be any cases -
and this is my fear, that there would be cases
where the disclosure of information would be
forced upon a professional even though there
had been an express desire on the part of the
communicant, as is described in Section 103 of
the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, that
there would be an express desire not to have
this information revealed. Is that correct?
SENATOR VOLKER: Right, I think
the thing -- yeah, that's correct.
What they're really looking for
here, or what the bar has suggested, is that
in reality sometimes the lack of a waiver
actually works in reverse. That is, it works
against the best interests of the person who
the person involved is representing. And in
effect what happens is that the person is
virtually barred from making certain
2522
representations because of the present
statute.
By the way, there was opposition
initially, just to put it all on the record.
Initially the New York State Psychological
Association, I think, objected back in '96.
They've withdrawn their objection now since we
made some amendments to this bill.
As far as we know, there are no
objections by anybody.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Volker would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: I want to
start with your last point, Senator. And that
related to the objection of many who work in
the psychology field toward this legislation.
And I think what their objection was, and I'm
2523
just going to raise it with you -- and perhaps
not only can you persuade me, but you might
even let me know how the psychologists were
persuaded.
I think that their objection was
that it appeared that the court would be
making the determination of what was
incapacity and that the court would be making
the determination of at what point we would
want the professional to speak on behalf of
the communicant.
Is that what their objection was?
SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, to be
perfectly honest with you, I really am not
exactly sure what their objection was, since
it hasn't been made since '96. But I think
you're right. I'm pretty sure that -- my
recollection is that they were concerned.
You and I know that the problem, I
think, is that we have to have somebody who is
an arbitrator. And in our system, we set up a
system where in effect the arbitrator is the
judge. And it's designed to be in the best
interests of the person who is involved,
obviously within reason.
2524
I think that the reason that the
psychologists withdrew their objections is
that the assumption, if there was some sort of
objection on the terms -- in terms of
something that the psychologists could offer,
the judge -- that an attorney could clearly
bring in a person to testify to that, and that
they would be able to make their point. And
so someone would have to decide; in this case,
it would be a judge.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Volker would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: In fact,
Senator, maybe I could -- my learned counsel
here has just informed me that the language
added to deal with the psychologists -- and
since my son is about to get his doctoral in
clinical psychology, I suppose it's something
I'm a little sensitive to. It says: "The
guardian of a person under disability is
defined in Section 103 of the Surrogate's
2525
Court Procedure. And if and to the extent
that the order appoints such guardian, the
Mental Hygiene Law or subsequent order
expressly provides the guardian is to be the
personal representative of the person under
this" -- for purposes of this section, and it
goes on to tell how this would work and so
forth, and -- in an attempt to deal with some
of the issues that they were concerned about.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator. If the Senator would continue to
yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, if
the person who was holding the privileged
communication happened to be the spouse, is
there any conflict based on the -- in other
words, which values are favored by the court,
the spousal rights or what would be the new
standards that we're setting for communication
of a decedent or incapacitated individual's
2526
confidential communication?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think the way
that this is structured is that the -- if you
are a representative, the main interest would
have to be the person who is represented by
that -- is represented to the court. So the
main interest would be that of the decedent or
the disabled person or whatever.
But the court also would have to
consider the interest of a spouse, whether it
be whatever. But I think the main interest,
if you look at the way that this is
structured, would have to be the interests of
the person that is represented.
SENATOR PATERSON: And just one
other question -
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure. Yup.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- before I
get to my point on this, Senator. And that
relates to how this is effected in other
states. Is this something where we are going
into a new area, or is this something that
the -- I'm just trying to get an idea of where
we stand with relevance to the rest of the
country on this.
2527
SENATOR VOLKER: It's a very good
question. I suspect strongly that we probably
are moving ahead of other states in this area.
I'm reading a memo here of the New York State
Bar Association, and it really obviously is
talking primarily about this state. But I
strongly suspect that we probably may be ahead
of many other states in trying to develop
uniform rules in a disclosure area. I really
don't have any information as far as other
states are concerned.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. And if
Senator Volker would yield for another
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm
just curious about the point at which the
court instructs the lawyer to divulge the -
what was previously privileged information.
In a civil case, is the law that we're passing
protecting this new communication from an
2528
allegation from the other side that it's
actually hearsay information?
In other words, because we've
opened the door to allow this to happen, could
we get a challenge as a hearsay exception from
the adversarial party in a civil case, is my
real question.
SENATOR VOLKER: You know, this
is designed -- it's designed really to protect
the person who is deceased or disabled or
whatever, primarily. So that when you're
talking about this -- and I'm just reading
here another section that relates to
physicians, psychiatrists, and so forth. And
it talks about how the privilege -- how this
privilege would be set up.
The privilege in effect would have
to be invoked or waived, as I understand it,
by the person who is, depending on the
situation, the person who is the
representative. So that it would be the best
interests, in effect, of that person who is
the representative to be able to waive this
privilege.
If not, why, then, that person
2529
would presumably be opposing, for one reason
or another -- would probably oppose it, and
the judge would then be in the situation where
the waiver could be -- wouldn't actually
happen.
SENATOR PATERSON: It would be
challenged.
SENATOR VOLKER: It would be
challenged, right. Exactly.
SENATOR PATERSON: So therefore,
Senator, what is really happening in this
situation -- and I guess this is what takes it
out of the hearsay rule, is the fact that -
and this is my next question, if the Senator
would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yup.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: That for want
of a better comparison, this would in a sense
exact on the representative a kind of power of
attorney, almost not only literally but
figuratively, that this person, who is an
2530
attorney but sometimes is not in these
proceedings, is given the power to speak for
this individual and therefore, since it's been
agreed to, then it really wouldn't qualify as
hearsay.
That's my interpretation. I'm just
wondering what you thought of it.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah, that's
right, Senator. I think it's almost like the
health care proxy extended -- it may be a bad
analogy here.
If the person who -- the
representative sort of stands in the stead of
the person who has died or is disabled or
whatever. And, you're right, not -- that
would negate, in a sense, the hearsay rule,
depending on whether it would have benefited
him or didn't benefit him. And that person
would stand in the same stead as the person
who is deceased or disabled.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
a final question for Senator Volker.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2531
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
I'd like to do is to just kind of reflect on
the bill myself and just get your reaction to
it. I don't see any problem with it,
particularly with the number of organizations
that support it.
I was wondering if you would just
state what the confusion has actually been.
Because my original premise, my original
thought when I read this bill is wouldn't the
person's representative be really the better
judge of what the wishes of the decedent or
the incapacitated person is, or wouldn't the
representative be better able to assess what
would disgrace the reputation or memory of the
decedent in these types of cases.
Why would we turn it over to the
court, who presumably is rendering a judgment
without all of the information, as the
person's legal or otherwise representative
has?
2532
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, Senator, I
think that the reason for this legislation,
more than anything, relates to the fact that
there are privileges that are held by
different individuals -- that is, different
areas: physicians, for instance, lawyers, all
that sort of thing. And what is trying to be
done here is to develop a uniform procedure.
The judge -- the job of the judge
really is to deal with the issue of the person
who is the representative making his or her
contention, assuming to waive, based on the
basis of what's in the best interests and what
evidence there of what that person indicated
or whatever, in the best interests of the
person who is being represented.
So I guess the answer is it would
become pretty obvious to any judge that if
something that would be allowed in would
clearly disgrace the person, that
representative would be absolutely -- their
charge would be to uphold that. And if for
some reason that person doesn't do that, then
I guess it would be the judge's -- someone
even other than that representative could make
2533
that contention.
But it would be presumed to be the
individual who is the representative who would
make the contention, and the judge would just
rule in the favor of the person that that
evidence couldn't come in because it would
disgrace that person or create a problem, you
know, after the person's death -- the memory
or the reputation and so forth.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I want to
thank Senator Volker very much for his
answers.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: In spite of my
anxiety over the court making the final
determination when the court could not have
had the requisite information that I think
would be needed to make that determination,
when that would actually lie with the
representative, and we also have the tricky
issue of people who are incapacitated who at
2534
times may not be incapacitated -- they may be
in full possession of their faculties at
certain periods and may have changed a will or
a codicil or something -- and this behavior
and conduct would be best apprised by the
person's representative at some proceeding.
It does seem that this is going on
a lot. And what the Bar Association wanted to
do was to codify it, because the laws are too
strict on this right now. And rather than
just working around the law and making the law
void for its vagueness, they have tried to
really write it into our current law, and I
commend them for that.
And in spite of the fact that I
just have that apprehension, I would be
willing to look at the fact that they've been
through this and researched this, and
certainly Senator Volker is up on that, and
for now I'll defer to their judgment and vote
for the bill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
2535
President, will the sponsor yield to a couple
of questions, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you yield to a question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: He
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, as
always, these bills that come from you have
tremendous thought behind them. I'm
encouraged by the fact that this bill may
become law. But there are a couple of things
I just want to clarify for the record and make
sure I understand.
Through you, Mr. President, the
first question. The bill only applies to
actions brought under either the Surrogate's
Court Procedure Act or the Estates, Powers and
Trusts Law. Why isn't it applicable to all
civil actions under the CPLR?
SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, my
counsel, in typical fashion, gave me the
answer -- which I was pretty sure was the
answer -- and it's one reason why this bill is
2536
now before us from the Assembly, because the
Assembly wouldn't go along with anything else.
A very good legal reason.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The old
Assembly-won't-go-along-with-it answer,
Senator? I can appreciate that.
SENATOR VOLKER: I mean, this
bill has been here since '96, and we've been
trying to get an agreement. And very
honestly, we've been negotiating it. And
that's really the reason that it's restricted
as it is.
And if you kind of read the memo,
the memo actually talks about a little bit
broader bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Volker will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I'm
just trying to make sure I understand how this
2537
progresses. Because there are different
waivers triggered by the different sections
under different circumstances.
As I understand, Section 3 says
that the personal representative shall have
the ability to waive or decline the waiver of
the privilege under almost any circumstance.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah, that's
pretty well true. And then remember here that
the judge doesn't get involved, essentially,
unless there is a dispute. I think that's one
thing that should be understood here.
Basically, the -- one of the issues
here is that if somebody has to raise an
objection or whatever, it is -- by the way, it
is presumed that the representative, under the
law, is supposed to be acting in the best
interests of the person represented, under
present law. So when a person either waives
or doesn't waive, it is presumed that that
person is acting in the best interests,
because under the present law, the Surrogate's
Procedure Act and Estates Powers, the person
is mandated to do that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Right.
2538
Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Volker
will continue to yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you yield to another question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Your answer,
Senator Volker, leads to the exact reason for
my question. Oftentimes, as you know, the
beneficiary of an act by the testator, either
a gift just before death or a gift in the will
itself, is also the personal representative.
And so as a consequence -- and as you know,
very well know, since you do a bunch of
Surrogate Court work, the privilege can be
used both as a sword and as a shield.
And my question is, if the personal
representative is the beneficiary of that
gift, are they permitted to use the -- to
assert the privilege as a shield to protect
the nature of their own gift?
As you know, I know, Senator, that
2539
gift would be presumed to be valid because it
was made by a testator who was aware of his
faculties and conscious and able to make their
own judgment. And then a contestant, a
brother or sister who's left out of the will
and finds there's nothing left in the will
walks in and says: Wait a second, I want you,
Mr. Attorney, to testify about the
conversation that you had with my dad about a
gift that he gave to my brother -- who happens
to be the executor -- and the executor says,
Wait a second. I'm not going to allow that.
I'm going to assert that and silence the
attorney not to disclose that.
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, as you
know, the situation essentially is that now we
really don't change that. But that would set
up a situation, by the way, that if somebody
was contesting, then that would set up a
situation where whatever the decision of that
representative is would be something that the
judge would then look at.
As you and I both know now, the bar
and actually the Court of Appeals has set up
some really much more stringent guidelines on
2540
what has to be done if you draw a will and you
are the executor, and especially if you're a
beneficiary, there are certain procedures that
you have to go through. In fact, a lot of
attorneys have gotten very nervous about that,
as I think they should on these kinds of
proceedings, just because of that.
So we don't change any of that, any
of that additional. And I would think if an
attorney, for instance, who was also an
executor and a beneficiary were in this kind
of situation, it would probably be virtually
an automatic question for the judge of whether
his waiver of something might be in his best
interest.
I think the only argument is always
the argument, and the question is presently,
if no one objects, it is true, then, it's
really the surrogate just makes a decision
based on whatever facts he has there.
Our surrogate, when he sees
something like this, by the way, irrespective
of this waiver or not, really tends to be
very, very cautious, because he knows that
these are the kinds of things that can be
2541
very, very touchy and have led to huge
criticism.
But this really doesn't change that
situation as far as the
attorney-executor-beneficiary situation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Volker will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In Section 4
of the bill, Senator, you set up a provision
under which the privilege could be waived by
any party in interest. And my question is,
just to clarify this, does this mean that if
the -- a representative asserts the privilege,
if it involves one of the various types of
transfers that's talked about in this bill -
gratuitous transfers, pretestamentary
transfers -- is the suggestion that any party
in interest can force the waiver by the
personal executor, or -- I don't understand
2542
how that works with the seeming reservation of
the right of the personal representative to
either waive or decline to waive it in the
previous section.
SENATOR VOLKER: I think what
they're saying here is that if there is a
continuation that the waiver would be -- you
know, the waiver by the representative would
cause irreparable harm, for instance, to a
surviving spouse or distributee or whatever,
and there's something that is not in the best
interests -- for instance, could be not in the
best interests of either the person
represented or the surviving spouse, that then
they could make an objection and at least put
in whatever continuation they had, whatever
evidence they had.
That doesn't mean, by the way, that
the waiver would occur. It just means that
there is the ability to at least make your
argument before a judge. And remember, by the
way, that's one of the things -- this
limitation to Surrogate's Court now is
essentially what we're talking about. And I
suppose that might be more of a problem. I
2543
think that's probably one of the reasons the
Assembly was nervous, if you allowed this
outside of Surrogate's Court.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, I have just one other question
on this bill, if Senator Volker will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, you
use as a term of art in this bill, which is
the test for a court order granting access to
look beyond the privilege, and you talk about
if it would tend to disgrace the memory or it
would cause substantial and identifiable harm
to others.
Could you just give an example of
what you intend by that? And again, the
reason why I ask this question is because
clearly, if someone walked in and said, The
testator gave me a million-dollar gift before
he died and therefore it doesn't go to his
2544
son, it goes to me instead, I mean, there's a
serious question as to what that
identifiable -- substantial and identifiable
harm.
I know we use those terms a lot.
But what do you envision as meeting that test?
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, you can
envision, I guess, a number of things. But,
for instance, the hidden lover -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Paternity
question or -
SENATOR VOLKER: Right. There's
a number of things that may come to mind that
if it were -- if it became common knowledge
or, you know, was allowed to -- could in fact
not only embarrass the dead person or
whatever, or the disabled, but also the
family, the surviving spouse, a series of
things.
I think that's what was really
envisioned there. Whether it's the attorney's
affair or the affair of the person who is
represented.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just briefly on the bill.
2545
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I commend
Senator Volker for his persistence. This
bill, which the Assembly has passed, ought to
become a law.
But like many other bills, this is
one that's going to have an interesting round
through the courts. I think that people will
look at it and suggest -- and I understand the
Assembly wasn't willing to pass the civil
practice portion of this. But it's a shame
we're not doing this in civil practice as
well, because this very issue -- that is, the
exercise of a privilege on behalf of a
deceased -- comes up in real property
transfers, it comes up in gift transfers, it
can come up in corporate stock disputes.
There are a whole gamut of
potential instances in which the assertion of
the dead man's privilege or the assertion of a
privilege between, as this bill affects,
lawyers, doctors, psychologists, and social
workers, where those assertion of privileges
can really stimy a litigant at finding out the
2546
truth.
Two other quick points, and I'll
address the one I -- the last one I addressed
with Senator Volker. The most interesting
thing about the phrase "substantial and
identifiable harm to others" -- Senator Volker
properly points out what could it be, the
paternity question, things that involve moral
judgment. The only problem with that, Senator
Volker, is that those are the hotly contested
cases.
Those are cases where an
unaffiliated child shows up and claims
paternity, or there are people outside the
family chain who are beneficiaries in a will.
And those are the kind of hotly contested
issues in which the privilege is directly
implicated.
And so I just think the courts are
going to be searching for some test of that,
not -- remember, we're not talking about in
this section of the bill the harm to the
individual, we're talking about the harm to
others. And I think it will be interesting to
see how the courts try to fashion a test for
2547
what that really means.
We've set the bar pretty high.
We've set it as it has to be substantial and
it has to be identifiable. But I just think
if we had the ability to go back and perhaps
refine that definition or give the courts a
little bit of guidance, it would be
well-advised. I understand that the Assembly,
somewhat being dragged along on this bill, may
not want to do that. But I think that will be
a source of some uncertainty in the courts.
And the final conclusion, Mr.
President -- although I'm going to vote in
favor of this bill, because I think it does a
good thing in providing a general blueprint
for the courts to deal with. But I think that
the question of the contested waiver that
suggests that any party in interest may push
the waiver in the circumstances described in
paragraph 4, I think the courts are going to
look at that and say that is going to be
somewhat in conflict with the provision in
paragraph 3 which says that the personal
representative alone can decide whether to
waive or assert the privilege.
2548
And I think that there's going to
be some confusion in the courts there. My
sense, based on what Senator Volker has told
us, is that the Section 3 says that the waiver
or the ability to waive rests solely in the
personal representative except in those
instances in which there's a gratuitous
transfer or other instances, and then under
those circumstances, because of the
truth-finding requirement in the court, we're
going to allow anyone who objects or any party
to open up the conversations between the
decedent and their professional so that we can
find out what really happened. And all the
parties with objection to a will or other
contest will be able to get that information.
I think this bill advances our
common law. I think it's a good amendment to
clarify this notion of what happens when
someone who's a critical player in a family or
a corporation dies. I only regret that it's
not applying to all civil actions so that we
could finally clarify this whole question of
what to do when a critical player -- the
father of a family or the leading stockholder
2549
of a corporation -- what to do when they die
and they've made disclosures to all their
professionals about what they intended, what
they wanted to do, and what the scope of their
bequests would be.
So I'm going to vote in favor, Mr.
President. I again commend Senator Volker.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time temporarily lay this bill
aside. And I would ask that we return to the
reports of standing committees.
I believe there's a report from the
Finance Committee at the desk. I would ask
that it be read at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will
lay aside the bill temporarily and move on to
reports of standing committees.
And I ask the Secretary to read the
report of the Finance Committee which is at
the desk.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Concurrent Resolution Number 946, adopting a
budget resolution proposing amendments to the
2550
2001-2002 Executive budget submission.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move the
resolution, Mr. President.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, by
way of explanation, this is our budget
resolution that hopefully will move us towards
negotiating a budget with the State Assembly.
And this resolution, when fully
implemented, will total about $84.1 billion.
But the resolution really is focused on
economic development, job creation, doing all
the kinds of things that have been important
to the people of this state over these last
six years.
So we have been proud of our record
here in this house in partnering with the
Governor and moving our economy forward. So
the essence of this financial plan is a
$1.8 billion tax-cut package that returns
money to businesses, keeps money with
businesses, keeps money in people's possession
where they can go out and spend it on things
2551
that they believe are important to their own
families and their own lifestyle.
The essence of that $1.8 billion is
a $500 million Ge-NY-sis package, that we call
Ge-NY-sis, generating jobs through science,
relating more to biotech, biomed research, job
creation, technology development. We believe
that will just project New York forward in an
area that's critically important to everyone.
There's $625 million in this
resolution for roads and for bridges to go out
this year.
And we are expanding the Empire
Zones here in this state. There are 52. They
encompass two miles. We're expanding those to
four miles. There are six additional that
qualify by law. We are recommending strongly
that we add 14 applicants for those six.
We're suggesting that all 14 be included. And
that includes about $325 million of that tax
cut package.
There's $925 million in school aid.
We know how critically important that is.
That has always been a priority of the Senate,
educating our young people. And we are
2552
following on three years of record increases
in school aid here in this state.
Health care, critically important.
About $210 million is included in this
resolution for that.
We have $79 million over the next
several years in revenue sharing, $70 million
for agricultural assistance, $20 million for
what we call the road to recovery, to help
people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs.
We have also, which will follow
this resolution, our budget reform package.
Because when we don't have a budget for the
people of this state, everyone hurts and
suffers. They suffer in many ways. They
suffer financially, and dollars are literally
wasted.
But we think that this plan that we
present is comprehensive, it's reasonable,
it's realistic, and it sets $4.4 billion aside
for whatever uncertainties that may exist next
year, with our economy being questionable as
to how robust it will be. We think it's
prudent that we keep a reserve.
And we think we are being realistic
2553
when we add about $1.2 billion overall to the
Governor's spending plan that he submitted to
us in January.
So I would submit this to my
colleagues here and ask for your support.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, why do you rise?
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, Mr.
President, on the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, on the resolution.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I certainly appreciate the many
good things in the Majority's budget
resolution, some restorations that were made
to proposals that the Governor made that would
really have made, in my opinion, some unwise
cuts.
I also share Senator Bruno's
concern that we need to be prudent. I too
have been worried about the Bush economy,
having seen the last Bush economy. And I do
worry at that in the future year we may need
2554
to keep significant reserves in anticipation
of an adverse economic downturn.
But I think we can spend more. I
think we should spend more in a couple of key
areas. Number one is education. Because it
is our state's future, it's the future of our
economy. And because we need only read the
Supreme Court justice's decision in the CFE
case to understand how we have not provided
sufficient funds to many of our children, not
just in New York City but in many areas of the
state, for a lot of historical reasons. It's
not a blame-casting exercise. But it's time
now to focus on where these needs are.
So we will be offering an amendment
to provide sufficient funds to take that first
step toward ensuring a sound, basic education.
Yes, we've put more money into school aid over
the past years, unprecedented amounts. But
it's clear it hasn't been enough. The future
of this state is based on education. The
future of our children depends on a quality
education. We must provide a sound, basic
education in the rural areas of this state,
the urban areas of this state, and every other
2555
area of the state.
So the amendment we will offer will
not deprive a single school district in this
state of a penny. A mere handful will stay at
the same level, and every school district in
the state will get increased school aid -
some more than others, based on special
needs -- but every school district will get
more money than it would under the Majority
resolution. Which I recognize is better than
the Governor's proposal.
A big step forward from the
Governor's proposal by the Majority. We say
let's go that next step and address the need
to provide a sound, basic education in all of
our school districts, so that we don't pit
district against district. Every school
district represented by every member of this
Senate virtually will get an increase, with
the exception, I think, of six or seven
districts that will stay the same.
We will also offer amendments to
deal with what we call EPIC COPE, an
enhancement of the EPIC program. I will
propose a measure that I think as an
2556
amendment, because it does involve funding, we
ought to do to address a significant problem
that I think everybody has identified with
respect to how we conduct elections and manage
elections in this state.
We will have an amendment that we
call "Budget for the Future" that will address
issues from pre-K to high-tech incubators;
yes, the Medicaid takeover from the county's
share, which I think our counties need. And
we will of course have an amendment dealing
with what we view as a need for even greater
expenditures in the area of Medicaid for
nursing homes, greater than the Majority has
proposed.
We think it's prudent because at
the end of the day, if you do all our numbers,
we'd still have in excess of $3 billion in
reserves. And we think that's prudent.
In terms of the tax cut -- and I've
said on this floor, year after year after
year, I've never met a tax cut I didn't like.
I think I voted for all of them. I think
you've heard this conference propose even
different and what we thought were better tax
2557
cut on occasions. Sometimes in the next years
we come back and the Majority has embraced
them, and that's good.
I am concerned now that at this
stage, anticipating, for lack of a better
word, I guess it's the Bush economy, that we
still have out-year costs of $5 billion based
on tax cuts we've already enacted. In other
words, we haven't paid for $5 billion of the
tax cuts we've already enacted. So I am
concerned to once again see a proposal by the
Majority for a tax cut of $1.8 billion, but
we're only putting a $259 million down payment
on it this year.
I didn't mind voting for that four
or five years ago. I was confident in the
Clinton economy. And we were right, the
revenues poured in. And we covered those
out-year costs.
But, Mr. President, I caution my
colleagues now, we still have a $5 billion tab
in future years. And I don't think we ought
to incur another $1.6 billion future tab on
tax cuts given the uncertainty of the economy,
given what many of us feel is a lack of
2558
confidence in our economic prospects over the
next three or four years.
And I don't want to see us hit
years -- and I don't want to make predictions,
but in a year or two, if we're standing on
this floor trying to cover a $4 billion
deficit in the state budget, I will say, Mr.
President, I told you so.
So that said, Mr. President, I
would urge all of my colleagues to listen
carefully to the amendments we propose. They
are suggestions in this process. We've done
them every other year. You actually liked
some of them, the Majority actually liked some
of them, Mr. President, and adopted them in
past years. So in that spirit, these
amendments are offered.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer, why do you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I believe
you have at the desk the amendment that I'm
going to propose. It's called Extraordinary
Needs Aid. I'd like to explain -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
2559
amendment is at the desk, Senator Oppenheimer.
Are you asking that we waive its reading and
you be given an opportunity to explain it at
this time?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes, if I
may.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
reading of the amendment is waived, and you
are now afforded the opportunity to explain
the amendment.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
This is called the Extraordinary
Needs Aid. And it is something that we have
to face up to because of the DeGrasse decision
in the case that was brought by the Campaign
for Fiscal Equity that says that in our
constitution we have to provide a sound and
basic education to all children in our state.
And the present system is simply
not delivering the kind of funding that is
required. We have in our school aid formulas
maybe 50 different formulas. I doubt whether
there are a handful of people in Albany that
know and understand all these formulas. I've
2560
been following education now for 28 years, and
I can say it's extraordinarily confusing and
seems to have no rational basis. And Lord
knows where it comes from, some of these
formulae.
But we do know certain facts, and
we do know that minority students have been
harmed and that many of our students come from
areas where there has been actual cultural
deprivation or their family has not been able
or interested in accessing those pieces
necessary so that a child is able to grow and
to learn in our established education
environment.
We have to focus in on the very
foundation of skills. And we have to do this
for our own sake, for the sake of our state
and for every citizen in this state. Because
these people that we are educating now are the
people who we hope will be the productive
citizens of the future. And if we do not
provide them with a sound, fundamental
education, we are not going to have these
people working within our economic structure.
We have to create a fair and new
2561
funding system that will assess what are the
actual costs of providing this adequate
education to all of our students in the state.
And it has to be a formula that the people of
our state can understand. Because I can tell
you now, very, very few people in our state -
almost no one understands how we fund
education.
Judge DeGrasse named seven
essential resources. And they include having
a sufficient number of qualified teachers.
Right now we know there are so many
teachers -- particularly in New York City,
almost one-third -- who are not even certified
to teach. And very often they're teaching out
of areas which they are certified in and
they're teaching subject matter which they are
really not competent in.
We have to have appropriate class
size. In the lower grades it's going to be
essential to reduce the number of students in
the classrooms, because we know from all the
information that has come out of our federal
studies that children between the ages of -
well, actually birth and maybe up to age 7, 8,
2562
are just like sponges and have the capacity to
learn, but they can only learn in environments
that are conducive to that.
We have to put in additional
resources for our at-risk students, because
they need it and we are hoping that they will
be able to streamline -- to become part of the
mainstream within our academic system if
provided sufficient resources.
We have to have facilities that are
sound. They cannot have water pouring in on
the students or have students in rooms that
were not intended to be classrooms but rather
intended to be closets or to be gym
facilities.
And the state has to fund this,
because this cannot happen by itself. We have
done a great deal with standards in our state.
And indeed, when the assessment of all schools
in the 50 states was done, it was determined
that New York State actually got an A for the
quality of our standards, our academic
standards. But when it came to
implementation, we got an F. And that's
because we have not provided adequate
2563
resources. And the budget that has been
presented to us today certainly is a
beginning, but we feel a lot more would have
to be added.
This amendment calls for a
three-year phase-in of a remedy to the court
case, the DeGrasse court case. And we believe
this amendment will start in the three-year
process of offering a sound, basic education.
It will drive an additional $1.1 billion in
extraordinary needs aid for the coming school
year; that is, 2001-2002. And additional aid
would be phased in over the next couple of
years, so that by the school year 2003-2004,
all of the necessary resources would be in
place.
I commend this to you and hope you
will seriously consider it, because there is
little doubt in my mind that we are going to
have to meet the needs of the New York City
court case. And also, it is the right thing
to do.
I know several of my colleagues
will probably want to speak on this, so I will
finish now.
2564
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, did you wish to be recognized on the
amendment?
SENATOR STAVISKY: I'm sorry, I
can't hear you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Did you
wish to be recognized on the amendment?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, on the
amendment, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, on the amendment.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes. The
amendment is called Extraordinary Needs Aid.
And it seems to me, as a former high school
teacher in the City of New York and as someone
who graduated from the public schools and
whose son went through the public schools,
Judge DeGrasse gave us an extraordinary
opportunity to remedy some of the problems
that we face.
The amendment being offered by
Senator Oppenheimer gives us a three-year
phase-in of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity
remedy. It's important, I think, to recognize
that Judge DeGrasse's decision will have to be
2565
implemented, and it should not be implemented
by the judge but by the Legislature. The
New York State Constitution, in Article 11, is
very clear. It says that the Legislature
shall provide for a system of free common
schools wherein all of the children of the
state may be educated.
This amendment being offered today
takes another step toward implementing Judge
DeGrasse's decision. But at the same time,
Judge DeGrasse did outline the seven basic
steps toward a sound, basic education. But he
also suggested that we have accountability
along with the expenditures of funds. And
this amendment being offered by our side of
the aisle I think addresses some of these
needs and certainly some of the issues that
Judge DeGrasse outlined.
It will provide an additional
$1.1 billion in extraordinary need so that we
can provide a sound, basic education for all
of the children in this state. And, Mr.
President, I would urge everyone to support
our amendment.
Thank you.
2566
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Espada, you wish to be recognized on the
amendment?
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Espada, on the amendment.
SENATOR ESPADA: On the
amendment.
Not since Brown versus the Board of
Education, almost 47 years ago, has the
subject of education, the nature of education
and how it is administered, how it is funded,
the issue of whether or not our children -
that is, all of our children in the state, but
primarily those children in African-American
and Latino communities throughout the state -
are getting a sound basic education, are
getting their fair share of the education
dollar.
There is a floodlight on all of us.
The recent court decision allowed for this.
But clearly, as a public educator -- I taught
the elementary school and secondary level, and
I can assure you that this matter of inequity,
2567
this issue of the savage inequalities that
have visited many generations of poor children
in our communities has been with us for a
long, long, long time.
I commend Senator Oppenheimer for
the amendment. It's clear, it's simple, it
adheres to the basic tenets of the DeGrasse
decision. It is prudent and fiscally
responsible in its phased-in approach. But it
speaks very clearly to the fact that somehow
there is this kind of zero-sum mentality going
around that somehow New York City and its poor
children can only gain if some other districts
and their children lose.
And clearly this amendment
indicates that we can all win, that all of our
children, as our Senate Democratic conference
leader indicated, are not only statutorily
entitled to a basic, sound education, but we
owe it to them. It is our job. We have no
nobler mission than to provide that. And
that's why I encourage and urge the adoption
of this amendment.
Thank you so much.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2568
Schneiderman, did you wish to be heard on the
amendment?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, thank
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, on the amendment.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I would
urge my colleagues that the Campaign for
Fiscal Equity decision does not leave us an
option to pass the budget resolution presented
today in its current form. It does not
address the needs of the children in this
state. And I would suggest that we're in a
situation where it looks as though our house
will be dragged kicking and screaming into
providing a decent education for all of our
children.
The analysis of the education
budget performed by the Majority in this house
is actually quite disparaging of Justice
DeGrasse's opinion. It takes him to task and
criticizes him for factual inaccuracies, which
I find unsupported by the record in the case,
which I have followed closely for a long time.
We have to provide a decent
2569
education for all our children. This is not
just about funding. This is not just about
funding. We have responsibility for the
entire structure. The defense of the State of
New York in this case, which I think was
disgraceful, was: Oh, we created the Board of
Education, all these agencies, then we give
them money, they waste it, so we're not
liable. That's a disgrace. That was the
defense of the State of New York.
We have the authority to make
structural reforms if they're needed, but we
have to provide the resources. We will have
to do it one way or the other. I don't see
any reason why this house should be at the end
of the train dragging our feet. We should
embrace the decision and get to the hard job
of structural reform and providing the
resources so that all the children of our
state can have a decent education.
I would urge that there is nothing
more shortsighted than a budget which purports
to address the problem and the need for
economic growth that does not provide the
education for the workforce that will fuel and
2570
support that economic growth. I urge everyone
to vote in favor of this amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, did you wish to be heard on the
amendment?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Very briefly,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the amendment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I join with
my colleague Senator Espada, who made
reference to Brown against the Board of
Education and the importance of us embarking
down the road to quality and educational
opportunity in this state.
I honestly believe that the
judicial opinion which was been referenced by
a number of my colleagues simply tells us what
we already knew. There's no secret in that
opinion. We know what the factors are that
influence education. We know what works. And
what this amendment seeks to do is to say to
the people in this chamber we're going to fund
what works.
We know that reducing class size,
2571
creating greater expectations will drive
educational opportunity in areas that have
historically had tremendous difficulty in
complying with standards and meeting the goals
of adequate educational opportunity.
If you look at where this money
will go, we make no bones about it. A major
portion of the resources in this extra billion
dollars will go to areas which have suffered
the scourge of chronic poverty, which has
extracted an enormous toll on student growth
and expectation. About two-thirds of it ends
up there. But it also goes to places of rural
poverty, where although it isn't concentrated,
it is more spread out, it still has a
devastating impact on our children and their
expectations.
And I would just suggest that any
state that has as its symbol a woman standing
at the door with a golden lamp, it isn't
enough just to welcome them into the front
foyer of the family of New York, we need to
bring them into the living room so that they
can participate in all the benefits of a New
York family. We can't to that without turning
2572
on the lights in our house. And the golden
lamp that brought them here and that brings
them to our door does not fulfill our promise
to them unless we can welcome them into our
family.
The only way to do that is to give
them the expectation that they will get a
reasonable education in our public schools and
that they can sit at the table with all of us.
We have tolerated failure for too
long in our high-needs public schools. We can
no longer tolerate it. Let's give the school
districts that need extraordinary aid, let's
give it to them now. Let's tell them that if
they don't meet the standards at some point,
there will be some punishment, there will be
some consequence.
Let's require that we turn on the
lights in New York for everyone. If we don't
put this money aside and don't show them a
place at the table, too many New Yorkers who
have already been left behind will be left
behind again, and the promise and hope for our
children will end up as a misguided promise
that produced nothing.
2573
It's time we ended the tolerance of
failure and gave every child in this state the
one hope for the one thing we know they need,
a quality public education. I'll be voting in
favor of the amendment, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile, did you wish to be heard on the
amendment?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, I would
like to be heard, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile, on the amendment.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator Dollinger and my other
colleagues are so right in what they say. We
over the last many years, at least the few
years that I've been here, have debated this
issue of school funding over and over again on
one side or the other. The fact is, up until
now it's been a political debate, a political
debate of whether schools were funded
adequately, whether we as a Legislature were
meeting our obligations to educate all the
students in the State of New York.
2574
That's been a political debate that
has been ongoing. And to the credit of this
Legislature and the other house and the
Governor, we have tried to bridge the gap in
the funding for New York City schools.
However, now we go from a political
debate and add another aspect to it. And the
other aspect now is the court decision. We
now have a court decision that assists us and
mandates that we act at this point. We are
told now by the judge, Judge DeGrasse, that we
have not, we have not -- he has answered the
question and said we have not provided a
sound, basic education to the students
throughout our state. And by answering that
question, by answering that question and
saying we have not provided a sound, basic
education to all the students in this state,
he has told us something else.
And what he has told us and what he
has concluded is that this house, the
Assembly, and the Governor have violated the
constitution of the State of New York. By not
funding, as we should have been funding, the
school system throughout the state in a fair
2575
and equitable way, the court has said we, the
Legislature, the Governor have violated the
constitution of the State of New York. We now
stand in violation of that constitution.
Senator Oppenheimer's amendment to
this resolution brings us to the point where
we can present to the judge a very credible
argument that we are no longer, with the
adoption of this resolution, in violation of
the constitution of the State of New York.
So in a practical term, Mr.
President, the court has given us till
September to come up with a fair funding
formula. In a practical term, Mr. President,
I suggest that we have a fair and practical
funding formula with the adoption of Senator
Oppenheimer's amendment.
And so I suggest that we do now,
today, what we must do by September. Let's
not wait till September to have to do this.
Let's do this today and add this to the
document that is being presented today as a
budget resolution in this house.
I congratulate Senator Oppenheimer,
and I will be voting for the amendment.
2576
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, did you wish to speak on the
amendment?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
There's no question in my mind that
the budget resolution in front of us is an
improvement over the Executive budget. At the
same time, there is no question in my mind
that Senator Oppenheimer's amendment on
extraordinary needs aid is an improvement on
the budget resolution that faces us today.
I'm not going to echo my
colleagues. I'll be very brief in stating
that I think, to fulfill Judge DeGrasse's
decision across the state, in eliminating the
divisions between urban, rural, suburban,
white/black poverty, this is the way to go.
And this meaning the amendment.
Now, in this well-lit chamber,
Senator Dollinger, I'd like to say something
that Andrew Carnegie mentioned in the 19th
century. And with this, I'll close. He said
that America rests upon three major pillars,
and if any of these pillars were destroyed,
the greatness of America would also be
2577
compromised. And he named these three pillars
as one, education; two, education; three,
education.
I think the Executive budget
consists of one pillar. I think that the
Senate one-house budget resolution consists of
two pillars. And that the amendment that
Senator Oppenheimer has offered to us will
give us the three pillars that Andrew Carnegie
mentioned to fulfill the dreams and
aspirations of all the citizens of New York
State and maintain the greatness in this land.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Sampson, did you wish to speak on the
amendment?
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
First, I want to rise in support of
the amendment by my colleague,
Ms. Oppenheimer. But second of all, I want to
commend the Majority on the first step as to
what we consider to be an adequate education,
especially for our children in New York City.
But when I think of education,
there's a direct correlation between crime and
2578
education. Because those individuals who are
not adequately educated seem to be go into the
criminal element of society. We always tell
our children -- when I was young, my parents
always told me to go to school, get a decent
education and make something of your life.
Every year in this chamber we talk
about education and the importance of
education and how we need to educate our
children in order to become productive
individuals in society. But we don't give
them the adequate resources so they can become
productive individuals in society. And I'm
tired especially of seeing children in my neck
of the woods wind up in prisons upstate.
And, you know, we need to basically
do something about that. And this amendment
is a second step in order to equalize, to make
a level playing field for those kids out there
in our community which we say, year in and
year out, go to school and become educated
individuals. Let's give them that
opportunity. Let's give them those resources.
And that's why I rise in support of
this amendment, Mr. President.
2579
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Malcolm Smith, do you wish to speak on the
amendment?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith, on the amendment.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Let me
offer my congratulations and support to
Senator Oppenheimer for her insight and
understanding of what the young adults and
young children of our state need.
Mr. President, for those who follow
the biblical text, there is a text in the
Bible that discusses a chapter regarding a
gentleman by the name of Ezekiel. And the
particular chapter talks about rising up from
the valley of dry bones. And the dry bones
seem to represent individuals who have not
gotten or have not achieved what they need to
achieve in society.
But what is interesting about that
passage, Mr. President, is it also talks about
there are certain quakes that occur in society
along a linear path in our lives. I believe
2580
in 1964 and '65 we had a quake when the Voting
Rights Act came to pass as well, as the Civil
Rights Act. This particular year is the year
2001. I believe we have now also experienced
another quake. That quake is the decision
that Judge DeGrasse has made with regards to
the CFE campaign.
I believe we have an opportunity, I
believe we have an obligation as individuals
to make sure that we respond to that
particular quake. If we do not -- and I say
that if we do not, what we will be doing is
what has happened in our society over the last
several years, a couple of things. One, we
will sit here and talk about we want to reform
the Rockefeller Drug Laws. However, if that
reform occurs, and you do not support
educating the children, they will essentially
go right back into the criminal justice
enterprise. Therefore, the Rockefeller drug
reform will be a farce.
You have many upstate
neighborhoods. Their biggest problem today,
Mr. President, is that they cannot sustain the
businesses that are up there. Why they can't
2581
sustain those businesses is because there is
not an adequate workforce, so they are leaving
the state. We have to make sure, in order for
our state to compete with other states and
maintain what we consider to be a good
business atmosphere, there has to be an
educated workforce, and we do not have that.
We can't sit here and talk about
making budget reforms, making budget
allocations to areas such as biotech, such as
having an expanded Empire Zone area, if in
fact the individual businesses that want to
take advantage of that particular support
cannot do so because you do not have the kind
of workforce that can be a part of it.
My hope, Mr. President, is that we
don't feel guilty about what is going on here
today. My hope is that we recognize that this
is not only something whose time has come, but
it is a necessity. We're not asking for
anything extra. We're not asking for you to
do anything extra. All that we are asking for
is that you do what is necessary to make sure
that everybody can play on a level playing
field.
2582
It is a simple allocation. We have
enough money there. $4 billion in terms of a
surplus is more than enough money not to
have -- more than enough money that we don't
have to worry about what will happen when we
have a problem come the out-years where this
particular recession, as everyone is beginning
to talk about, occurs.
My hope, Mr. President, is that we
will adopt this amendment, we will take it
just in the spirit that it is offered, and
that is not to embarrass, not to challenge,
but only to make it equitable so that every
citizen of this state, every young person of
this state has a decent education and can go
on with their lives productively in this
society.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, did you wish to speak on the
amendment?
SENATOR ONORATO: On the
amendment, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, on the amendment.
2583
SENATOR ONORATO: I rise to
support the amendment. I'm not going to
belabor the point. It's been made very, very
adequately by my colleagues.
But I would like to remind this
body that we've been advocating for many, many
years -- I'm here 18 years, and for 18 years
we've been asking for equality in the
education system for those who have the
greatest needs. It's a shame that it had to
go into the courts to prove that what we were
advocating for the past 18 years has come to
pass, only to have it appealed by the Governor
of this state, wasting additional funds,
fighting what is justifiable in the eyes of
the court, who are bipartisan and nonpartisan
regarding the needs of the children of our
state of New York.
This is the extraordinary needs
program. And what extraordinary measures must
we meet to meet the obligations that have been
thrust upon us by the courts? I don't think
that it's fair of this legislative body that
we have to rely upon the courts to do what we
have been elected to do for ourselves.
2584
So I urge you to right the wrongs
that have been committed over the past years
and vote for this amendment to make things
right again.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on the
amendment?
The Secretary will now canvass the
members. Those in agreement, please raise
your hand.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor,
Dollinger, Duane, Espada, Gentile, Markowitz,
Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson, Sampson, M.
Smith, A. Smith, Stachowski, and Senator
Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendment fails.
We're now on debate on the bill.
Senator Gentile, do you wish to be
heard?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, Mr.
President. I believe there's an amendment at
the desk. I'd ask that the reading be waived
2585
and allow me to explain.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Let me
just take a look here, Senator Gentile.
Senator Gentile, the chair
recognizes that the amendment is before the
house. The reading of it is waived, and
you're afforded the opportunity to in fact
explain the amendment.
SENATOR GENTILE: I appreciate
the opportunity, Mr. President.
As we all know and as we have been
dealing with, the cost of prescription drugs
in this state continues to soar. And although
my colleague from Staten Island just left the
chamber, I have to say that he has been one of
the -- in the forefront in part of this fight,
in fighting the rising cost of prescription
drugs.
Indeed, all one needs to understand
is the figure that in the last six years,
spending in America on prescription drugs has
risen by -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile, excuse the interruption. It seems to
be a little noisy in here. I see we have a
2586
conference right next to you. I don't know
how your members or colleagues can hear the
debate that you're presenting on this
amendment, or understand it, if in fact
they're not listening to you.
So if we could just have a little
order in the house. The members, in fact, if
they have a conversation, please take that out
of the chamber.
Pardon the interruption, Senator
Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Spending by Americans on
presentation drugs over the last six years has
risen by 116.4 percent, a 116.4 percent
increase in spending by Americans just on
prescription drugs. We all know the story
here in the state of New York and the cost of
prescription drugs. The prospects are that
that trend will continue.
And so we as a house, we as a house
came together last year, based on a Democratic
initiative, but then in a bipartisan show this
house came together and we passed, along with
2587
the Assembly, an EPIC reform legislation,
signed by the Governor, and that took effect
January 1st, whereby the EPIC, the Elderly
Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage program run
by the State of New York for senior citizens
and covering them for prescription drugs,
expanded, based on our bipartisan action last
year. And that law took effect January 1st.
Based on our action, now almost
200,000 more seniors are eligible to be
covered under the state prescription drug
program. And incomes have gone up,
eligibility has gone up to $35,000 if you're a
single individual 65 or older and $50,000 if
you're a married couple 65 and older. So we
have greatly expanded that program, and that
is to the credit of this Senate and to the
credit of the other house and to the Governor.
We have begun that program
January 1st of this year. I believe now we
have to take another step. And that other
step that we need to take is to expand -- is
to make the program more affordable for senior
citizens. We have expanded the eligibility;
now we must increase the affordability.
2588
And how are we going to do that?
We're going to do that by the amendment that
I'm proposing right now which I am titling
EPIC COPE. COPE is the acronym for Cap
Out-of-Pocket Expenses. C-O-P-E, EPIC COPE.
And what this amendment to the resolution will
do is add to the EPIC program by limiting the
out-of-pocket expenses that seniors in the
program will be required to pay to 5 percent
of a senior's income. Five percent of a
senior's income would be the maximum that they
would pay as a participant in the EPIC
program.
As it stands now, Mr. President, we
have done, and my staff and Senator Connor's
staff has done an analysis of what the
out-of-pocket expenses are under the current
program, under the current EPIC program. And
we define out-of-pocket expenses as those
expenses for the fee for the EPIC program, the
expenses for the deductible that has to be met
in certain cases under the program, and the
copayments that have to be made under the EPIC
program. All those three factors are taken
together and grouped under out-of-pocket
2589
expenses.
If you look at the current
out-of-pocket expenses for seniors in the
program at different income levels, the
out-of-pocket expenses under the current
program can go as high as 15 percent of a
senior's income, almost 15 percent. Just some
numbers. For example, someone making $20,000
in the EPIC program would have out-of-pocket
expenses of $1,390. Someone making $35,000
would have out-of-pocket expenses of almost
$3,000. And someone on the high end, making
$50,000 and still eligible for the EPIC
program because of our good work last year,
would still be required to spend $7,430 of
their own money before being covered by the
EPIC program.
This limits, my colleagues, the
ability of seniors to participate in this
program. We've expanded it. We need to make
it more affordable. The way to make it more
affordable is to cap the out-of-pocket
expenses at 5 percent of a senior's income.
By capping the out-of-pocket expenses at
5 percent, you realize significant savings.
2590
For example, the person at $20,000
would actually save $390 of out-of-pocket
expenses under this resolution. Someone
making $35,000 would save $1,230 under this
resolution. Someone making $26,000, married,
would save $1,600 of out-of-pocket expenses
under this resolution. And someone again on
the high end, the $50,000 end, married, making
$50,000 but still eligible for this program,
would save $4,930 of out-of-pocket expenses
under this program.
This certainly will help those
seniors who are still, even under this
program, at a point where they have to make a
decision between buying food or paying for
their prescription drugs. Because remember,
in most cases there is either a fee or a
deductible that has to be met before the EPIC
program takes effect. And that is where most
seniors have the problem in coping with these
out-of-pocket expenses.
So, Mr. President, in total we
estimate that this amendment to the budget
resolution, when adopted and when passed, will
save seniors as much as $170 million. That's
2591
$170 million back into the pockets of the
senior citizens of the state of New York.
$170 million that seniors can take put in
their pockets and, instead of spending it on
drugs or spending it on the EPIC program, can
go out and buy food, buy coats, buy shoes, buy
other things that will help the economy in
other ways, but also provide for their basic
necessities. $170 million savings to senior
citizens in the State of New York.
This, I think, will be our shining
moment, as an addition to what we did last
year as a bipartisan act to help seniors
across this state. We made it more -- we've
expanded the eligibility. Now it is our
responsibility to help seniors by making it
more affordable. The EPIC program is a great
program. We need to make it more affordable
so more seniors will be encouraged to be
covered under it.
So, Mr. President, I think that
this amendment to the resolution is an
appropriate amendment, an amendment that we
can vote on and all of us, every single one of
us can walk out of this room, out of this
2592
chamber today with our heads high, saying that
we really did something tremendous for the
seniors that live in your district, in your
district, in your district, in everybody's
district. We will do a sweeping savings for
the seniors in the State of New York.
We have the surplus. We have the
money. The time to do something for seniors
to make it more affordable is now, Mr.
President. And therefore I offer this
amendment and ask my colleagues, not only my
colleagues on this side of the aisle but the
colleagues throughout this house, to continue
to make this a bipartisan effort so that we
all can walk out of here with our heads high
and realize these savings for the seniors of
the state of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on the
amendment?
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I just want to congratulate Senator
Gentile, who I worked with many years ago
2593
before I came to the Senate, and who has
really put a lot of effort in, along with the
staff of Senator Connor and Senator Connor
himself, on what I think is a huge cost
savings for seniors. And you don't always get
a second chance to create this kind of
savings.
And it is certainly, I think, of
all the amendments we're offering, the one
that is, in my opinion, just the most
straightforward, the most explicitly helpful.
And I certainly hope that we'll see fit either
to pass it right now or at some time to come
back to the issues that it raised.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on the
amendment?
Senator Espada, on the amendment.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I think that not only the
legislation I'm familiar with but this
particular amendment is of landmark status. I
mean, clearly, we're all elected officials.
2594
We all understand that of all the demographic
groups, the reason why most of us are here is
because senior citizens put us here. Senior
citizens elected us to this body, for the most
part.
And the fact of the matter is that
every budget has its core values. Every
budget has certain assumptions and priorities
embedded in it. And if we have $1.8 billion
in tax cuts for business, why should seniors
come in last in that line?
You know, we have a situation here
where Senator Gentile has indicated very
clearly $170 million. What other investment
that we can think of would directly impact on
the pocketbooks of the most vulnerable
population? Not only the most vulnerable
population that we serve, but people who have
paid their dues -- our grandparents, our
mothers, our fathers. Why should our mothers,
grandparents, and others of that age have to
choose between eating and staying healthy?
And so hats off to Senator Gentile
as the chief architect of this plan that would
tear down the walls of desperation for so many
2595
seniors out there that unfortunately have to
make that decision day in and day out between
eating and staying healthy.
I support this and encourage,
obviously, members of the other side of the
aisle to support this as well. Thank you so
much.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on the
amendment?
The Secretary will now canvass the
members. Those in agreement please raise your
hands. For the benefit of the Secretary,
please keep them raised.
Senator Markowitz, two crutches
won't work. Just one.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor,
Dollinger, Duane, Espada, Gentile,
Hassell-Thompson, Kruger, Lachman, Markowitz,
Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson, Sampson,
Schneiderman, A. Smith, M. Smith, Stachowski,
2596
and Senator Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendment has failed.
Senator Hassell-Thompson, why do
you rise?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. I rise to request
unanimous consent of the house to be recorded
in the affirmative on the canvass agreement on
the first amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Well,
Senator Thompson, we generally do any kind of
unanimous consents at the end of the action
that we're currently for -- that's under
review or discussion. And there is a
concurrent resolution on the floor.
So if you want to preserve that
request until that time, then I'll make a
ruling on whether or not you're entitled or
able to do that.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, did you have an amendment at the desk
that you wished to address?
2597
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, I did, Mr.
President. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is this
Number 3, Senator Connor?
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, it is.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Okay.
Are you asking permission to have the reading
waived and -
SENATOR CONNOR: Please waive the
reading of the amendment and -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Reading
of the amendment is waived, and you're now
afforded an opportunity to discuss the
amendment.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This amendment deals with
elections, something I've spent a lot of time
involved with these past 28 years in one
capacity or another. Over those years, I used
to have a standing joke that I would tell all
my colleagues and adversaries, particularly
when we were dealing with disputed or
recounted elections. Indeed, in 1998 I
remember, as we took a break, telling
2598
Republican and Democratic lawyers involved in
the Attorney General election or postelection
in New York, I used to say: You know, some
day a presidential election is going to come
down to a handful of votes in a couple of
counties in one state. Is the public and
press ever going to get an education then?
Because, frankly, nothing that the
nation saw or heard or learned in Florida was
of any news to the handful of professionals in
each of the states who have dealt over the
years with closely contested local elections,
legislative elections, statewide elections in
a few cases.
Indeed, in 1986 I served on a
bipartisan state commission dealing with the
issue of voting machines and voting machine
technology. It was chaired by three people,
an Assemblyman -- just a regular Assemblyman,
Sheldon Silver, at the time; the late, great
colleague of ours, Senator Eugene Levy -- and
I mean that, he was a dear friend to all of us
and a respected member of this house and had
served in the other -- and Fabian Palamino.
Three cochairs. A number of distinguished
2599
citizens and elections officials from around
the state, people from both parties, served on
it. And we held hearings, and we looked at
voting machines.
I understand some of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle have recently
been having these little demonstrations. We
looked at all those machines, the touch types
and the stylus types and the bells and
whistles and lights go off.
One conclusion of that commission
that I proudly pointed the press to last
November and December was we recommended that
New York never, ever use a punch-card system
for any election. Now, I know we have three
counties that use them for absentees, but we
said for the election, never use them.
And I remember questioning a
witness who was advocating this. We had -
among our witnesses were people who made, sold
and manufactured these machines. And I
remember cross-examining him and saying,
"Well, how accurate is it?" "Oh, it's
accurate to within 2 percent." And I said,
"Well, what about elections that are closer
2600
than that?" "Oh, we have a statistic here, 98
percent of American elections are decided by
more than 8 or 10 percent." I said, "Yeah,
but that's not my question. What about the
one that isn't?" "Well, it's very rare." Oh,
it's very rare.
You know, the whole point, my
colleagues, Mr. President, is we want our
elections to be fair and as accurate as
humanly possible when they are that rare
occasion when it's too close to call. Who
cares about the other elections? I'm sure
nothing was discovered in Florida that hadn't
happened before and before and before, and
nobody paid attention. Because when it's the
normal 98 percent of American elections,
somebody wins by a big, healthy margin, the
loser calls 45 minutes after the polls close
and congratulates the winner, and they all go
home. It's when it's close.
And then we also, in that
commission, set standards. And in fact, I
remember further up with that one witness on
the punch cards, I said, "Well, if New York
City were into it, it's a big city." "Oh, Los
2601
Angeles uses it. Los Angeles uses it, no
problems." I said, "Well, what would happen
if we had a mayoral election and a couple of
million people voted in New York City and at
the end of the day you found out somebody won
by 900 votes?"
You see, because if you understand
math, if anybody here understands math, it's
just as likely that an election will end up
with a two-vote margin as a 2,000-vote margin.
I mean, it's just as likely. The only
difference is it's going to happen one in so
many thousand times for each number. And most
of the numbers are going to fall, I forget
what the term is, on the median on the high
side. What's really the difference whether
you win an election by, you know 103,000 or
103,001? So most of the time it's not going
to be an issue.
But the law of numbers tells you
it's just as likely it can come out to be a
one-vote margin over time. And it's just like
a casino. Over time, in a million plays,
you're going to end up with any given result,
any possible result.
2602
So I said, "What if you had that
election?" "Well, you'd run the punch cards
through the machines again." I said, "Right,
and you'd come back and say, oh, it wasn't 900
votes, it was 898. Well, what do you do?"
And he lowered his voice and kind of mumbled:
"You count them by hand." I said, "Excuse
me?" "You count them by hand." Oh, just like
they did in 1860. You would count 2 million
votes by hand.
Now, what drove all those
jurisdictions in the '60s that adopted punch
cards? The press drove it. It was the need
to know the results within an hour of the
polls closing. It had nothing to do with
accuracy, nothing to do with security, nothing
to do with reliability. The press didn't like
waiting to find out till the next morning how
Los Angeles voted so they knew how California
went so they learned who won president or
whatever.
And various jurisdictions that went
into that, the thing they kept saying is, We
can get the results quickly. Notice they
never said, We can get the results more
2603
accurately. They said, We can get the results
more quickly.
And I think what we all have to
learn, and I saw editorials -- and Senator
Goodman isn't here. He won a resounding
victory. He won. And everybody involved in
that at the end of the day knew he won. And
the press wrote editorials saying how the
system was broken because it took weeks.
Well, he won. He won in plenty of time to
take his seat. Everybody is comfortable that
he was the choice of the people of his
district.
And I suggest to you, yes, there
were some mistakes. Not that many. Not as
many as the press had billed or were feared.
There were the usual amount of random mistakes
across the district, in that district, but
basically, at the end of the day, everyone
involved was comfortable that he won. Because
we took the time to do it accurately.
Now, I understand that the press,
in some editorials, that said New York's
election system is broken because it took five
or six weeks. That's why we have elections in
2604
early November for terms that begin on
January 1st. That's why the people who wrote
U.S. Constitution provided such a lag time
between Inaugural Day -- remember, they didn't
provide November 5th or 6th to January 20th.
The original, the original language of the
Constitution gave you till March 4th to figure
out who the president was. And there was a
reason. Accurate tabulation of very close
elections takes time.
So the thrust of what I'm about to
go into isn't about can we get it done
quicker. My concern with a lot of the
technology is there's no audit trail. Just no
audit trail. Can't use punch cards. I don't
think I have to explain why now. I don't have
to explain why we were right in 1986.
But a lot of the computer systems
don't allow the reliability that the old
mechanical machine does. That is reliable.
That is virtually tamper-proof. At
950 pounds, those machines are virtually
theft-proof. No one has ever stolen one. And
I'm not suggesting we go into a new generation
of thousand-pound machines with new technology
2605
in terms of metallurgy that's available. But
we're clearly going to have to go somewhere,
and there are federal proposals to put money
into states to acquire voting machines.
And now we're to the crux of my
amendment. We have a statewide election
system. The county boards and the New York
City boards of elections are creatures of the
state, not local governments. Their makeup,
their bipartisan makeup is mandated by the
State Constitution, and they have functioned
basically as elements of the State Board of
Elections. But they're an unfunded mandate on
the counties and the city of New York that has
to pay the expenses of those county boards of
elections. Number one.
Number two, when it comes to voting
machines, in the cities, the cities own the
machines. For New York City, that means
warehouses, it means thousands of machines.
And in some of the larger counties, the
counties own the machines. But generally in
this state, the towns have to purchase and
maintain the machines. That creates two
problems. In smaller towns, it's an enormous
2606
expense, especially when we're going to go
into a new generation of machines. To mandate
on your small towns that have only two or
three machines that they have to go buy some
$8,000 -- three of them -- machines is a big
hit on the town. And a lot of town
governments will be tempted, absent a mandate
as to what machine they have to buy, to use
cheaper technology.
Secondly, if the case of Bush
against Gore meant anything to American
jurisprudence -- and that debate will rage for
years more. Some people say it meant there
were five of them and four of us. And some
people said, Read what they said. Maybe it
means something.
But what they did is, they said
that this, in effect, disparate methods of
voting and counting votes within a state is a
denial of due process, equal protection.
Looking forward, it seems to me that unless a
state comes up with a uniform method of
voting -- and, by the way, no method, Mr.
President, is foolproof. They all have
mistakes. The mechanical lever machine had an
2607
average error of 0.2 percent. That's ballots
spoiled, people lose votes, whatever. We saw
that punch cards can go up to an astronomical
rate, approaching, in some precincts,
10 percent to 12 percent of spoiled ballots,
which as everyone agrees is unacceptable.
So you're going to have opt for the
same method of voting throughout the state.
And presumably, lest we be fools, we'll opt
for one of the more reliable systems that has
the least amount of people losing their votes,
that has an audit trail and is secure and
tamper-proof.
And earlier in this year, or
perhaps at the end of December, I read in the
paper that the president of Cal Tech had
gotten together with the president of MIT and
decided technology will solve these problems,
and they had a committee. They set up a
committee of experts. And in reading the
Times quote from Dr. Baltimore, the president
of Cal Tech, I saw that he was setting forth,
postulating to the press that any machine
should do a number of things. One thing any
machine should do is give the voter a receipt
2608
on how they voted, just like an ATM.
And I called him in California, and
he was kind enough to return my call. And I
introduced myself, and I said, "Doctor, before
you get your scientists going in the voting
area, talk to some people who deal with
elections." "Well, what's wrong with a
receipt?" I said, "It's a ward heeler's
dream, it's a vote buyer's dream. The voter
walks out and they've got a receipt showing
who they voted for. We have laws against
removing materials from polling places
because, in the century before last,
particularly, there were lots of vote-buying
incidences, and we don't let people remove
sample ballots or ballots or anything else,
because we don't have want to -- we want to
thwart any kind of vote-buying scheme."
He said, "Oh, I never thought of
that. Well, we're going to use technology."
Well, they acted expeditiously.
And the interesting thing is from these two
universities' technicians, technical people
came forth a report that said, You know, we
looked at all kinds of computers, we looked at
2609
all the kinds of machines -- such as Senator
Spano's committee has looked at -- and we
conclude that the most reliable form of voting
is the old-fashioned mechanical lever machine.
This is what our great engineers tell us.
I knew that. I've counted
elections under both kinds of systems.
So presumably, I think someone in
America is going to build one of these new
machines, and maybe it will have a computer
backup as well, as an audit. That would be
great. But it's going to cost money. It's
going to cost a lot of money, Mr. President.
The public wants some action now.
I appreciate that the Majority has
put $25 million in for machines that don't yet
exist. But I think the way to go here is
let's pay for the whole state election system.
A lot of the problems that the press and
public have identified don't relate to the
machines, they relate to the way registration
list are compiled and kept.
We should have a statewide system
of keeping track of voters. New registrants,
moveds, and so on -- it can all be done by
2610
computer. It costs money. And it requires
county boards, under present law, to spend
money. My amendment would pick up those costs
and centralize them.
You'd still have your county boards
of elections, they'd still be local people
selected pursuant to the constitutional method
of bipartisanship. But we'd pay the expenses
for them.
And let me, Mr. President -
another salient effect of that is I have seen
local boards of elections that are supposed to
be independent of the elected officials in the
county or city -- they're set up that way -
turn themselves, in effect, and I've seen it
in New York City, into a mayoral agency. I've
heard, over the years, people running the City
Board of Elections say, "Well, the mayor wants
this." And I've said, "But the Election Law
says" -- "No, no, the mayor wants that and the
mayor wants this."
I say, "You don't work for the
mayor. You're a state agency established by
state law." "Yeah, but we got to go to him
for our budget. And if the mayor wants it,
2611
he's getting it, or else he's going to cut our
budget."
That's wrong. That compromises the
independence of the board of elections that's
set up by the constitution. You know, there's
an old rule, he who pays the freight calls the
tune. I've seen that time and time again.
And the other problem that I see
is -- I've seen it in the City Board of
Elections, I suspect it may be true in other
counties, depending on local circumstances -
every four years, the city budget office and
the mayor get really concerned with the board
of elections: Do you have enough staff, do
you have enough this, do you have enough that,
can we give more money, we want a nice, smooth
election, the mayor is running for reelection.
Next three years, they starve them: Cut back,
cut your budget. You know, no important
elections, the mayoral election is over.
No important elections?
Presidential elections, U.S. Senate elections,
school board elections -- every election is
important. The integrity of every election is
important. The reliability of the results
2612
are, and the quality of the job the board of
elections do.
I say, let's remove our county
boards of elections and the city board of
elections from that cycle of influence, that
recurring cycle of feast or famine, of neglect
and then largesse that compromises their
independence and compromises and makes
impossible any semblance of a professional
job. They can't do their job as professionals
if we don't pay people enough, if we don't
guarantee pay lines in what are regarded as
big election years as well as the so-called
small election years.
You know, it's a small election
unless you're running for something in it.
Then it's the world's biggest election.
And in terms of reliability, I said
to a colleague earlier today: Whenever you
look at these machines, forget about
everything they're telling you and imagine
you're running for election and you just lost
by three votes. What would you want to know?
What would you want that machine to do? What
kind of safeguards would you want? How would
2613
you reassure yourself, I lost by three?
And that's what you have to do, and
that's what a lot of the computer machines
won't let you do. And obviously punch cards
won't, unless you count them by hand. And we
all know where that leads, falling chads and
all sorts of other issues.
So we have to do something about
this. The way to start is, I believe -- well,
there are a variety of issues all the county
boards have to deal with. They have to deal
with training, recruitment, they have to deal
with the level of payment of inspectors, the
training of those Election Day workers.
They have to do -- many counties
are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
They have to have handicapped-accessible
polling places. Very often their response to
a court order to deal with that is to move the
polling place miles away from where the voters
live, because they don't have the funds,
sometimes. If they had a little money, it
would be better for the voters if they just
spent some money making the old polling place
accessible. But it costs money. We mandate
2614
these things, but we don't pay for them. We
stick the county or city with that.
So the fact of the matter is, at my
request my staff has done a survey of all the
boards of elections, the current county and
city boards. We've got a number of
calculations based on a knowledge of the
election process. And what we calculated is
for $120 million annually, the state can
assume the costs of all of our county boards
of elections, as well as the responsibility
from the towns of buying and maintaining
voting machines.
And let me tell you what that -
think about that. Some of the problem with
machines is just poor maintenance. A town
that has two voting machines, they tend to
pull it out in the town hall or the firehouse,
they hold an election, they shove it back in
the closet until the next election. It's a
charge on them to constantly keep these
machines maintained. It's difficult to do.
It's not like in the big -- in Nassau County
or New York City where you have warehouses
full and you can have technicians just keep
2615
busy year-round maintaining it.
So this would subsume all that.
And by the way, no new bureaucracy, no new
agency would be required. The State Board of
Elections would continue to do what it does
now: supervise, advise, and instruct the
county boards to follow the law. It would
have a little more teeth, though.
You know, in New York City they've
just lost a couple of significant court
decisions that may absolutely throw out the
window the machines they've been using because
they can't accommodate the requirements of the
court orders. We had a real problem in
New York City. We may have a problem in a few
months there. They've been ordered by one
court to permit, in a primary, write-in votes
for offices.
You may say, Well, that's the law.
That's the law. Nah, back in the late '50s,
early '60s, they saw a problem with
accommodating that and some mayor told them,
ah, you don't have to do it, and they didn't
do it. They've been told by the State Board
of Elections: You have to do it. They
2616
ignored it, you know. Well, do they work for
the State Board of Elections? Yeah. But who
pays for them? No, the mayor.
So there's a problem there. And
the fact is there's often a problem in various
counties when the State Board of Elections
calls them and says, You're supposed to do
this under the law, and the county elections
commissioners say, We're not going to do it.
Sometimes they say they're not going to do it
because they say, We're not going to do it, we
don't have the money. The county legislature
didn't give us the money. The mayor didn't
give us the money. The county exec won't give
us the money. We're not going to do it.
So we, we are responsible. We have
set up this statewide election system, and we
haven't made it work because of the lack of
financial responsibility and accountability
that we've built into it. You know? We tell
the state board: You tell those county boards
to follow the law. So we have a system where
the county boards can say, We're not going to
do that, that costs too much money and nobody
gave us the money.
2617
Let's put our money where our
mouths are. If we're serious about making
New York's elections work, if we're serious
about the next generation of reliable,
up-to-date, virtually foolproof voting
machines, then we have to put up the money and
put in place the mechanism for state
uniformity. And we can't wait.
Oh, I know there are those who
think, and probably so, we're all talking a
lot about election reform but it will all blow
over. Florida will be forgotten in a few
years. But the fact is, Mr. President, there
are a million Floridas sitting out there
waiting to happen. They have happened in
every single county in this state. They have
happened in every single Senate district we
represent. And 99.9 percent of the time, it
didn't matter because the election wasn't
close. But when it's close, these things do
matter.
And at the end of the day, Mr.
President, it's like everything else. You get
what you pay for. If you try and do elections
on the cheap and you look at them, county
2618
boards of elections, as necessary evils, give
them as little as you can -- you know, there's
a thing, oh, they only work one day a year or
three days a year, which is not true -- then
you're going to get the kinds of problems that
we've encountered.
Which are just nothing, nothing
compared to the kind of problems you can have
if on that pendulum, that numbers pendulum, an
election is suddenly decided by one vote. You
know, one vote. And all the time and care in
the world leaves the winner and the loser
walking away thinking, It was one vote, but I
don't think it was reliable.
You know, we are fortunate that in
the close elections we've had, Attorney
General statewide, my dear colleague Senator
Goodman, everybody walked away confident that
it took a while but we knew who the legitimate
winner was. We knew who won. Let's make sure
we can always do that, Mr. President, in every
single election, whether it's for a school
board job or the governor of this state.
I urge my amendment. I urge we
accept our legislative responsibility, our
2619
state responsibility for making sure that
elections are fair and uniform and reliable
throughout New York State. To do that, we
have to pay for it. We just can't mandate a
whole lot of things in legislation in the
coming months and think that they're going to
get down to the county boards and actually be
followed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on the
amendment?
Senator Paterson. Senator Espada,
you're on the list.
Senator Paterson, on the amendment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
That was really quite an historical
lesson that Senator Connor gave us. And what
I come away from it is just a lot of sympathy
for the supervision of elections. It's a
process that occurs once a year. We in a
sense almost have to set up a bit of a
clearinghouse for the vote of our citizens
around the state. And yet because it's only
2620
once a year, or twice a year, if you include
primaries, or a few times a year, there's a
tendency to think that it doesn't matter.
But I think that it is important,
not necessarily to blame some of our
governments for not thinking it doesn't matter
as much as to remind them that that's what
separates us from other countries, and that's
what separates this state from other entities
of government. That we can make those
guarantees that we're holding free elections
and not see some of the calamities that we see
happening all around other parts of the world.
But we have to back that up. And
we're going to have to back that up with
resources. I think that is the point of
Senator Connor's amendment. I think it's as
important as anything we could be discussing
here today. And I certainly urge its passage.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Espada, you wish to speak on the amendment?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Espada, on the amendment.
2621
SENATOR ESPADA: You know, Mr.
President, every day I look forward to the one
moment when we are truly one in these
chambers. And that is at the start of
session, when we all look up at the flag and
we all pledge allegiance. And there is almost
virtual silence in this room, such is the
respect, as it ought to be.
But have we taken this matter of
our franchise for granted? Now, we've just
heard the benefits of the amendment. The
amendment will, of course, be defeated because
of who is sponsoring it. I'd like to think we
haven't totally taken our franchise for
granted and indeed that we've -- it's fell
victim to competing priorities and that
perhaps because of Florida and the
presidential election, we can now turn our
attention to this matter.
That, indeed, the issue of fair and
accurate elections is not just lip service.
It's not something that this State Legislature
will tell our localities: It's your business
to promulgate democracy on your tab. And that
indeed, we will all lift the franchise to the
2622
lofty status that it deserves.
And maybe it was errors of omission
before. But today it can only be a
devastating error of commission and total
neglect if we do not pass this amendment. Its
benefits have been clearly delineated by
Senator Connor: no new bureaucracy, getting
rid of antiquated machines that make a mockery
of our franchise, getting trained inspectors
who no longer hopefully will have to work
18-hour days for below-minimum-wage pay,
making the franchise easily accessible to the
handicapped and physically challenged.
And I don't really know, after
giving this matter much thought, where it is
in our budget that we can't afford this. And
so in the name of democracy, our forefathers,
I ask that we give this deep consideration and
vote in favor of this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, do you wish to speak on the
amendment?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly,
Mr. President.
2623
Three quick things. First of all,
Senator Connor emphasized this is mandate
relief. We're using state dollars to take
over an obligation of the counties. We've had
a lot of debates in this chamber in the course
of the last three or four years about mandate
relief. Here's a chance to put mandate relief
in effect. Take off this burden from local
property taxpayers and put it on the state.
We've got the revenues, we collect broad-based
taxes, this is the right thing to do.
Two, Senator Connor talked about
the implications of Gore against Bush or Bush
against Gore. And I would just suggest, I
remember a day, Senator Connor, two years ago,
just about two years and a couple of months
ago, I sat in the Monroe County Board of
Elections because there was a state race that
depended on affidavit ballots. And the
ballots were in a huge bin. And they'd pick
out the ballot, and the ballot would be
partially sealed, and you would stand there
and someone would grab ahold of the seal to
see whether the seal could be broken.
And I can remember a lawyer from
2624
the Republican Party looking at me and saying,
"Hey, do you think they're going to count that
kind of a ballot down in the Bronx?" And we'd
chuckle between ourselves and say, "Oh, no,
they probably either counted it or they'll
never count it." And we'd laugh among
ourselves because of the disparity between
what we might be doing in Monroe County and
what they might be doing in the Bronx or other
places.
I would suggest to you that if that
Supreme Court decision becomes law in this
state, that if our due process and equal
protection clauses are interpreted the same,
it will be unconstitutional to deal with one
ballot in Rochester one way and another ballot
another way in the Bronx or Manhattan or in
Hamilton County.
And I would suggest that the state
setting, taking control of elections will
decrease the possibility that some candidate
in a close election -- remember how close that
election was -- would be denied due process or
equal protection because of the
inconsistencies in the method of counting
2625
ballots at those little tables.
Finally, Mr. President, I'll
conclude on one other note. Senator Connor's
amendment will do one thing. In my judgment,
it will continue to support our faith in the
most important thing we do. Unfortunately, in
this country in the last six months a whole
bunch of people have gone to bed at night and
said, Do you think they really counted my
vote? How do I know that they counted my
vote?
I would suggest to you that the one
great faith in our democracy is to know that
when they gave me my vote total last year, I
sat there and said, Great. Out of those X
thousands of people who voted for me, I was
one of them.
I would suggest our experience in
Florida and the experience that Senator
Connor's amendment will make less likely in
the future is that anybody will have to say at
the end of the election, I'm not sure my vote
counted. Every vote should count. We tell
people their vote counts. Pass Senator
Connor's amendment and we will make it more
2626
likely that everyone will know and have
confidence that their vote counts.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, did you wish to be recognized to
speak on the amendment?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, thank
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, on the amendment.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
there is no area in which the gap between our
rhetoric as members of the New York State
Legislature and our actions is greater than in
the area of election reform, campaign finance
reform. The public's cynicism about our work
in this area probably is at an all-time high.
And it would be a great shame if we end this
year's legislative session with another round
of reports, commissions, finger pointing by
the two houses, and no concrete action.
This is a proposal that I
respectfully submit is up for adoption by the
Majority Senator who wants to take it and do
something good for this entire state. I was
in the Elections Committee as Senator Maltese
2627
was sponsoring a bill and we had gone through
discussion about the lack of pay for election
inspectors, the problem all over the state.
This is something both sides of the aisle
recognize. This is something we should not
neglect, we must not neglect. It is not a
partisan issue. I urge everyone to vote yes.
But I also urge that, in the
unlikely event that this excellent amendment
is defeated, that this is an issue we take up
later in the session and actually do something
about.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator -- Senator Brown, do you wish to speak
on the amendment?
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, Mr.
President, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, on the amendment.
SENATOR BROWN: I want to commend
Senator Connor for this comprehensive election
reform proposal. We say that one of our
values in this country and in this state and
in this Legislature is to have an election
2628
process that is fair and open and accurate. I
think this comprehensive proposal for the
state to take over elections put forth by
Senator Connor will give us the ability to do
that in the state of New York.
One of the things that Senator
Schneiderman touched on when he spoke on the
amendment that struck me is the need for
training and to increase the pay to election
inspectors that this amendment also covers.
Earlier on, we heard an amendment
by Senator Gentile, the EPIC COPE amendment,
and we talked about the needs of our
vulnerable senior citizens. Well, we all know
that in many communities around the state the
people that serve as election inspectors are
senior citizens. And I can say in my
communities of Buffalo and Niagara Falls and
Grand Island in the city of Tonawanda, senior
citizens have come to me and have indicated
that they would like to see the pay for
working that 18 hours during an election
increased. That the compensation for what
they do, the important role that they play,
just isn't great enough.
2629
Well, this is one of the things
that this amendment brought forth by Senator
Connor addresses.
I think the other thing that it
addresses is the need to train inspectors. I
have been in election booths where there have
been some inspectors that don't know how to
remove the election results from the machine.
Clearly, a training issue. Clearly, when
things like that occur, there is the potential
to wonder whether the results of the election
are being accurately recorded.
I think this would remove that kind
of concern that voters and observers have on
Election Days. I think this is a proposal
that is comprehensive, that reflects Senator
Connor's 28 years of experience in dealing
with Election Law matters. And I certainly
urge all of my colleagues, both Democrat and
Republican, to support this excellent
amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, did you wish to be recognized to
speak on the amendment?
2630
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, very
briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, on the amendment.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I strongly
support, Mr. President, Senator Connor's
all-encompassing amendment here. This past
summer I was put into a very difficult
situation in part of my district, which
includes the largest number of Russian
immigrants to the United States, when, on
Primary Day, there was a major conflict
between election inspectors and prospective
voters who were citizens. The election
inspectors did not know how to handle the
situation. They did not know what was the
right thing to do at a time when we told these
individuals, once they become citizens, they
would partake of the American dream.
This was in Brooklyn. But there
are similar cases in Wisconsin, New Mexico,
not just Florida, as Senator Connor has said.
So I strongly urge support for this
amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
2631
member wishing to speak on the amendment?
The Secretary will now canvass the
members. Those in agreement, please raise
your hands and keep them up until we have the
announcement of results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor,
Dollinger, Espada, Gentile, Hassell-Thompson,
Kruger, Lachman, Markowitz, Mendez,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson,
Schneiderman, A. Smith, M. Smith, Stachowski,
Stavisky, and also Senator Duane.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendment fails.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, point of order.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just as a
point of order, Mr. President, what was the
vote on the amendment -- or what was the vote
on the canvass?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: It is not
a vote, Senator. There's a canvass of the
members to see if there is an agreement to
2632
support the amendment. That is the way the
rules read. And there is not a majority of
the members who agree to support the
amendment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, then,
what was the number that failed -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator,
I don't hear your point of order. It sounds
like it's a mixed blessing of what you're
trying to inquire. That's certainly out of
order. You know the rules. I know that
you've been reading them.
And other than Senator Onorato
looking spiffy and Senator Gentile looking
very spiffy with a red rose, I note that you
are out of order.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll retire,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I thought
probably you would, Senator. Thank you.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I would,
just for the benefit of the members, note that
in fact the debate on the concurrent
resolution started at 1:01. So there's
2633
approximately -- less than twenty minutes left
for the proposal of two additional amendments.
Senator Stachowski, do you rise for
the purpose of offering an amendment?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes, I do,
Mr. President. And -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: You ask
that the reading of it be waived and you have
an opportunity to explain it?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
reading of it is waived, and you're afforded
an opportunity to explain the amendment.
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Not being as
big an amendment -- obviously, this was the
biggest one that we have, and I'll try to go
through it as fast as possible.
And if other members want to speak
on it, I would advise that they try to be as
concise as possible on the area that they're
going to address, because there may be some
members that would like to speak on the
resolution itself after the amendments are
2634
finished.
But having said that, I'd like to
say that our amendment would be a good step
forward for not only this budget but for
future budgets. And it covers a myriad of
areas. And just briefly going over them,
there's a piece that would take pre-K from
being folded in and add some additional
money -- folded into Flex-aid, that is, and
have some additional funding for that, roughly
$150 million. A Medicaid buy-in for HIV would
be included. Medicaid takeover for long-term
care would be included. High-tech incubators
and student fees would have an additional
amount of money. Equal business -- equal
business and women/minority business
restoration would have a piece. Economic
development zones, which would have a little
twist in that current and inner-city
businesses would have a special amount of
money added in an economic development zone.
A guarantee of the EITC. A
consolidation of the motor fuel tax; that is,
that right now there's three separate taxes.
This would eliminate one, roll the other two
2635
together, and make sure that we would never
gain more than 5 percent on the state tax on
motor fuels. So that there would be no
windfall when we have a situation, as we had
this past winter, where all the fuel costs
went way up and as a result of the steady tax
the state got a windfall that it probably
didn't want from the people that pay for those
heavy costs. And that's something that this
piece would make sure we didn't get in the
future.
We also have a piece in this
amendment that would index pension exclusion
and dependent exemption. And by that I mean
that private and federal pensions would be
addressed so that in the future they would be
worth what they're worth and the increases
wouldn't be taxed, so that we're not taking
money away from pensioners. As you know, the
state pensioners don't face that problem,
because their money's not taxable. And we've
done so much for them, it's time we should do
something for the other pensioners in our
state and try to treat them a little bit more
equally.
2636
And finally, the sales tax on
clothing and necessities would be eliminated
altogether, and that also has a cost.
That basically is the amendment. I
could be more specific if people would want.
But in the sake of time, since we are getting
so close to the close of the debate time
allotted, I did it as fast as possible, as
concise as possible. And as you know, I
usually like to speak much longer. But that's
all I need to say.
And I am sure other members are
going to get up to speak about additional
pieces of this particular amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, did you wish to be recognized on the
amendment?
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, on the amendment.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I'd like to
speak to a portion of the amendment dealing
with the Medicaid takeover of nursing home and
2637
home care costs. As I'm sure many of you
recall because you were here, the local
portion was reduced to 10 percent back in
1983. And then this body saw fit, along with
the Assembly, to reduce it another 1 percent
in the early 1990s. But the localities still
pay 9 percent of those nursing home costs.
From that perspective, it's an
unfunded mandate. And we routinely speak
about local burdens of taxes which prevent the
development of industry and business in our
local communities and counties. But now we
have the opportunity, with these surpluses, to
do away with that 9 percent, do away with that
unfunded mandate. And if we do that, we will
realize an $806 million savings to the
localities, which includes $466 million to
New York City and $340 million to the
remaining counties.
We argued in years past that we
couldn't do it because of the difficult times
that we experienced here in the state of
New York. Now we have the opportunity to be
not disingenuous but to be sincere in our
efforts to reduce those burdens on the
2638
localities.
And I urge the passage of this
amendment, and I urge the passage of this part
included in that amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President, to speak on the amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane, on the amendment.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
One of the most important parts of
this amendment includes Medicaid buy-in for
persons with HIV or AIDS. What this amendment
would do is to add an additional $7 million to
the Medicaid appropriation to cover the
additional cost of including HIV-positive
individuals in the Medicaid buy-in program.
The reason this is so important is
because a person with HIV disease is stuck
between a rock and a hard place. In order to
stop, in many cases, the progression to AIDS,
a person needs to take protease inhibitors.
2639
They are very expensive drugs. And so for a
person to not be able to participate in a
Medicaid buy-in so that they can continue to
afford their medication makes it impossible
for them to go back to work on a part-time or
a full-time basis.
I have many, many people in my
district who have HIV disease or AIDS and in
fact are taking protease inhibitors and are
able to work. But they can't go to work
because they are unable to afford the drugs
that will keep them from getting sick.
I know that my district is not the
only place in New York State where this is the
case. It actually is happening throughout
New York State. You probably don't know
everybody who this impacts. Because of the
medications we have today, you can't really
tell who may or may not have AIDS or HIV
disease.
But the drugs that make it possible
for people to live independent, working lives
are very, very expensive. And that's why we
need to add the $7.2 million to allow for
these people to buy into Medicaid.
2640
We'll be bringing language along
with this to show how it is that people would
be able to buy in for it. But for now, it's
really important for many people throughout
New York State who are impacted by HIV/AIDS to
be able to participate in the Medicaid buy-in.
It's $7.2 million. It's money well spent.
And I encourage my colleagues to vote for the
amendment language to allow people to have
this independent life.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, why do you rise?
SENATOR STAVISKY: On the
amendment, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, on the amendment.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The amendment
restores some of the Governor's budget cuts
that have not been replaced by the Majority in
their budget resolution. And for this and for
many other reasons -- we ought to be restoring
some of the higher education cuts -- I urge
support for the amendment.
Thank you.
2641
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other member wishing to speak on the
amendment?
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, Mr.
President, on the amendment.
As part of this amendment that
Senator Stachowski has brought forth, it
includes taking the funding for
pre-kindergarten and making it a separate
budget item, not putting it into the so-called
Flex-aid, as the Governor has suggested.
I think this is important enough to
point out on this floor. Because as we all
know, pre-kindergarten funding has, for the
last several years, under universal pre-K,
been a separate funded item. And certainly
from experience in this house,
pre-kindergarten funding prior to universal
pre-K in many instances had been a
discretionary member item funding. And under
discretionary member item funding, sometimes
some Senators would get discretionary funding
for pre-K; other times, other Senators
wouldn't get discretionary funding for pre-K.
2642
And who suffered when that
occurred? The people who suffered are the
four-year-olds who are in the district where,
in the wisdom of the Senate, certain members
got funding for pre-kindergarten programs and
other members did not. That all came to an
end, that all came to an end when we passed
universal pre-K and made it mandatory in the
state budget. It was no longer subject to the
whims of a particular house.
I think under Flex-aid, we go back,
we take a step back by making it up to the
whims of the local districts whether to offer
pre-kindergarten funding. It has been proven
pre-kindergarten programs are effective and
help the four-year-olds get started and
socialize. We need to continue, under the
present universal pre-kindergarten funding,
making it a separate aspect of the budget.
One other item that's in Senator
Stachowski's amendment is the repeal of the
sales tax on clothing and necessities. That
is, the complete repeal of the sales tax on
clothing and necessities. We have in this
state again come together, taken a large step
2643
forward by repealing the sales tax a year ago,
up to $110 per item on clothing and footwear.
We now must take the second step,
as Senator Stachowski has suggested, and
repeal the sales tax on clothing, shoes, and
other necessities completely so that those who
have the opportunity -- those of us in New
York who have the opportunity to travel to
other states surrounding us -- New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, other states where there are
lower sales taxes or no sales tax -- will no
longer have that incentive to do it because
New York State will have repealed its sales
tax on clothing, shoes, and other necessities.
The time is now. And the budget
implications are not that much more
significant now that we've taken the step to
$110. We need to follow Senator Stachowski's
advice and proposal to eliminate and repeal
the sales tax completely on clothing, shoes,
and other necessities.
So, Senator Stachowski, I will be
voting along with you on this amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, why do you rise?
2644
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr.
President, to be heard on the amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, on the amendment.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I think this is a tremendously
important set of additions to the budget
resolution. I would urge in particular that
something that characterizes many of the
elements of Senator Stachowski's amendment is
an effort to make this year's budget somewhat
more progressive.
We have a problem in the State of
New York that over the last ten years we've
become the state with the largest gap between
rich and poor in the United States. It is
increasing every year. The proposed budget
would make that worse.
One provision that I think really
belongs in this budget, and I don't think
there's any reasonable argument against it, is
a guarantee of the earned income tax cut.
We're big on tax cuts here that benefit the
wealthy. This is the key tax cut for working
2645
families in this state. There is no excuse
for not making this a guaranteed tax cut.
There's no excuse for discriminating against
working families in terms of our tax code.
Many other elements in this
amendment also seek to make our state somewhat
more progressive. New York led the country in
laws for working people decades ago. I'm
sorry that over the last 10 to 15 years we
have moved so radically in the wrong
direction. I urge a vote yes on this
amendment to take a step to redress that
problem.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on this
amendment?
The Secretary will now canvass the
members. All those members who are in
agreement, please raise your hand.
Announce the names of those in
agreement.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor,
Dollinger, Duane, Espada, Gentile,
2646
Hassell-Thompson, Kruger, Lachman, Markowitz,
Mendez, Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer,
Paterson, Schneiderman, A. Smith, M. Smith,
Stachowski, and Senator Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendment fails.
The concurrent resolution is before
the house.
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I believe there's an amendment at
the desk. I'd waive its reading and ask that
I be heard by the house just briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, the amendment reading is waived.
You're now afforded the opportunity in a very
short time to explain the amendment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
This is a very simple amendment.
It does three things that the budget
resolution before the house does not do.
First of all, it provides $50 million for
workforce incentives in the healthcare
industry. Everyone knows that the number of
2647
nurses and home healthcare aides and others in
the nursing home and hospital industry in this
state, that we are starved for people to do
the work. We need to get into putting an
incentive in the system so that more people
will choose these professions. And the way we
have to do it is to increase their pay, reduce
the payback of their loans, and encourage them
to make this their professional work. Because
it's critically important to our nursing home
and hospitals.
The second piece is an increase in
payments to nursing homes. I know that the
Senate Majority has about a $220 million boost
to nursing homes in New York State. This is
an extra $100 million, which in turn will draw
down $100 million federal dollars, putting
$200 million more into our hard-pressed
nursing home industry. They are squeezed by
too-low reimbursement rates from Medicaid.
They are experiencing all the problems
attendant to the financial squeeze. They're
unable to keep employees, they're unable to
pay them a reasonable rate, and unfortunately
there's a rising incidence of mistakes because
2648
those employees are overburdened in their
daily work.
As many of you know, this is
oftentimes a gateway to getting out of
poverty. And we are taking these citizens of
New York, we're stressing them by putting lots
of responsibility and too little pay. The
hundred million dollars that we put in the
state budget will draw down a hundred million
dollars in federal funds, for $200 million in
boosted aid to the nursing home industry.
And the final piece, Mr. President,
is a $5 million appropriation for home
healthcare. That's designed to do the same
kind of thing in the home healthcare industry,
so that we encourage people to make this a
reasonable profession and we do what we all
know we need to do to encourage the people to
get involved, to encourage people to make it a
profession they can depend on. And that is to
give them the one bit of respect that everyone
in this state understands, which is to pay
them more so that they can make that leap.
All three of these things in this
amendment will benefit the quality of
2649
long-term care in this state. With rising
numbers of populations who need it, we should
be guaranteeing that they get the best quality
care, Mr. President.
I move the amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will now canvass the members. Those
in agreement, please raise your hand.
Announce the names of those members
in agreement.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor,
Dollinger, Duane, Espada, Gentile,
Hassell-Thompson, Kruger, Lachman, Markowitz,
Mendez, Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer,
Paterson, Schneiderman, A. Smith, M. Smith,
Stachowski, and Senator Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendment fails.
The question is on the resolution.
The Secretary will call the roll.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Slow roll
call, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: A slow
roll call has been requested. Are there five
2650
member in the chamber that will stand and
request it?
There are five members standing.
A slow roll call will be recorded
by the Secretary. The Secretary will ring the
bells.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, to explain your vote?
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: It is my
intention to vote for this budget. It has
some needed items in it over and above the
Governor's budget. But I also have some
doubts as well, and those doubts were outlined
in the five amendments which were defeated.
2651
We had the opportunity to increase
pharmaceutical care for our elderly. We're
not doing it. We had an opportunity to stop
pre-K from being folded into Flex-aid. We're
not doing it. We had an opportunity for a
Medicaid buy-in for HIV patients. We're not
doing it. Medicaid takeover, we're not doing
it. We had an opportunity, with all the
problems with our healthcare workers, to put
$50 million into some incentive programs.
We're not doing it. We had the opportunity
now, and particularly now, for the state
takeover of elections when it's so desperately
needed. No, we're not doing that either.
And for those reasons and other
reasons, I think we have a lost opportunity
here.
But having said that, there have
been some add-ons for education which are
critically important to the state of New York.
And I grudgingly vote in the affirmative on
this resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin will be recorded in the affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
2652
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, to explain
my vote, Mr. President.
Like Senator Breslin before me, I
too am going to grudgingly vote in the
affirmative on this budget. It does some
things that are a step in the right direction
and an improvement over the Governor's budget.
But in many ways, it doesn't go far enough.
And there are two areas that are
particularly disappointing to me that I want
to highlight. One is the proposal on the
Empire Zones, to increase to 14 and to extend
these benefits to other communities. Now,
what this does is moves drastically away from
the initial intent of the Empire Zone program,
which was to encourage development of urban
brownfields and abandoned and dilapidated
areas characterized by high poverty and high
unemployment. This completely moves away from
that.
A proposal that would have been
better, which was in the budget amendments
that unfortunately failed that didn't get
2653
consideration by some of our members, was the
proposal for the urban tax credits.
The other area where I think this
budget is very disappointing is in the area of
the Superfund. The Governor proposed
$138.3 million in his budget, and this budget
proposes $119 million. This budget doesn't go
far enough to fund the state Superfund to
protect our environment, and it doesn't go far
enough to help the economy of some of our
communities that are most depressed, most in
need.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown -- Senator Brown, how do you vote?
SENATOR BROWN: In the
affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was indicated as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, to explain his vote.
2654
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The Majority proposal certainly
makes improvements over the Governor's
submitted budget. But frankly, Mr. President,
as I said in my opening statement, it just
doesn't go far enough.
And I'm not voting for any
proposal, resolution, or later budget that
doesn't make an important first start toward
funding education so that we can guarantee to
the youth of this state, wherever they live -
upstate, downstate, in the suburbs, rural,
urban, it really doesn't matter. We have to
provide, it's our constitutional duty to
provide sound, basic education. And if we
don't do it, we're foolish. The future of our
state depends on it.
While the Majority does spend more
than the Governor proposed on education, a
significant amount more, it just doesn't go
far enough. It doesn't go far enough. We
need that other $1.1 billion over a school
year that our amendment proposed, with a
fiscal impact in this year of about
2655
$750 million or so. We need that done now.
We need to make that the priority. The public
expects it's a priority for the state.
And until I see that in a
resolution or a budget, my vote, Mr.
President, is no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor will be recorded in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco, excused.
Senator Dollinger.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I join with Senator Connor. He
couldn't have said it better. We have a
problem of unequal opportunity in our
educational system. And what this budget does
is this uses a formula that we've used for
twenty years that we know has perpetuated the
inequality in opportunity and simply takes
hundreds of millions of additional dollars but
puts it through the same system.
The whole point that we made in our
2656
first canvass of agreement -- I'm not sure
it's an amendment. I don't understand it. I
think it's foolish and silly. But be that as
it may, we did it. We followed the rules, Mr.
President. But nonetheless, we said take a
billion dollars and put it where you know it
needs to be put, in areas where educational
opportunity is not a reality.
I couldn't agree with Senator
Connor more. I will not vote to follow a
twenty- or thirty-year trend of putting our
money into a school system and a school
formula that we know creates unequal education
in this state. It's that simple. Until that
changes, I will vote no, I will vote no -- I
will vote yes on canvasses of agreement, I
will keep pushing for canvasses of agreement.
And someday somebody will explain to me what
happens when somebody doesn't vote to canvass
an agreement. Does that presume that they are
canvassing those who are in disagreement?
Quite frankly, we've bent the
English language out of all reasonable
proportion. I'm not sure what we did today.
I'm not sure what half the house would say
2657
they did today. I'm not sure why we even went
through the exercise of this canvass of
agreement. Whatever happened to simple yes
and nos?
I'll give you a simple no, Mr.
President. My simple no is I vote no until we
change the opportunity to create equal
educational opportunity in this state. It
will be no now and no tomorrow and no when
this budget is passed, whenever it is passed
this year.
Please record me in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I can't possibly vote for this
budget amendment as presented to us. First
and foremost, to not include a Medicaid buy-in
for people with HIV and AIDS is just
unconscionable, that we would make it more
2658
difficult for people who, because of recent
improvements in medication -- though they are
expensive -- are able to work, that we would
stop them from going to work is frankly
unconscionable.
It's not a tremendous amount of
money. It's $7.2 million. Surely we could
allow the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who
want to work to be able to go to work by
allowing them to buy into Medicaid and
continue to take medications which will keep
them alive.
We haven't had a thorough
discussion in this body on the issue of
Flex-aid. To try to fold pre-K into Flex-aid
makes no sense at all. I think that Flex-aid
has a tremendous amount of problems with it
anyway, not just folding in pre-K but other
issues -- special education, a whole host of
other issues as well. Before we can possibly
vote on this, we would have to look at what
the impact of Flex-aid would be on the
education that's provided in this state.
The fairest tax cut of all is to
provide an earned income tax credit to the
2659
hardest-hit New Yorkers, people who really do
need to have a little bit more money in their
pockets. I don't know why it is that so many
of my colleagues here don't seem to care about
those people who could benefit from the earned
income tax credit. To me, it's a no-brainer.
I don't know why it is that we're taxing these
people to the extent we are anyway, but surely
we can give them the earned income tax credit.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: How do
you vote, Senator Duane?
SENATOR DUANE: I'm voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane will be recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Espada, to explain his vote.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a proud day for the staff
and the members of our Democratic conference.
We stand here in adherence and in compliance
with Judge DeGrasse's decision. This side of
the aisle is in compliance with the New York
2660
State Constitution.
We stood here today and proffered
budget amendments that would have made
prescription cost reductions possible for our
seniors, the demographic group that for the
most part sends us here. We stood tall in a
respect for democracy and fair and accurate
elections, and a host of other budget
amendments, Mr. President, that would have
truly brought our economy to the 21st century.
Unfortunately, these budget
amendments were defeated. And the budget
resolution that we're voting on is therefore
lacking, and I will be voting in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Espada will be recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Fuschillo, to explain his vote.
2661
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I listened to
the other side of the aisle, and you would
think we're going downwards. But when you
take a look at this resolution -- $1.8 billion
in new tax cuts, $4 billion in reserves to
protect those tax cuts, more than $500 million
for the Ge-NY-sis and biotech development. We
expand all the Empire Zones throughout this
state. $1.8 billion in tax cuts over the next
six years. Over $900 million -- and I see the
schoolkids up there -- over $900 million more
than last year for school aid.
Pretty good. It sounds good. It
sounds reasonable. This state has certainly
been moving forward in the last six years.
This budget continues on that progression.
I proudly vote aye on this.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Fuschillo will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
2662
SENATOR GOODMAN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, to explain her vote.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President.
We have come today to represent a
group of people for whom we have been elected
who are the voiceless. Earlier today, 15
youngsters came who were children of mothers
who are incarcerated in prison. And they came
to beg us for help and support as we look at
this budget.
And as we came back in and began to
vote on each of these amendments, it made me
very sad to know that I was not able to
promise then, and I cannot assure them now,
that there will be a bipartisan vote on issues
that are of great importance to them.
And some of those issues certainly
are universal pre-K. But more so, the whole
education budget. And while I agree that we
2663
have put more into this budget, and I
congratulate us, so much more is needed. You
saw, as I did, the report cards on our schools
in New York City. And many of the children
that I represent in the 33rd Senatorial
district are represented in those statistics
of children who are failing.
And so it's my responsibility to
make sure that when I vote on the budget, that
that budget includes those items and those
things that will make the quality of their
lives better. I don't feel that in voting for
this budget in this manner will do that
successfully.
Therefore, I'd like to be recorded
in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson will be recorded in the
negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
2664
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes. After
supporting all the amendments and the
canvasses of agreement, this is a very
difficult vote for me. I see the pros and I
see the cons.
This has been a major improvement
on the Executive budget in terms of the
$938 million for education. I would have
preferred to see a $1.1 billion increase for
education.
There has been a major improvement
here in terms of restoring full-time faculty
lines to where it was last year. I would like
to decrease those full-time faculty lines.
There has been some improvement
with the SUNY hospitals -- Downstate,
Syracuse, Binghamton, and in Stony Brook. I
2665
would like to see greater improvement.
In terms of transportation, there
has been an increase, but a minuscule increase
in terms of what is needed in the capital
program and the ongoing needs of
transportation in New York State.
Having weighed that all together,
and lacking the wisdom of Solomon, I therefore
will vote for the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
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.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
2666
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, I'm going to vote aye on this
budget amendment. I think it's a good one.
I'm going to resist the temptation to spend
more and more and more and more -- on good
projects, on good concepts and good ideas. I
will not knock anything that's been done here
today. All good ideas.
But you have to live within your
pocketbook. And we have to look to the
future. And that's our problem. This state
went $5 billion in deficits some years back by
going through the policy of spending,
spending, spending, spending without any look
to the future. We're not going to go back
there again.
Partnering with the leadership in
this house and this Governor, this state is
back on sound fiscal footing. We're going to
keep it that way by maintaining sound fiscal
2667
policies so we don't go crazy but we're going
to maintain our needs and support everyone who
needs to be supported.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino, in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: To explain my
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Markowitz, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: The reason
why I'm going to vote no is that I know we can
do more. We can do more for Brooklyn, we can
do more for the State of New York. I don't
know how many years in the future we will be
faced with the amount of resources that we
currently have. Now is the time to move
forward.
You're right, Senator Marcellino,
we should look forward. And the forward
2668
movement is that this is the year that we
really can impact in a major way many of the
needs that residents of the state have at this
time. So now is the time to do it.
And I understand where the Governor
and where the Senate Majority is at at this
moment. We disagree, because we know the
needs are out there. You heard the arguments
a little while ago from many of our members,
particularly in regards to education,
healthcare, many other needs.
And so the reason why I'm voting no
is that the people of Brooklyn and the people
of New York State deserve more, need more, and
this does not meet those needs, in my opinion.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Markowitz will be recorded in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
2669
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MEIER: I'm just very
proudly going to vote aye, because those
resources that we're talking about happen to
be dollars that are earned by people who go to
work everyday. They belong to them, not to
us. They expect us to exercise prudence over
how we spend them.
I proudly vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier will be recorded in the affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, to explain his vote.
SENATOR ONORATO: To explain my
2670
vote, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I heard all the
debates here over the past 2½ hours. And I
think that the amendments that were offered
today by this side of the aisle were prudent
and right on target.
While the resolution proposed by
Senator Bruno was certainly a great deal of
improvement over the Governor's original
proposal, I think the amendments and the
discussion that took place earlier gave us all
an opportunity, because we know that the
resolution that's going to pass today is not
going to be the final document of this 2001
budget.
So I hope that all of the
discussion that took place today was listened
to by not only the opposite side of the aisle,
but by the Assembly, and perhaps they'll
incorporate some of the suggestions that we
did make here today.
While again there were improvements
in the Governor's proposal, I am hopeful that
we will be given the opportunity to improve it
even further. So I do reluctantly vote yes on
2671
the budget.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato will be recorded in the affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, to explain his vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
"prudent and right on target." Those were the
words that Senator Onorato used to describe
five amendments that this conference offered
which we feel would improve the package -
which we think is already an improvement over
the original budget proposal by the
Governor -- as offered today by the Majority.
These needed expenditures fall well within the
perimeters of what our economy can afford this
particular year.
Now, in criticizing it, the
Majority suggests that they have a better
solution, to enact a tax cut graduated in next
2672
year and the year after, at times we have no
idea where the economy will be. And the least
part of the tax cut is this year, when we
actually could generally forecast whether or
not our economy can absorb it.
Now, one of the most offensive
aspects of the tax cut, to me, is the fact
that we have an earned income tax credit that
only exists if the TANF, the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families money comes from
the federal government. In other words, if
for some reason that money doesn't come, and
it's in all likelihood that it will, we are
not going to allow for that earned income tax
credit. Which is, in a sense, a tax cut for
those low-income people around this state who
badly need it.
So I think that the plan right now
is misprioritized, its value is not timely or
seasonable. I'm going to vote against it. My
vote is no, with the hope that as we go into
conference committees and we negotiate it,
perhaps we'll have a better plan and I'll take
a look at that when we come back to vote for
the budget approved by both the Senate and the
2673
Assembly.
So I vote no, Mr. President. Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson is recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I also will be voting against the
budget resolution, and there are several
reasons for that. I agree with many of my
colleagues who have spoken about the issue of
education funding. There is not really any
2674
way that this budget resolution can be viewed
as moving forward to provide the sound, basic
education all the children of our state are
entitled to. We shouldn't have had to have a
judge tell us that. It is something we know.
It is our responsibility morally as well as
our constitutional responsibility as a
legislature to address this. I will hope we
will return to it later this session. But
that is one major deficiency.
Two other issues I wish to address
very briefly. One is in addition to
inadequate funding of the school system, I
must say that that problem pales in comparison
to the absolutely disgraceful treatment of our
mass transit system in this budget. The buses
and subways of the New York City Transit
Authority have been systematically defunded
over the last six years. We now receive less
money in real state dollars than we received a
decade ago. They're floating bonds backed by
farebox receipts for operating revenues. You
know? And even Mr. Lackman is laughing at
that, because it makes no sense.
I mean, this is something that we
2675
will pay the price for very, very soon. The
annual ridership on the subways and buses of
New York has been up 35 percent in the last
five years. We're not getting service
increases because they don't have the money.
And we will most certainly, sometime in the
year 2002 or perhaps the beginning of 2003, be
faced with a fare increase. We have to
invest.
And if there's one theme that
underlies, I believe, all of our amendments
today -- and the words have been spoken more
articulately than I can by my colleagues -
this is not a budget of investment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, how do you vote?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, I
think we should invest -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is that a
yes?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: -- and I
vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman will be recorded in the negative.
The Secretary will continue to call
2676
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I would like to commend the
Majority for their Senate one-house budget
resolution. It clearly surpasses that of the
Executive budget. And I want to agree with
Senator Meier when he stated that the funds
which we are about to expend belong to the
people.
But the people of the 12th
Senatorial district believe that we need to
invest more in education. The children of the
city of New York are not getting the education
that they so rightly deserve. The courts have
spoken, the people are speaking. And they
speak through us.
And on behalf of the children, I
2677
vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith will be recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
M. Smith, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Mr. President.
I would have loved to have seen the
amendments that we put forward voted upon in
the affirmative. However, there are some
things that I believe this particular
resolution falls short on.
And one -- or a couple of them are
I noticed that the Urban Communities
Development program was dropped off by
$3 million, the minority/women-owned business
program was dropped off by $3 million. In
addition to the fact there was no discussion
around debt reform modification. And also one
area I think is going to be very important to
us is identity theft on the criminal justice
side, where high-tech theft devices are being
utilized.
2678
However, as one who is an advocate
for veterans, I was very pleased to see there
was a million dollars more for veterans
services, $3 million for a blind vet annuity
program. I also noted that they were
restoring nursing homes by $130 million. I
would have liked to have had the $100 million
on our side.
And what I do see that is also
missing there is some assistance to other big
cities where they would have the ability to
establish their own authorities, like we do in
New York City.
However, I believe this is a good
start. I hope through some negotiations, as
we go into conference, we'll make some changes
as I suggested. But I will be voting aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2679
Stachowski, to explain his vote.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, briefly to explain my vote.
There are some good parts to this
resolution, some increases over the
Executive's proposal that, as much as there's
parts that this budget resolution falls short,
I can't ignore some of the increases. Getting
the SUNY positions back, helping community
colleges out, putting a large increase in
education, although it's not enough to give
everybody an equal opportunity.
I'll probably support this. I do
have to mention, though, and it would be
remiss on my part if I didn't, that the
continuation of putting tax cuts into the
future and only taking a small bite out of the
cost of them in the first year is just -
we've been very fortunate so far. It's just
not a good practice. I wish we would do more.
I don't mind doing the tax cuts. I
think they're a good idea when we have the
extra money. It is the people's money. But
we should be more honest with them and give
them the money right away, not hope that in
2680
five years we have enough of a surplus that we
can afford to continue the tax cut.
I don't want to see us end up in a
situation, as we did in the past, where
suddenly the economy dropped off -- and
there's no reason to think that couldn't
happen in the future -- and we have to
withhold that tax cut and suspend it for a
year or two or three. And I don't want to go
through that again.
But hopefully in the conference
committees that will come forward after the
other house passes theirs and we finally agree
upon avails -- even though that date that we
were supposed to do that by law has passed -
then maybe we'll come up with just a little
bit better package than this.
But I'll support this one for now
and vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
2681
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, to explain her vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: To explain my
vote.
I wish this were a budget where we
could pick and choose the parts that we like
and reject the parts that we don't. There are
many good things in the budget, obviously.
But the reductions in the SUNY and CUNY
budget, the elimination of the supplemental
TAP, the elimination or the cuts in the
adjunct positions in the colleges I think are
not a good harbinger for the future.
The fact that it restores some of
the Bundy aid I think is good. But you're
also forgetting some of the student programs
that are important to so many youngsters in
New York City. And I'm referring specifically
to the STEP and the HEOP and the EOP and all
of the other acronyms representing programs
that are so important to the students in the
state of New York.
The expansion of the community
college base aid by only $25 I think is
2682
insufficient. The restoration of the child
care is good; again, insufficient. The need
for full-time faculty is extremely important.
And lastly, the question of
Flex-aid. They've given it a nice euphemistic
name, but to me it's still the same old block
grant. And the elimination of the universal
pre-K as part of that I think is a very, very
unfortunate omission.
The fact that we recommended
$1.1 billion for extraordinary aid is I think
something which should come to pass -- perhaps
not in this budget, but in the future.
And for all of these reasons, Mr.
President, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky will be recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
(No response.)
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright,
2683
excused.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 44. Nays,
11.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
resolution is adopted.
2684
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, I
believe there are a couple of nominations
right now, if we could do them.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will
return to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There is a report coming from the
Finance Committee at the desk. I'll ask the
Secretary to read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As director of the Municipal Bond
Bank Agency, F. Michael Stapleton, of
Cortland.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move the
nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the nomination. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
2685
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is confirmed.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority,
Henry M. Sloma, of Lewiston.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move the
nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the nomination. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is confirmed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there were two resolutions adopted today, 908
and 911, sponsored by Senator Maltese. He
would like to open them up for sponsorship.
If anybody wishes not to be on the
resolutions, they should indicate at the desk.
2686
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: For the
benefit of the members, we'll put all members'
names on Resolution 911 and 908 unless they
notify the desk that they don't wish to be on
the resolutions. Otherwise, all members will
be included on Senator Maltese's resolutions
which were adopted earlier today.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return now to Senator Volker's
bill, Calendar Number 106.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
106, by Member of the Assembly Lentol,
Assembly Print Number 1437, an act to amend
the Civil Practice Law and Rules, in relation
to requiring.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is before the house.
Senator Schneiderman, why do you
rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: If the
sponsor would yield for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2687
Volker, do you yield to a question from
Senator Schneiderman?
SENATOR VOLKER: I was standing
before him, so -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Before
that, Senator Skelos, why do you rise?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President, if I could just interrupt, there
will be an immediate meeting of the Local
Governments Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the meeting of the Local
Governments Committee, immediate meeting of
the Local Governments Committee in Room 332,
Senate Majority Conference Room.
Senator Volker, do you yield to a
question from Senator Schneiderman?
SENATOR VOLKER: Why, sure. As I
was saying before I was so rudely interrupted
by the Majority Leader -- no, no, no, I was
kidding.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, I have a phone call up here for you.
(Laughter.)
2688
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, I know.
I'm well aware. I'm well aware.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, the Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr.
President, I'm happy to address my question
either to Senator Volker or to the incoming
chair of the Codes Committee.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, I know.
I'm well aware.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: The
question, through you, Mr. President, is I
understand, I think, the operation of the
proposed statute as to decedents, people who
pass away. I'm concerned, though, about the
issue of a person under disability. This
would provide a personal representative the
ability to waive privileges. In some cases,
and I note under subsection 4, it requires any
party -- it enables any party in interest to
waive a privilege.
And if I'm reading correctly, the
definition of person under disability, these
people who could lose their rights to exercise
2689
their privilege, defined in Section 103 of the
Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, states as
following: "Any person who is (a) an infant;
(b) an incompetent; (c) an incapacitated
person; (d) unknown or whose whereabouts are
unknown; or (e) confined as a prisoner who
fails to appear under circumstances which the
court finds are due to confinement in a penal
institution."
There are a lot of people there who
may very well, shortly after this procedure is
invoked, be able to exercise for themselves
the decision-making process about the
privilege. Is there some reason why we don't
limit further the persons under disability for
the purposes of this section?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah. Because I
think the thing -- what you're trying to do
here is primarily to provide a way to mitigate
these proceedings. And a person who
represents the people that you just talked
about is in effect supposed to represent the
best interests of those people; that is, the
very people who clearly are disabled or
incompetent or whatever. And under the law,
2690
they're supposed to do that.
So what we're trying to do here is
provide the possibility of a waiver which
theoretically, technically, and under the law
should aid them.
In other words, this is not a -
should not be a proceeding where their
interests would not be looked after. Because
under the present law, which will continue,
the person who is making these decisions has a
statutory charge to make sure that their best
interests are looked after. So that any kind
of waiver that would be made by that person on
behalf of a disabled person, an incompetent,
should theoretically, certainly, and under law
should be in their best interests.
So whether you make the waiver or
you don't, the decision should be, in effect,
by a person who is trying to look at the best
interests of those -- of the people that he or
she is representing.
So someone could challenge that,
and I guess that's what the possibility of the
waiver is. But then the judge of course would
intervene in the best interests of that
2691
incompetent or whatever person.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, what -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: What would
be the purpose of having such a statute for a
person who is a prisoner? Under the
circumstance when that person is due to be
released from confinement soon, wouldn't it be
more advantageous to delay a determination on
the waiver until the person can speak up for
themselves?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think that
that possibility -- and the personal
representative could make that argument. It
would seem to me that depending on the type of
proceeding -- and remember, this is only in
Surrogate's Court, which probably is one
reason -- and Senator Dollinger and I had an
2692
exchange about why this was limited by the
Assembly. It probably is, frankly, and we
zeroed in on these last -- this -- the third
and fourth one you're dealing with -- it's
probably why the Assembly was concerned.
Thinking, probably in the same terms you are,
as to what kind of proceeding it would be.
In other words, that argument would
be an argument in which, if the person who
represents that -- for instance, that inmate
might argue, Well, the inmate is going to be
out in another month, could we delay this
proceeding. And the judge, of course, could
either accept it one way or another, I
suppose. But this would give that
representative the ability to provide a
waiver, assuming it would be in the best
interests still of that inmate.
And I think it would rarely ever
happen in Surrogate's Court. I mean, I can
only think of -- it could be a family relative
or something, but it does not happen very
often. But I suppose that guardian or person
could actually say, The inmate is going to be
out in two weeks, let's delay the proceeding
2693
and let him appear himself. I don't see why
you couldn't make that argument to the judge.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, I -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I guess I
almost feel as though I'm sort of taking a
position in favor of the rights of the
individual against a big, bureaucratic state
system with guardians making decisions for
them, which is not necessarily my posture
here. I don't necessarily mind big
bureaucratic state systems in many cases.
But I don't really see why we
shouldn't have some sort of statutory circuit
breaker to allow someone to come back and deal
with the situation if, for whatever reason,
the guardian doesn't adequately represent
their interests or maybe intends to represent
their interests and just does something the
person disagrees with.
2694
Someone who gets out of prison and
finds out a month ago his rights were waived,
I think that it would probably be prudent to
give that person some rights. And I'm
wondering if that's something that could
possibly be addressed.
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, if you
assume that the law -- and I assume what the
law is, when you are the representative of a
person, you are by law mandated to represent
the best interests of that person. And if for
some reason you don't represent the best
interests of that person, I think you are
liable. And I think you could be both
financially and -- certainly financially
liable.
So I guess the argument would be -
and you and I know that there are occasions
when certainly lawyers are held financially
liable. And in the case of a trustee, for
instance, if a trustee operates in a trust and
does something on behalf of a person who is
somebody that is to receive something and that
person says, That trustee didn't operate in my
best interests, you could actually challenge
2695
that decision.
And I think the problem, though, is
what the Bar Association is trying to do here,
what this is trying to do is develop a
process, a universal process that avoids the
kinds of delays and the kinds of different
rules that fit certain people and certain
situations.
I think what you're saying is
you're talking about a very -- a pretty
unusual situation which could happen. But
keeping in mind that that representative is -
by law is supposed to represent the best
interests of that person, whether that person
is actually there or not.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, one final
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: How would
this statute operate in a situation where
2696
their legal conflict was actually between the
professional and the personal representative?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think that -
that is, of course, one of the decisions that
would have to be made by the judge. In fact,
that's the -- I think that's the crux and the
nuts of the real problem that the Bar
Association was really looking at.
In other words, the person who has
the privilege which is being asked to be
waived, for instance, by the personal
representative, maybe, is then going to have
to make their contention made to the judge.
And the judge would then decide what's in the
best interests of the person involved, and
also decide in certain cases whether the
person who is declaring that they should not
have to waive is in a position, is in an
equitable position to do that.
I would think that would be a
situation, for instance, where there's an
attorney, as an example, who maybe doesn't
want to divulge something, and the personal
representative says, I need that attorney,
it's important to my client's or my ward's
2697
best interests that that attorney divulge his
interest. The attorney could then say, No, I
don't believe it is in his best interests, and
it's certainly not in my interest, and so
forth.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And under
those circumstances it would just go to the
court with those two -
SENATOR VOLKER: Exactly. And
the court then would decide whether -- if it
is in the best interests of everybody and
whether that waiver should be provided.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank the sponsor
for his answers.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
member wishing to speak on the bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in 60 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
2698
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Hassell-Thompson, why do
you rise?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman -- Mr. President. I rise to
ask unanimous consent to be recorded in the
affirmative on the canvass agreement on
Senator Oppenheimer's motion to amend Senate
Resolution 946.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator,
if you would so like, the record will reflect
that in fact had you been in the chamber when
a canvass of the members was taken, that you
would have been in agreement with those who
were signifying such.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
record will so reflect.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, why do you rise?
2699
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I would like to also have the
record reflect that had I been in the chamber,
I would have voted yes on the amendments that
were presented by Senator Oppenheimer and
Senator Gentile. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer and Senator Gentile, those two
proposed amendments?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, that's
correct.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Okay.
The record will reflect that had you been in
the chamber when the members were canvassed,
that in fact you would have been in agreement
with those amendments.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. I rise to request unanimous
consent that the record reflect that had I
been in the chamber, I would have voted in the
affirmative on the canvass of agreement on
2700
Senator Oppenheimer's motion, Senator
Gentile's motion, Senator Connor's motion,
Senator Stachowski's motion, and Senator
Dollinger's motion to amend Senate Resolution
946.
And in addition, Mr. President, I
would like the record to reflect that had I
been in the chamber two minutes before I
actually arrived in the chamber, I would have
voted in the affirmative on Senate Budget
Resolution 946.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
record will reflect, Senator Hevesi, that had
you been in the chamber when the slow roll
call on the budget resolution -- I believe
it's 946 -- was taken, that you would have
voted in the affirmative.
With regard to the amendments which
were proposed, the record will reflect that
had you been in the chamber when the members
were canvassed, that in fact you would have
been in agreement with those amendments.
Senator Schneiderman, why do you
rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, thank
2701
you, Mr. President. I would also request
unanimous consent to have it noted in the
record that had I been present, I would have
voted in favor of Senator Oppenheimer's
amendment to Resolution 946.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, the record will reflect that had
you been in the chamber when members were
canvassed for an agreement on the amendment
that was proposed by Senator Oppenheimer, that
you would have been in agreement.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, why do you rise?
SENATOR LACHMAN: I rise, Mr.
President, to follow my colleagues. Had I
been in the chamber when the Oppenheimer
amendment had been voted on, I would have,
under the consensus of agreement, been in
favor of that amendment, as I spoke out in
favor of the amendment when I was in the
chamber five minutes before.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, the record will reflect that had you
2702
been in the chamber when Senator Oppenheimer's
amendment was canvassed, you would have been
in agreement.
Senator Mendez, why do you rise?
SENATOR MENDEZ: Yes, Mr.
President. I also wish the record to show
that if I would have been in the chamber, I
would have voted for the Gentile as well as
the Oppenheimer amendments.
With this statement, the canvass
will be completed.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Mendez, the record will reflect that had you
been in the chamber when the members were
canvassed on Amendments 1 and 2, presented by
Senators Oppenheimer and Gentile, that you
would have been in agreement.
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I was hoping to get unanimous
consent to -- well, let me start with that -
unanimous consent to vote no on Senate Number
1083. Calendar Number 106, excuse me.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
2703
Duane, you will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 106.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. And,
Mr. President, in addition, had I been in the
chamber, I would somewhere voted yes on
Senator Oppenheimer's amendment to the budget
resolution.
But in my own defense, I must say
it was my first canvass, and I wasn't
absolutely clear how it would work. So now
I'm just absolutely sure how it works. But I
am pleased you're going to allow me the
indulgence to say that, since it was my first
canvass.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Well, it
was not a vote, Senator. But on the canvass,
the record will reflect that had you been in
the chamber when it was taken, that you would
have been in agreement on that particular
amendment.
SENATOR DUANE: And I can't say
that I enjoyed my first canvass, but I do
think I've gotten the hang of it. Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2704
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President. I'm going to relinquish my
chair to the Majority Leader.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
244.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 244.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
244, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print Number 6,
Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and
Assembly proposing amendments to Article 7 of
the Constitution.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno, an explanation on Calendar Number 244
has been requested by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This proposal before this house we
have seen in this chamber before. It is a
2705
budget reform proposal. And if this were to
become law, we would have an on-time budget
next year for the first time in 17 years in
this state.
We have continually late budgets.
And when we have late budgets, all of us know
it affects localities, it affects school
districts, it affects business, it affects
people in their places of employment. It is
not a good thing. It is disruptive,
dysfunctional, and expensive.
So this proposal that we have
passed three years in a row doesn't pass the
Assembly, for whatever reasons. And we don't
even see a responsible bill that deals with
budget reform that we could then take to
conference committees.
So since we have in our wisdom in
this house passed this several times, with
support from both sides of the aisle, I'm not
going into great detail. But what we
basically do is start the budget process
earlier, in October, with hearings, with
public input. And we go through the process
of revenue projections in November, instead of
2706
late in February.
The Governor sends a budget by the
middle of January, January 15th. We try and
reconcile our differences on avails. And if
we can't, the Comptroller will be the
arbitrator on March 1st.
And that would be the number we
would then use to go into the public
discussion, through conference committees, of
the budget process, after each house, using
the avails number that has been agreed on, we
will pass our resolutions or budgets by
March 16th.
It's March 16th? We start -- is it
April 16th? We are moving one month back.
And I'm corrected in that it is not
March 16th. If we can't reconcile, we will
start on April 16th.
And if we don't do a budget
together in both houses that goes to the
Governor by May 1st, the budget that we had
voted on in the previous year becomes the
budget of the state until we put another
budget in place.
Now, that just makes sense. It's
2707
common sense. We spent a lot of time
discussing last year's budget. That's the
budget that's in place today. So if we can't
agree by May 1st, after going through an
enlightened early process, the people of this
state would have a budget.
Now, we would still have a
compulsion to get a budget done for the
present year, because whatever we're
advocating for in both houses, and from the
Governor, would not be in the budget unless we
do a new budget.
So we think it's common sense, it's
practical, and it's timely. Because, Mr.
President, I believe this year we may break
all records in late budgets. And that is not
going to hold the people of this state in good
stead. And we're saying it early. We are
saying it now in the third week in March. And
we're unfortunately, I'm afraid, going to be
saying it in April and in May and in June and
in July.
And it is of no consequence for me
to remind members that we don't get paid.
Nobody gets paid. Now, I know that's of no
2708
consequence because nobody in the room needs
the money, and that's not a factor. That's
supposed to be funny, just to lighten things
up. Okay?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: Oh, it hurts to
laugh? Okay, and I understand that.
But that is a matter of fact. We
in our wisdom have put into law that until we
get a budget, circumstances are as described.
So common sense would dictate, I would think,
that we do a reform package, send it over to
the other house, if they would pass it -- or
if they have another version, let them pass it
and we'll go to conference committees.
Hopefully, we'll reconcile our differences.
The Governor had announced, when we
proposed this two years ago, his support for
this budget reform package. We need the
support of the Assembly, and we need the
support of the people in this chamber.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just on the
2709
bill. I know that -- I believe we've done
this before. Senator Bruno has explained this
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the resolution.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm concerned
about a number of aspects of this bill that I
think may be unintentionally created by
Senator Bruno's pitch for reform. And what
we're really doing is giving the Governor of
this state an enormous power in the
legislative process of creating budgets.
What drives us to this point is
really nothing that is outside our control.
We have a perfectly acceptable system in place
constitutionally to handle the budget. All
the Legislature has to do is the Senate passes
a version, as we've sent a resolution over,
convene a conference committee, get the budget
done, and give it to the Governor by
April 1st. We can do that. I don't think
there's any impediment to do that.
The problem has been -- and I think
Senator Bruno, who's been here a lot longer
than I have, understands what politically has
2710
happened. What's politically happened is we
have a budget that gives line-item authority
to our Governor, so he can go through and line
it out. He can take out things that we want
to see in that budget. He can do it by
himself. And as a consequence, he can send
back to the Legislature -- we have the power
to override the use of the line-item veto.
There's only one problem, Mr.
President, with the use of an override of a
line-item veto. And that is that would
require everyone in the house to participate.
In essence, the majority power, the ability of
the Majority in either house to drive the
budget all by itself, would be imperiled
because, in order to keep legislative adds in
the budget, you'd have to bring the budget
back to this house and you would have to reach
across the aisle to get the 41 votes necessary
to override the Governor's veto.
In essence, for the Legislature to
stand up and say we think these are the
important principles that ought to govern the
operation of this state, constitutionally the
Majority in this house and the Majority in the
2711
other house would have to jump over the
partisan divide and come together to agree on
what the Legislature thinks should be in that
budget.
I would suggest to Senator Bruno,
as I would suggest to Speaker Silver, if you
look at the history of budgets that have been
passed, they have been passed with veto-proof
majorities. And there is a veto-proof
majority in this house for a vision of this
state that will put perhaps more money to work
in the education that the Governor would want.
It would put more money in healthcare than the
Governor wants.
But we have a constitutionally
acceptable system that would work like a charm
if one thing happened. And that is that if
the majorities in both houses were willing to
bring the minorities in as active participants
in the budget-setting process.
That isn't the way it works. That
isn't the way it's worked for all the time
I've been here. My guess is it hasn't worked
that way for an awful long time. My guess is
the last time it worked was when both houses
2712
were dominated by Republicans in the '50s and
'60s and there were Democratic Governors, and
then there may actually have been something
called an override of a veto.
With all due respect, Mr.
President, this bill is a constitutional
solution to a political problem. The
political problem is very simple. We simply
pass a budget, we get both houses together, we
deliver the budget on March 30th to the
Governor of this state. We tell him, Veto
whatever you want, take whatever you want out
of it, any of the adds that Senator Bruno has
put in on behalf of the Majority in this
house, any of the adds that have been put into
his budget by the Assembly, put it all in.
Tell the Governor of this state you have the
constitutional right to line-item any one of
those items out.
And then, if the Legislature in
this state is willing to put together
two-thirds majorities in both houses, we
override every one of those vetoes. And we
tell the Governor of this state, who already
has too much power, this bill, this concurrent
2713
resolution will give him more power.
I suggest that if you believe that
the Legislature is a coequal branch of
government, let's exercise our coequal power
by joining together to override any veto that
the Governor dares put in effect. Let's get
the budget done by March 30th. I think that,
Senator Bruno, you and Assemblyman Silver
could sit in the same room and put together a
budget. We don't need the Governor for
deliberate purposes. Tell him that he can use
his veto power.
And I guarantee one thing, Senator
Bruno. When you bring it back to this house
and you look over at this side of the aisle
and say, I need more money for education,
because the Governor doesn't want to give it,
you'll get it. You will look over on this
side of the aisle and say, We need more money
for healthcare than what the Governor wants,
you'll get it. When you say you want more
money for the development of technology and
jobs and you look to this side of the aisle,
you'll get it.
We have the political solution
2714
right here. We don't need this. Let the
constitutional process run its course. Bring
us into the process. Let the Legislature as a
body stand up and say to the Governor, We
don't need any concurrent resolutions, we've
got the power in ourselves. We can tell this
Governor, we can tell a Democratic Governor,
we can tell an Independent Governor that if
two-thirds of us agree, guess what -- we'll
decide the spending priorities of this state,
and we don't need any reform to change it.
Let's do the political reform
thing, join hands so that the Legislature
stands up as a coequal branch of government
for the first time I've been in this state,
and let's act like we're responsible
legislators controlling the process and
standing up to the already-too-powerful
Governor.
This concurrent resolution gives
him more power than he's already got. He's
got way too much. It's not against George
Pataki, it's the institution. Let's stand up
for the institution of the Legislature, use
our two-thirds power to control the budgeting
2715
process.
That's the way to do it, Mr.
President. I'll be voting in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
since this is so important an issue, I'll just
take a couple more minutes to clarify a point.
Senator Dollinger makes an
excellent point. It is really
constitutionally the Legislature's
responsibility to negotiate a budget that the
Governor proposes to us in January. As he has
done. The Governor has discharged his
responsibilities. And it is now our
responsibility to negotiate a budget between
the two houses and send it back to the
Governor.
And you are absolutely right. If
the Governor were to veto, it is within the
power of the Legislature to override a veto.
And we have done that before with previous
governors and with this Governor on issues.
One problem. Totally partisan.
Your colleague, the Speaker in the Assembly,
2716
refuses to engage in budget negotiations
unless the Governor gives up his
constitutional right of veto. The Speaker
will not get engaged unless the Governor
guarantees a veto-proof budget. The Governor
is not prepared to do that. And
constitutionally, this house can't send a
budget to the Governor. We need the Assembly
as a partner.
So, Mr. President, we are here as
one-half of a partnership, prepared to
negotiate, in public, avails and the budget.
The Speaker refuses, on behalf of the
Assembly, to do that.
So, Senator Dollinger, I will ask
you a rhetorical question. In deference to
time of my colleagues, you don't have to
answer. I don't know how you get into a
negotiation when the Speaker says he won't
negotiate unless the budget is veto-proof.
And the Governor says: I am not guaranteeing
anything today or tomorrow or next month or
July or August.
So I'm going to suggest, unless we
face reality and stop posturing, that people
2717
better settle into these comfortable chairs.
Because we are going to be here for a long,
long time trying to get the people's work
done.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
There's been nothing more
embarrassing or shameful to me as a Senator
over the years that I have served here than
these late budgets year after year after year.
And actually, you know, it's kind of strange,
this house runs on time in recent years.
Thing start on time in recent years. We have
passed, if you will, budget resolutions on
time. Actually, in reality, the budget that
the Senate has come up with has in essence
been the final budget that was adopted months
and months later.
There's a lot of things in this
budget reform resolution which are needed.
For instance, the window is too short. We're
talking about billions of dollars. It was
2718
just only a few years ago, literally a few
years ago that we reached a billion-dollar
budget. I believe it was under Governor
Rockefeller. So, you know, we do need a
little bit more time. This does allow for
that.
You know, how can you negotiate a
budget when you haven't even agreed on how
much money we've got to spend? You know, it's
terrible, we're looking at one of the longest
delays ever in even agreeing on how much we've
got to spend. This budget reform package is
needed. Its time has come. It's one that
both houses should adopt.
It is ridiculous. I know that the
late budget is very significant in this area,
in certain areas upstate, and it's not very
significant to a lot of our colleagues. But
it is a total, complete embarrassment to this
house and to the entire Legislature. You
can't blame it on the Governor. It's got to
be -- the blame has to be put on the
Legislature. And from my perspective, it is
not the Senate that is holding up these
budgets.
2719
We've got to get on with this.
This is a resolution, it's a constitutional
amendment whose time has come. It's not going
to resolve it tomorrow or next year, but -- we
have to pass it in two different Legislatures.
But its time has come. We need a longer
window. We need somebody to really put
finality to these negotiations.
And I think this resolution can do
it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
I rise because I am somewhat of an expert on
vetoes. Some of you may remember
approximately 25 years ago when the first
override of a Governor's veto occurred. It
was the first one in 104 years, if my memory
is correct.
Unfortunately, Senator Goodman is
not in the chamber, and his memory I'm sure is
far better than mine. But he was one of the
leaders in the Senate, as was Senator Marchi,
if my memory is correct. My husband led it in
the Assembly. And what was unique about that
2720
veto was the fact that it was a bipartisan
effort.
And it seems to me that that's
what's lacking right here. That was a time
when people were able to converse with
civility. People were able to work together
on these bipartisan issues. And I'm afraid
that that is the missing ingredient right now.
I would agree with Senator
Dollinger, it would make the Legislature an
equal partner in government with the Governor.
It would make the people, it seems to me, have
more confidence in their elected officials and
in their government. And I rise, Mr.
President, to agree with what Senator
Dollinger said. That, to me, is the solution,
and not this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I rise to speak on this issue because I have
an opportunity to have a perspective that I'm
surprised that more people do not adopt. The
only person in this Legislature who has any
credibility on the issue of being on time and
2721
on the issue of orderliness and of performing
the duties of government more like a business
is Joe Bruno.
I can recall sitting in this
Legislature in 1994 when everybody was
lamenting back and forth as to whether or not
we could do any steps that would change the
way we do government. The advent of Governor
Pataki has changed things dramatically, but so
has the arrival of Joe Bruno.
But more importantly than the
efforts here to try and have a budget system
in place where we can have a on-time budget or
a functioning government is the stabilization
reserve fund that is contained within the same
legislation.
Now, people don't talk about that,
but I can recall the debates in the early '90s
that said there's no way we can put aside
monies because there's too much money that has
to be spent. Similar to the debate we had
today. Spend it all now, don't worry about
the future. Well, that whole culture has
changed, mainly because of the leadership of
Joe Bruno.
2722
This is a bill that some would say
causes us to abdicate our responsibilities to
adopt an on-time budget. My response is that
there have been many things that have tried to
get us off the mark, including taking away our
pay. Nothing has worked.
So we're not abdicating the
responsibilities. What we are really doing
here is recognizing the political realities,
where it is oftentimes much simpler and much
more politically expedient to fold your arms
and stare at somebody across a negotiating
table and not get the job done.
We can fix many things, and we have
fixed many things in this state in terms of
our credit rating, in terms of our reserve
funds, in terms of the budget surplus as
opposed to budget deficits. But the one thing
we cannot change is our credibility when it
comes time to adopt an on-time budget.
Mr. President, this measure is
something that is overdue, because we have not
been able to get past the partisan politics.
I strongly urge its adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
2723
Hevesi, you'll have the floor next, but the
stenographer needs a moment to adjust her
equipment. And then the floor is yours.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. And I want to say thank you to the
stenographer, whose efforts don't go as
appreciated as they should day in and day out.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition
to the resolution that's before us.
Notwithstanding the fact that the purpose and
intention here is good, my disagreement with
what's in this resolution is that I don't
think it's going to do what it's designed to
do. It's going to have an impact, but it's
going to have a different impact than we think
it's going to have.
And let me begin with the statement
of what this will do is not lead to the
adoption of new budgets that reflect the
changing political climate, the changing
needs -- social, criminal justice, and
otherwise -- in the state of New York. What
this is going to do is it's going to reflect
the process which will have built into it
2724
disincentives to adoption by whomever is
dissatisfied with the new proposal.
And let me expand on that so
everyone can understand exactly what I'm
talking about.
The analogy here is the legislation
that was foolishly passed a few years ago
which tied legislators' pay to adoption of the
budget. Which everybody assumed would provide
an incentive for a more timely adoption of the
budget. In fact, it had the opposite effect,
some speculate because individuals who work in
this Legislature and over in the Assembly
didn't want to be seen as having sold out
their constituents or the individuals they
were fighting for to adopt an earlier budget,
because they would get attacked that they were
doing it because they didn't have money coming
into their pocketbooks. So I believe that
that bill that we passed had a negative
impact.
What this legislation will do, what
it will do, it says the following. If the
Governor, for example, proposes a budget where
there are funding reductions in certain policy
2725
areas, if the Assembly or the Senate doesn't
like those funding reductions and they believe
that the Governor, for example, is going to be
absolutely firm and never cave on it, whoever
doesn't want the reductions in those areas,
there's their incentive to do nothing. Not to
negotiate.
If the Governor increased spending
in his Executive requests in a certain area,
and either this house or the other house
didn't want to act on it, didn't want those
increases, there's their incentive to do
nothing.
So there's a built-in incentive
here for whomever is the most dissatisfied
with the Executive budget proposal not to
negotiate.
So what this is going to wind up
doing is creating for us a default budget,
which is last year's budget, which very likely
will be the budget that is championed by
whomever is most dissatisfied with what new
changes are being proposed.
And at a time when we have such
pressing needs -- and this year everybody will
2726
agree, I think, that education is our most
fundamental and pressing need -- whomever is
proposing changes for additional funding in
high-needs areas to reduce the student-teacher
ratio, to fund universal pre-K, whomever
doesn't want new money coming into a certain
area, is dissatisfied with the way the
negotiations are going, whoever is most
pleased or least displeased with the new ideas
does nothing. And they don't pay a political
price for doing that, because they're more
than happy to have whatever's in place right
now remain in place.
This is not going to work. I agree
with Senator Bruno, with his legislation that
I hope we adopt today, Calendar 167, which
opens up the window and calls for an earlier
Executive request and lengthens the amount of
time before we hit the beginning of the fiscal
year and has all kind of changes intended to
facilitate a more timely adoption of the
budget. I support all of that. Those are
good ideas.
But this is, like the legislation
that was passed a couple of years ago, going
2727
to have a negative impact. Yeah, if you want
law and order in your process, an ironclad
process where we never have a late budget,
this is the constitutional amendment that will
achieve that. But a late budget is better
than a budget that doesn't reflect the growing
changes in our society that annual budgets are
designed to reflect.
That's what we're doing here.
Every year we meet, we discuss priorities, we
debate new needs and proposals, policy
changes. And we're supposed to come together
in agreement. Okay? That's how this process
is supposed to work. There's a reason we have
that process. That's democracy. It's
representative government.
This flies in the face of it,
because it creates an obstacle instead of
removing barriers to progress. So we will
have budgets in place. That's what this will
do, but they won't be budgets that reflect the
changing needs of the citizens of the State of
New York.
And I know that we have all kinds
of finger-pointing and blame as to who's
2728
responsible for our embarrassing budget
process here in New York. And I heard Senator
Bruno's comments before in reference to the
Speaker of the Assembly refusing to negotiate
unless he has an agreement.
And I remember I believe what
Senator Bruno is talking about, and my
recollection is that there was an agreement
that year and that after that agreement was
reached, the Governor went in and made a
series of vetoes that violated the agreement
that the Speaker of the Assembly believed were
in place. And as a result, he adopted the
position that the negotiations between all the
parties would have to take place and be
ironclad before both houses of the Legislature
adopted their budget. To avoid a repeat of
the situation where he had an agreement and he
believed that the agreement was broken.
So this is a difficult situation
where the process -- you know, we can detail
how this process should play out to some
extent. But at some point there has to be a
coming together. There really has to be a
better understanding of the need to adopt an
2729
end product that reflects the greater
constituency. And you know what that means?
That means not having three people negotiate a
budget. That means having 61 members of this
house and 150 members of the other house
negotiate a budget. It's real conference
committee processes. That's what it is.
You want a more timely adoption of
a budget? Start the process earlier and
really get everybody involved. Not everyone
is involved. In fact, most people in this
Legislature are not involved at all in this
process. Not just members of the Minority in
both houses, but a lot of the members of the
Majority. That's the problem. That's the
fundamental problem. We're not going to cure
it with this legislation or Calendar 167.
I think I have the solution to
that. It's a constitutional change that can
only be brought about through a constitutional
convention where we have fundamental reform to
break the partisan barriers as they exist in
the Legislature. And I've spoken on the floor
of this house before, what needs to be done in
this house -- and we can even do it in the
2730
Assembly -- but in this house is to have the
New York State Senate reflect the procedural
prerogative of the United States Senate, where
40 percent of that body can filibuster and
effectively block any legislation from
passing.
And what that does -- and I'll
remind everybody that this house is split more
than 60/40, so it would apply here -- it
requires bipartisanship. It demands
bipartisanship. And the House of
Representatives doesn't have it, and that's
why that is a much less bipartisan body.
That's why everybody looks to the Senate.
That's why there's compromise. That's why
even Minority members of the United States
Senate have a play in the process. They
participate. And as a result, the views, the
policy ideals, all of the needs of everybody
in the United States Senate are reflected in
the end product.
It doesn't happen here. And one of
the negative results of it not happening here
is that you have three people, by and large,
negotiating a budget. And if one of them
2731
says, I'm drawing a line in the sand on this
issue, that's it. Nobody can break them from
that.
This is the most partisan
legislature, I believe, in the United States.
It is a tremendous problem. That's what the
problem is with the budget process. You want
to see if we can adopt the budget in a timely
fashion? Open this process up. Let the
public view it. Bring cameras into this
Legislature. Have a real conference committee
process. Because the public wouldn't tolerate
the nonsense where nobody discusses the budget
at all for months and months.
And I'm not ascribing blame to any
one person or any one participant in this
process. I'm ascribing it to everybody. And
I'm ascribing it to the process. This process
is rotten to the core.
And this bill before us, this
resolution, is not going to have a positive
impact. It will further delay adoption of a
budget that does something -- not just last
year's budget, but that meets new challenges.
That's what this will do, or that's what this
2732
will not do.
So we need reform. I'm spoken
about this God knows how many times on the
floor of this house. And yes, Senator Bruno
points out a few moments ago, we're going to
have a very late budget. Why? I can expound
on the reasons why. One of the primary
reasons is this is not an election year. You
want to bring politics into it, it's not an
election year.
So I guess it's okay if it's not an
election year that we can continue with this
frivolousness where nobody has to really sit
down and negotiate, where everybody can be as
obstinate and as stubborn as they possibly
want.
And the public doesn't really seem
to care, interestingly. They don't.
Editorial boards will slam the Legislature,
they'll call us do-nothings. They supported
the bill that denies everybody, even if they
don't have a say in this process, denies them
a real role, that denies them their paychecks.
Everybody supports that. And the public says,
Yeah, the Legislature is not doing its job.
2733
But they don't really care about
this when it comes election time. They really
don't. I don't think they're focused on it.
Because we as an institution have denied them
the ability to focus on it. We're secretive
in that in this day and age, in New York City,
the New York City Council has, on Channel 74,
constant viewing of its proceedings. There is
C-Span in Congress.
Senator Dollinger brought the novel
idea of having televised debates in this
house, and it hasn't gone anywhere. It can
easily go somewhere if there's no impediment
to do that. That's where we need to head.
And if you do that, you open up
this process, then you're going to have a
situation whereby we can't, all of us, get
away with what we've all been getting away
with. And we could talk about this till we're
blue in the face, but this is not going to
change.
And if this is another ridiculously
late year and it negatively impacts our credit
rating and makes us a laughingstock because we
can't get our act together, then I say this to
2734
the people of New York. Next time the
opportunity prevents itself, let's have a
constitutional convention and let's really
open this process. Democratize it.
Conference committees. A more bipartisan
Legislature. Better budget process.
This is wrong. This is rotten.
And the resolution before us will do the exact
opposite of what it's designed to do. It is
not designed to have budgets that are good
budgets. What it's designed to do is make
sure that there is a budget in place. That is
not the goal or should not be the goal of this
Legislature.
And for that reason, Mr. President,
I vote no on this resolution and urge my
colleagues to vote no on it and join me, join
Senator Dollinger, join everyone else in
reforming this process at its core, not
tinkering around the edges with something that
we know -- because logically and fundamentally
it doesn't make sense -- that is something
that is not going to work.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
2735
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the resolution.
I agree with what Senator Hevesi
just said. And I really do not see how it can
be argued that this legislation will create a
positive incentive for us to do what we're
supposed to do, which is to promptly and
efficiently pass a current budget.
The problem with this resolution is
that I believe it creates a strong
disincentive for us to move ahead to do that.
We don't want to be operating with last year's
budget. We want a budget that reflects
revenues this year, our most up-to-date
estimates. There have been tremendous
fluctuations. And the last few years,
fortunately, there have been fluctuations
above what we projected, but that's certainly
not always been true and it's certainly not
always going to be the case.
We also need to have a current
budget to address this year's needs. We need
to be able to deal with what the people of our
districts need this year. The notion that it
2736
is okay to go along with last year's budget I
really respectfully submit is an abdication of
our responsibility to pass a current budget.
I think that the added problem is
that -- and I really would love for someone to
explain to me why this is not true -
whichever party is unhappy with proposed
changes to update the budget, whichever party
is in favor of the status quo of the last
year's budget will have no incentive to
negotiate.
What we have here is a failure of
government to move forward, to negotiate and
pass a current budget. This bill moves us in
the opposite direction. It would create an
incentive for one of the three parties not to
act at all.
At least under the current
situation, we have to keep going back, passing
bills, reporting to our constituents: We
don't have a budget, we don't have a budget,
we're sorry, we don't have a budget, it's the
other house's fault, it's the Governor's
fault, I could solve this problem if you would
just listen to me -- all this other nonsense
2737
that we all put out every year.
The problem is, this would take a
lot of that away. We'd go back to our
constituents and say: Oh, no, there's a
budget, we're still operating on last year's
budget. And I think it would just reduce the
incentive now, which is obviously not great
enough to overcome this governmental problem,
significantly.
So I do think this resolution moves
us in the wrong direction. I think it will
produce later and later budgets, I think it
will produce worse budgets for the people of
the state. And think about the cities and
towns whose needs increase and who are going
to be stuck with last year's budget into who
knows when -- September, October, November.
This is a solution that makes the
problem it attempts to address even worse.
And I would urge everyone to vote no.
SENATOR MEIER: Any other Senator
wish to be heard?
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, Mr.
President, I'd like to speak on the bill.
2738
Let me commend Senator Bruno for
his interest in passing a budget on time.
Unfortunately, I don't feel that I can support
this, because I don't feel that it will really
accomplish Senator Bruno's intent of having
the state budget passed on time.
Today I met with some school boards
from my district that talked to me about
critical need to have the state budget passed
on time. And they said, "Senator Brown, we
want your commitment that you will support the
state budget being passed on time." And I
said to those school board officials: "You
have my commitment. I support the state
budget being passed on time. But
unfortunately, and sadly, there's nothing that
I as a Senator can do to make sure that the
state budget is passed on time."
Because if I was brought into the
process, if I truly had involvement in the
process, if I truly had a voice in the
process, I would make sure that the state
budget was passed on time.
I think this bill gives enormous
power to the Governor. And, like Senator
2739
Dollinger said, I'm not referring to Governor
Pataki but to any person that might occupy the
Executive seat. And I don't think that is
necessarily a good thing.
In addition, as Senator
Schneiderman and Senator Duane have said, I
think the minority parties need to be brought
into the process. I think we need to utilize
the conference committee system more than it's
being utilized now. And we need to bring more
people into the process of making the budget
decision.
I think if we do that, then we
would go a long way towards getting a budget
passed on time. Clearly -- I mean, it's been
said many times, there's been editorials from
papers across the state expressing concern
about the three-people-in-a-room process and
the fact that for the last 17 years, that
process has not worked in terms of getting a
budget passed on time in this state.
So while I commend Senator Bruno
for his interest and concern in getting the
state budget passed on time, and I certainly
support that concern, I don't think this piece
2740
of legislation will accomplish that. So I
will be voting in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Thank you, Mr.
President. And I will be brief.
Senator Hevesi, I have to tell you,
as I was sitting in the room in there
listening to you, and I closed my eyes for a
minute, and I thought I was listening to your
father.
I heard that same speech from your
father in the Assembly about 25 years ago. I
hesitate to tell you, his might have been a
little bit better. But yours was good.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR VOLKER: And he was in
the Minority. And I must tell you -- and you
were very good. And I say that to you.
You know, a couple of things I'd
just like to say. And I guess I've been
around here, Senator Stafford and myself and a
few people are the only people that have been
around, I guess, as long, it seems like. And
Senator Goodman. And Senator Velella and I
2741
came from the Assembly also. Senator Velella
was there when your father was there. And
Senator Marchi was here, well, before we all
were here.
But what I was going to say is, you
know, there's one thing I have to tell you.
And I've traveled -- in my younger days, I
used to travel quite a bit. If you think this
is the most partisan legislature in the United
States of America, I got to tell you, you are
absolutely wrong. You can't believe many of
the legislatures in this country operate,
particularly in the South and West, in many
cases. And in some cases the roles are
reversed, and that is that the Republicans are
all in the cities and the Democrats are all in
the rural areas.
You must remember, what brought on
conference committees in Washington was
there's 435 people in the House of
Representatives. So that it would be
difficult for many of those people, unless
they had ten to twenty years' seniority, to
have any kind of say at all.
Now, I know the three men in the
2742
room nonsense that we have here. As I've told
many of my constituents many times, If that
were really true, I wouldn't be here if I had
no say about what's going on. And I
understand, it's tough to be in the Minority.
It really is. And I understand that in many
ways.
But I want to tell you something.
Senator Bruno -- and I've known Joe for a long
time -- you can tell how irritated he is
because this budget process is not moving.
And you can do all the things you want to do
and you can say that he can take care of this
and all that, but it doesn't work like that.
And you can try conference
committees and all that, but conference
committees or no conference committees, if the
decision is made by one of the leaders in this
day and age -- and by the way, it isn't as if
in 17 years we have been way over. I mean,
there was one year we were about to pass the
budget four days early when two courts came in
and blindsided us. One was our own Court of
Appeals that made a decision to change all the
rules in 50, 75 years. And when I asked one
2743
of the Court of Appeals people, I said,
"Didn't you realize what you were doing?" they
said, "Oh, we never thought of it." And
that's why we were late by three weeks that
year, and it took us two years to finish,
literally, that budget.
And the reason I point it out is,
there's been many factors. And most of the
budgets have been a matter of days late. The
truth is, you can talk all you want -- and I
understand we have a Republican Governor now,
so that's especially a problem when you're
Democrats. It was a problem for us when we
had Mario Cuomo as the Governor, because the
theory is it that gives you an advantage. And
I understand all that.
But this is a logical step, one
that I -- I don't like to take. But I'll tell
you what really bothers us upstaters, as long
as we're all telling the truth here what
bothers us. I tell my constituents no one
east of Albany really gives a damn -- you'll
excuse me, and I shouldn't use that
language -- really cares whether the budget
passes on time or not. It's our constituents
2744
upstate that really care. They're the ones
that care.
The media will talk about it
occasionally in New York City. So when a
New York City problem comes up, it's really -
all our budget delays for the -- virtually
have been New York City problems. And we know
that. I mean, this is a problem.
It's a political problem with the
school decision. I mean, an interesting
decision. It says the school district is in
terrible shape, there's bad leadership, bad
teachers, all the bad things, but if we just
give them some more money, everything will be
fine. And the City of New York, of course,
doesn't have any money. I mean, that's what
that decision says if you read it literally.
It's a scary decision in many ways because it
also points out some things that a lot of us
didn't realize.
The reason I'm pointing this out
is -- and I know the media is going to report
a lot of what you say. The three men in a
room stuff is all very nice, and it would be
nice if some other things could be done. But
2745
let's not kid ourselves. The real world
presses upon us. And the real world is that
this is very serious business.
Joe Bruno, the Majority Leader of
this house, is trying to find a way to get
this budget process moving, and he's very
frustrated. And he believes that this is the
best way to do it short of everybody, you
know, finding some way to get together in a
world, by the way, where the vast majority of
New Yorkers pay no attention. We haven't
elected a Governor here in 40 years by a
majority of the people. You were right about
that. Nobody is paying attention. And the
media has all their own agendas. We know
that.
I mean -- so I only say this, that
I understand and sense your frustration and I
understand you're in the Minority. But I got
to tell you a thing. And one thing in defense
of Joe, he truly believes, in frustration,
that the bill that he has put forth here under
the circumstances is the only way he sees the
real possibility of getting around the
situation that we have ourselves in today.
2746
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President, on the bill.
I have to say at least when the
Majority Leader is frustrated, he puts a bill
on the floor. We can't even put a bill or a
motion to discharge or amendment on the floor.
I feel his frustration. But it would be good
if everybody else here felt the frustration of
other members as well.
I might have a lot of plans for
making the budget process more functional.
Not only might I, I do. So maybe what I
should do is get some bills on the floor. But
how will I do that? How will I do that?
Oh, well, maybe I could do a motion
to -- no, I can't do a motion to discharge.
Or maybe I could amend -- oh, no, I can't get
an amendment on this. You know, how am I
going to deal with my frustration?
Well, you know, every other state
in the nation doesn't have this problem. They
don't have to fix their budget problems with
constitutional amendments. They just do it.
2747
They just do it. If we had the political
will, it would get done. I can't believe all
the acknowledgement that goes on here about
three men in a room. Well, we should change
that. Let's put a few more men, maybe even a
few women, in the room. That would probably
go a long way towards solving the problem here
of our budget.
I'm frustrated too. I'm
frustrated. But you know what? There's very
little I can do about it. And actually, the
way I would deal with the frustration is not
by putting another one-house bill on the floor
here. I mean, that -- come on. These
one-house bills, they don't really make us
look too good. Right? Am I right? Do
one-house bills look good? I don't think so.
Do you think anyone's fooled by one-house
bills? No, I don't think so.
So here we have the thing that's
supposed to fix all of our budget problems is
a one-house bill? I don't think so. I mean,
who are we kidding? If we wanted to fix the
budget process, we could just fix the budget
process. But maybe that's where the will
2748
isn't. Maybe if the three men in the room
opened up the doors and let some light in,
we'd get more work done and we'd have a budget
coming in closer to on time.
That's really the way to do it. We
don't have to pass one-house constitutional
amendment bills to try to make believe we're
forcing ourselves to get a budget done. We
can just get the budget done. Lots of people
who are in this body were in other bodies
before that got budgets done on time. I came
from a place that every year that I was there,
our budgets happened on time. Lots of people
here are county legislators, they're former
council people. All did their budgets on
time. What's wrong with us?
I'm feeling frustrated, and I'd
like to do something about it, but I can't get
a bill on the floor because we can't do
motions to discharge. So instead of that,
let's just open up that room with those three
guys in it. Let's lower the testosterone a
little bit in there. Let's let some fresh air
in, and let's pass a budget on time.
Thank you.
2749
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: I concur with
Senator Duane. And I think that one of the
grave mistakes that we would be making by
passing this resolution would be to actually
legislate what is an agenda, what is a point
of view. It is a point of view that's valid
to those who have advanced it, but it really
conflicts with a few notions.
Number one, how could we ever
presume that there be a cut in appropriations
based on the last year's budget priorities
when we would have no idea what the budget
priorities would be for the year in which
we're deciding on a budget?
Secondly, I think we would really
limit the notion of any type of real system
around here of any checks and balances,
because we've now given the Executive a
weapon -- and by the way, the Executive's name
is not always going to be George Pataki. One
of the worst things that could happen to the
2750
Majority Leader is if this bill passed and
things don't go his way in an election one
day, and he might live to rue the day.
So I think I'm going to do him a
favor by voting against this legislation to
protect the Majority from themselves, because
this is putting an inordinate amount of power
in one arm of government without any real
understanding of what it could mean if that
arm of government is adversarial to your
cause.
So I think that Senators Dollinger
and Hevesi and Brown and particularly Senator
Duane have pretty much stated how I feel, but
I just wanted to put that in.
And I do understand what Senator
Volker is saying, although I really was
surprised with Senator Volker. He of all
people should know that the sons have always
outperformed their fathers here in the
Legislature.
And so with all respect to Senator
Hevesi, I think his speech was far greater
than his father, who I admire. But after all,
he is younger, smarter, more handsome, more
2751
determined, perceptive and courageous.
Senator Balboni is a little jealous
because we're not talking about him for one or
two minutes here in the Legislature.
And with that, Mr. President, that
concludes my statement for the day, and I
thank you for listening.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Always a
pleasure, Senator Paterson.
Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
it's very seldom I rise, but I would suggest
to both Senator Paterson and Senator Hevesi
it's a matter of physics. The river never
rises higher than its source.
I know you'll have to think about
that. You'll have to think.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAFFORD: And I would
only conclude by emphasizing what's been said
so well on this side of the aisle. I too
remember -- or not too, but I do remember -
again, as Senator Marchi does, Senator
Volker -- he spoke and he left -- and some
2752
others here, Senator Velella, remember when,
yes, the budget was passed on time.
And that's because those in the
Assembly and those in the Senate were willing
to sit down and hammer out on the anvil of
discussion and get the job done.
But if people refuse to sit down
and to take part and have a way, as far as
they are concerned, that will push the date
past the date that we want to pass a budget
and do that for an agenda, we won't have a
budget on time.
And I would suggest, as has been
emphasized on this side of the aisle, we are
willing to sit down and negotiate and hammer
out the issues on the anvil of not only
discussion but the anvil of reason.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: On the bill.
We're just hearing about how
cooperation could be helpful in getting a
budget passed on time. You know, the budget
happens to be one of the most important things
2753
that this legislative body does. And yet we
have never applied the private industries' way
of settling contract negotiations and
disputes. You lock yourselves in a room until
you get something done.
You don't go in and negotiate for a
half an hour, get a little bit mad at one
another, walk out of the room, leave your
staff again to negotiate. To negotiate what?
How can your staff renegotiate what the three
men in a room couldn't agree upon? It doesn't
make any sense at all.
But if they continue to hammer away
at it day and night, without these constant
recesses -- going down to cut a ribbon in
New York City or up in Buffalo or up in
Niagara -- if the three men remained in that
room, we'd get a budget on time.
And those of us in this chamber and
in the Assembly chamber would not be penalized
and castigated by the public for not passing
the budget on time, because we don't have the
input that we should have in the budget
process.
We make motions to discharge. We
2754
just had a series of it today on what we
thought would be beneficial to the budget
process. But when was the last time that we
had -- here it is it's March, March the 20th.
We've got 11 more days of time to pass a
budget. Have we had any joint meetings
between the Senate and the Assembly to try to
resolve whatever differences we've had? No.
And this particular bill doesn't
accomplish that. It doesn't make any rhyme or
reason. So I would urge my colleagues to vote
against it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'm going to vote against this
because I think the problem with the default
provision is that all of last year's deals and
negotiations just get locked in, and needs
change. The needs of constituents change, the
state's financial circumstances change. And
it's an abnegation, an automatic default is an
abnegation of our legislative
responsibilities.
2755
That said, I was here -- came here
in February 1978. So we go into the budget
within a matter of weeks then, because in
those days people anticipated, expected, and
presented a budget by -- not by April 1st,
that's what you did the last week of March.
And I remember when a member whom I
respected enormously, Senator Donovan,
presented an amendment on Medicaid abortion
and it passed on the floor. Which meant the
budget then as amended had to age, not even
addressing the issue that it didn't agree with
the Assembly budget. And all the members of
this house were in a panic, because it was
obvious we weren't going to -- even if we
resolved that, we weren't going to have a
budget until April 2nd or 3rd.
The state was in panic, headlines
blared, glaring headlines. A late budget was
just inconceivable to the leadership in both
houses, the Governor, or whatever.
The problem is when you get used to
something, you always push the edge. There
were those who worried back then, ah, you
know, we went till April 3rd, we're going to
2756
regret this. The Capitol didn't collapse.
And there were times a year or two or three
later when we went over a week or two, but the
Comptroller issued scrip and the state went
on.
Now we've lost all sense of crisis
until sometime in midsummer, it seems to me.
And it really is a matter of
political will. As Senator Stafford said,
when they wanted to get it done, they went in
a room and they did it, they worked at it.
Senator Onorato pointed out, you
know, when you're doing collective bargaining,
you don't set up a system like this where you
negotiate, negotiate, negotiate but if you
don't get a new contract, the old contract
sets in. That gives too much advantage to one
side. It gives all the advantage to one side,
and all the reasons to one side not to
negotiate, not to come to a conclusion.
So I understand Senator Bruno
offering this. It's an attempt to deal with a
problem that he's experienced, this
Legislature has experienced. I've thought of
different solutions. You know, Senator
2757
Onorato, Mr. President, mentioned collective
bargaining.
I remember before -- and I'm called
to mind of this because Cardinal Egan was here
last week. I remember before Pope Paul
changed the constitution on the election of a
pope, under the old rules that prevailed -
and they may have been changed before that,
too, by John XXIII. But before that, the
rules that been in effect for a couple of
centuries involved the College of Cardinals,
when there was a sede vacante, the seat was
vacant, being locked in the Sistine Chapel and
adjoining buildings, bricked in, with a slot
for passing food and drink through. They were
each in there, they could bring one assistant
with them. They were sworn to secrecy. And
if they didn't, by two-thirds plus one vote,
elect a pope within 30 days, they cut off the
food going through the food slots.
That hadn't happened in modern
times, but it in fact happened in past
centuries, where the way they finally resolved
their differences was they were locked in
there and they cut off the food. Usually they
2758
elected a pope within a day or two of that.
Maybe we -- they won't like it, but
maybe we ought to lock the three men in a room
and give them 24 or 48 hours or three days and
then cut off the food and just pass in water.
Somehow or other if we could do that -- and I
know it's an anachronistic approach, I
suppose. But I can't help thinking it would
be efficacious in resolving this.
The answer really isn't willpower
here, the answer is also -- and it's a more
subtle answer -- in member expectations,
legislators', in both houses, in both parties,
expectations. Other states deal with partisan
differences. Other states deal with a
governor of one party, a legislature of
another, or a divided legislature, and seem to
get their job done on time.
For all the progress we've made in
the last couple of years, I certainly hope
this year isn't a big giant step backwards in
getting a relatively on-time budget.
I appreciate the good intentions
behind this suggested resolution. I just
think it's a total abnegation of legislative
2759
responsibility, and it will actually result in
repeated budgets. It would just be much
easier for one of the three players to let the
old default budget kick in rather than deal
with a new budget, particularly if one of the
three players senses an advantage in that.
So I'm going to vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Very
briefly, Mr. President.
I would like to support this reform
bill if I thought it were real. But I
really -- I have a little bit of a problem
thinking it's a real bill when during the
explanation the Leader talks about how
obstinate and uncooperative is the Speaker is.
I doubt if he would have said that if he
thought they were going to pass the same
resolution and that would be the solution.
Actually, there's a lot of parts of
this I like. The default budget I don't. And
I happen to agree with Senator Connor that you
can't use last year's overall package and
expect it to be a continuing situation. We
2760
don't know that the revenues will be the same.
We don't know that the communities need the
same thing they needed. We don't know if some
of the programs work. Maybe there was a
program that was funded that's just absolutely
terrible, and we're still funding it. It
doesn't make sense.
There seems to be a piece that goes
with it where the Governor then can take out
the parts he don't like. Well, if they don't
want to sit down and talk because he wants a
veto-proof budget, I don't think he's passing
a bill that says, yeah, we'll let the Governor
take out whatever he wants and we'll go with
what's left.
So I just have a little trouble
with this. I don't mind voting sometimes for
one-house bills if I think they send a great
message. I'm not sure that this one entirely
does. Again, I think parts of it are great, I
just don't know that all of it's so good.
And I heard some people referring
to historical things. Well, you know, we had
our economic forecast meeting and there's no
commitment by anybody to veto-proof avails.
2761
But we still haven't had the avails announced,
and there's no reason we couldn't do that.
Everybody put their forecasts out. There's no
reason we couldn't have an agreement on that
and be a little bit closer. But we haven't
even paid attention to that in years. And you
think we'd at least be working towards that,
but we're not.
And why does the Speaker feel so
strongly about the veto part of the Governor's
constitutional right, and why does he want to
take that away from him, so to speak? Maybe
because a couple of years ago, as long as
we're speaking in historical terms, they had a
deal. Both houses sent their budget over, the
Governor vetoed a large number of items, and
we could all live with that. Unfortunately,
though, somewhere down later in the year the
Governor decided to start putting some of
those items back in. And the only ones he put
back in were from members of his own party.
And that was a little troublesome
to everybody, because before when the Governor
decided to put things back in and spend money
that wasn't in the budget, we used to have to
2762
pass chapters to do that. But we didn't
bother doing chapters, we just let the
Governor take the parts that he had vetoed out
and decided either he vetoed them out by
mistake or he just found out that it was some
friend's of his piece. He put those pieces
back in on his own, and we didn't even bother
with chapters.
So that was a major problem, not
only for the Speaker but for a lot of people
here. Mainly the institutional people were
somewhat horrified because the Legislature had
given up part of its authority in the process
by having to pass chapter amendments when the
Governor was going to spend a piece that he
had vetoed out.
However, maybe that makes an
explanation for people listening that aren't
familiar with the history, and maybe to make
people understand a little bit -- not that you
all understand everything they do in the other
house -- but maybe understand a little bit why
maybe the Speaker is a little gun-shy about
just going on people's word. Because in this
business, your word is everything.
2763
And hopefully we can get by those
kind of things, get everybody pushing in the
same direction, get the members pushing on all
their leadership, get us sitting down. I
remember when Senator Anderson was here, we
used to stay here, kind of in the way Senator
Onorato referred to. We'd be staying here on
weekends. Nobody was happy. You'd leave
home, you didn't know if you were leaving for
four days or two weeks. But it seemed like
things got moving after a while.
But when everybody stays two or
three days and goes home, there's no push to
get this thing done. Maybe we should go back
to the days when we'd stay here all weekend
and we'd do sessions while people negotiated
or we'd just do sessions until people finally
beseeched their leadership so strongly that
they'd say, We've got to get a deal here, we
just can't keep doing this.
Whatever it takes, we got to do it
ourselves. We shouldn't have to pass
legislation to make us do the job that we're
paid for. We should be able to do that on our
own. That's what we're elected to do. And
2764
hopefully that's what we will start to do.
I'll probably be opposing this
also. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution.
The Secretary will call the roll.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson, are you asking to be recognized?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
may we have a slow roll call on that
resolution?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will call the roll.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
can the Secretary call the members into the
house and have the bells rung so that we can
bring our members into the chamber.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will ring the bells.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Aye.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
2765
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was indicated as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(Senator Connor was indicated as
voting in the negative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco, excused.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just for the
sake of the record, Mr. President, I think we
had a discussion yesterday about ending debate
and the consistency of the rules. I would
just suggest that we continue to abide by
those rules when we're ending the debate both
on resolutions and on bills.
2766
But more importantly, Mr.
President, I don't understand, have never
understood, and will never understand why the
Majority of this house, having the political
power of the Legislature, is so willing to
give it away to a Governor. I don't
understand it. We fought like hell last
November to try to get it away from you. The
voters gave it back to you, and you are about
to cede that power to the Governor through
this bill.
I don't understand it. I would
just suggest, Mr. President, that had there
been a different outcome last November, I
certainly would never stand before this body
and say: Oh, you know, it's okay, if we can't
agree on a budget, we'll have a default and
let the Governor run the state without us for
as much as a year without our input.
I would never want to be in that
position. I would never give away the
political power. I would never give away the
power of this Legislature. And for the life
of me, I could never understand why a majority
in this house would ever agree to do anything
2767
like that.
I would suggest this is a bad idea.
It's a bad idea for the Legislature. It's a
bad idea for this house. It's a bad idea for
the people of the State of New York. It
should be put in the dustbin with other bad
ideas. My hope is my negative vote gets it
there quicker.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. But I really think is the only
thing I can say is -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Can we
have some order in the chamber so we can get
through the roll call, please.
Can I ask people to stop their
conversations until we complete the roll call,
please.
Senator Duane, to explain his vote.
2768
SENATOR DUANE: I was just going
to say what more can I say, Mr. President. I
think I said it all. I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane will be recorded in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: To explain my
2769
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, to explain his vote.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President, very briefly.
As I stated before, this resolution
provides an incentive for whichever party to
the budget process is most dissatisfied with
the new request. It provides an incentive for
that party to stall, to not negotiate, and
thus be an impediment to the budget process.
And no one has addressed that on
the other side of the aisle, whether or not
that statement, which many of my colleagues
have embraced, is flawed in any way logically.
Because if it is not flawed, this is a bad
bill. If it is flawed, please point it out.
In the absence of that explanation,
I vote no on this very bad piece of
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi will be recorded in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
2770
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: No.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
SENATOR MEIER: Senator Marchi.
2771
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
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: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer, to explain her vote.
2772
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'll be
voting no, because I don't understand how, if
we use last year's budget in the coming year,
how do we pay the contracts that we've signed
with our employees that might have a 2 percent
increase? I mean, if we're not going to
increase the budget to pay our bills, how are
we -- I mean, we're going to be in a deficit
position big time.
I have often felt that the only
thing that is really needed in this Capitol to
pass a budget is the will to get the budget
passed. And I think if all of us demanded
that we have an on-time budget, we would have
an on-time budget.
So I think we have to somehow reach
deep within ourselves and say why have we not
demanded that we get an on-time budget,
because those of us that have small school
districts know what it's like for them to try
and throw together a budget without a clue as
to what the state is providing them. It
really is very improper, and there has to be
some way for all of us to come together and
say this cannot be tolerated any longer.
2773
Thank you. I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer will be recorded in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr.
President, to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm also
going to be voting no.
I think that I'd just like to
follow up on the comment that Senator
2774
Oppenheimer made. This is a bill that would
put our budget of localities throughout the
state, of all of the agencies, private and
public and quasipublic that depend on the
state budget, out of sync with their current
needs.
It doesn't make any sense. It is,
as Senator Dollinger has argued, a transfer of
power to a Governor who I believe has too much
power. I don't see how this would improve the
process. I think this will make for longer
budgets. I have not heard any arguments to
rebut any of the discussion on this side of
the aisle.
And I would urge everyone to vote
no, and let's come up with a real budget
reform package this year.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman will be recorded in the negative.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: No.
2775
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky, to explain her vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
it seems to me that with the budget resolution
that passed here earlier, and with the tax
cuts that have been recommended for the
out-year progression, it seems to me it would
make it all the more difficult if this
legislation were to be enacted.
It's hard for me to go back to the
people in Queens County and say that a bad
budget but a timely budget is better. For
that reason -- it is not better. And for that
reason, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
2776
Stavisky will be recorded in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator Wright,
excused.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 34. Nays,
23.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
2777
would you please call up Calendar Number 167.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 167.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
167, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 7, an act
to amend the State Finance Law, in relation to
changing the state fiscal year.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I will do my best to be clear, concise, and
brief. And I think we can get the job done
here.
Now, I would just say to my friend
Senator Stachowski -- who I certainly get
along with, we've been friends since he got
here. And he was talking about how it was
different a number of years ago. It was
different because we never got into session to
do anything.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAFFORD: So now at
least we get into session, and we get work
2778
done.
This bill also will really reform
the way we do business here as far as a budget
is concerned. And this bill will provide a
jump start, if you will -- can you people hear
me there? Yeah, because I can hear you.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'll start
over.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAFFORD: There we are.
Now we'll see how this goes. But -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford, you've just done more to secure
order than I ever could have.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I know this is
really interesting and everyone is hanging on
the side of their seat. And I am. But this
is serious.
This will give us a jump start, and
we will have a revenue forecast of the
Medicaid public assistance caseload, and also
the school aid assessment. And that will be
by December 1 of each year. Also in this bill
we'll have a consensus revenue forecast
2779
provided for. And this consensus revenue
forecast between the legislative and executive
will be required by March 1.
Now, if no consensus is reached -
I'm sure everyone will be interested on both
sides of the aisle, and maybe on each side of
the aisle, and maybe more on one side of the
aisle -- but if no consensus is reached, the
State Comptroller will make the decision and
will provide a binding forecast.
Also, it provides for general
conference committees, which are very, very
important. Both houses pass respective budget
resolutions after the issuance of a binding
revenue forecast, which either comes from the
Legislature or from the Comptroller. And ten
general conference committees decide overall
avails and assign targets to individual
conference committees. Which I think is an
excellent provision.
Now, did I mention that we change
the fiscal year? All right, then I'll mention
it. We change the fiscal year. And it goes,
rather than April 1, to May 1. Which I think
many people are of the opinion will be
2780
helpful, because we gain two months. Which I
myself think will be helpful.
And the final point I will make is
that there is also a requirement of a
multiyear financial analysis of any changes to
the Executive budget by individual conference
committees.
So I think these are really the
mechanics of what we need. I think it will
help us get the job done. And I think it's a
good bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. If Senator Stafford would yield to
a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator,
there's been a discussion on the last piece of
legislation about really what is the -- I
think it was Senator Connor who brought it
2781
up -- the deterioration of responsibility,
that there were times when if we were even
approximating the budget deadline that there
would be most haste taken to try to complete
the business on time. There was some
historical discussion of how they even would
stop the clock here in the chamber to make
sure that the budget was recorded as having
passed on March 31st.
Now, because, as Senator Connor
pointed out, we've gone further and further
into the year, as late as even August 5th -
which would have seemed unimaginable to some
of our predecessors, and would probably
confirm what you, Senator Stafford, said about
the river never rising as high as its source,
because in some ways we really disgraced the
memory of this chamber and the other
legislature here, because we really haven't
had that responsibility or found the ways, as
Senator Onorato discussed, about coming every
day or having a session every day or locking
down the chamber until the budget is passed.
And certainly during the
impeachment hearings which both parties wanted
2782
to get over a couple of years ago, that's what
they did. And they got the impeachment done
in a matter of weeks. This is the federal
impeachment.
But my question is, don't you have
an apprehension about moving the fiscal year
back to May 1st and in a sense triggering
almost a greater disregard and noncompliance
with regulations than the one we have now, and
perhaps we'll be looking at September,
October, we'll be coming up to the point where
the budget for the succeeding year should have
been issued and haven't passed a budget for
the year at hand. Is that a concern of yours?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
first I would suggest to Senator Paterson,
remember, I said it's physics. The river
never rises higher than its source. It can
rise as high as its source. You said that it
could. And I think that it can't go higher.
And of course Alan and Basil will
attest to that. But now, I will suggest -
Alan Senior.
Now, you know, as far as
apprehension, all we have to do is study the
2783
legislatures in the various states. Many of
you have gone to conferences where various
representatives are there from various states,
and you learn from other states. I've
learned, when you people come back and tell me
about it, we have one of the shortest periods
from when the budget is presented to when the
budget passes.
So as far as apprehension, I don't
have any apprehension, concern as far as that
issue is concerned.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, Mr.
President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: In honor of
physics, this being the first day of spring,
the vernal equinox, when the earth is actually
closer to the sun than it is at other times of
the year, but it's colder because of the
earth's slant, I will accept that explanation
from Senator Stafford and hope that whatever
changes we make, that we do pass the budget on
time one of these seasons.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
2784
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will Senator Stafford yield just
for one question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This, as I
understand it, is an amendment to the State
Finance Law. Why is this law contingent upon
the passage of the amendment that we just
approved in this house over the objection of
the Democratic Minority?
Why not make this bill
freestanding, eliminate any references to that
constitutional amendment? Why don't we just
take these reforms that you talk about, and
properly praise joint conference committees,
bumping back the date. Let's put it into law
now. Why wait for the people to pass a
constitutional amendment which may not pass
and this law might never take effect?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'm advised,
2785
of course, this is our package. I was going
to say this is our loaf. And you never want a
half a loaf. We think that both are
necessary.
We think this -- this is serious,
and I don't mean to be light here, because
this is very serious. It's something I'm very
concerned about. Because when I get home,
back in my area, people go right to me and
explain that it's their position that this
type of legislation, this type of resolution
is needed and we have to get a mechanism
whereby we get a timely budget.
So I think both are necessary.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Stafford's comment that this is part of a
package is, in my opinion, an unnecessary
bundling of two concepts together. We have
the bill that we just did a minute ago, the
concurrent resolution, which is a
constitutional amendment which many of us say
2786
will radically alter the balance of power
between the legislative branch and the
Executive branch. In my judgment,
unfortunately so, if not devastatingly so for
this Legislature.
But this bill, which contains a
couple of good ingredients, is nonetheless
packaged hand in glove with that bill.
Because what it says is this bill will never
become law unless we pair it with a
constitutional amendment that, in my judgment,
denudes the legislative power, just takes it
right away from us.
My personal opinion is, Mr.
President, that this bill has merits as a
freestanding bill. It talks about changing
the -- bumping back the date of the budget
passage. I think that's a good idea. Senator
Stafford is correct. The interval between
January 27th, when the Governor makes his
formal presentation to the Legislature, and
the date we adopt the bill is among the
shortest in the states. We could use the
extra time.
But even though that's a good
2787
benefit, and even though the conference
committees could be put into law, the problem
with this bill is it won't go into effect
until a constitutional amendment, which would
radically alter the balance of power between
the Legislature and the Executive, is adopted
by the voters.
I for one, Mr. President, will be
out vigorously opposing that amendment if it
ever gets to the ballot and trying to convince
people that taking away our power given to us
by the people in this State Constitution is a
bad idea for us to give it away to a Governor.
So for that reason, Mr.
President -- and I've voted for this a number
of times -- I'm going to vote against it,
because it shouldn't be linked to a
constitutional amendment which I don't think
will ever become law, and therefore the
changes, the reforms in this bill will not
become law.
If you want these reforms to become
law, if you want the good ideas contained in
this bill law, I would suggest to its sponsor,
Senator Bruno, come forth with an amendment,
2788
we'll waive the rules so that the amendment
doesn't require an agreement of consent or a
canvass of agreement, we'll waive the rules
and we'll allow a thumbs-up vote to strike the
enacting clause, make it effective 90 days
after it's passed by this house, 90 days after
it's passed by the other house and approved by
the Governor.
We don't need the people's
concurrence to cure our problems. As I
explained earlier, political solutions are
available. Embracing a full participation of
the Legislature will solve the problem of late
budgets. Passing this bill into law without a
constitutional amendment will make sure that
we abide by our promises.
We're going down the right path.
This is the wrong vehicle to get there. I
urge you to vote in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. If the sponsor would just
yield for one question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
2789
Stafford, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I agree with Senator Dollinger that
there are a lot of provisions in this
resolution that we would welcome if they were
in the form of a bill. I'm curious as to how
you would expect the conference committees to
function in terms of estimates and revenue
forecasts. Because you would, I gather, be
requiring people from different houses and
different parties to agree on something as to
which there have been very serious disputes
year after year.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I of course
understand your question. And you remember,
I'm sure, on the banks of the Charles you
learned about the reasonable man. Do you
remember torts when -
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I have a
reliable recollection of the reasonable man.
It's faded since I've been here.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I've noticed
2790
that.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAFFORD: Now, let me
point out that when you have a reasonable
man -- reasonable person, excuse me. And I'm
sure in law school now it's taught as a
reasonable person, and there's a debate on
what a reasonable person is and what are the
parameters. It takes a reasonable group of
people in the Assembly and in the Senate to
sit down -- and remember what I said about
hammering out decisions on the anvil of
discussion and reason. That has to be done.
It has to be done in this legislation.
And if someone will not sit down
and discuss, in order for us to use that
anvil, then it is very difficult. We are
willing to sit down here in the Majority, here
in the Senate.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, I just have a follow-up.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Oh, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
2791
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I guess my
concern is, wouldn't you just be transferring
this period of gridlock or unreasonableness or
posturing or whatever you choose to call it -
and it sounds as though we're all in agreement
on the principles, that we may have
differences as to their application.
But wouldn't you just be
transferring that difficulty into this
conference committee? Wouldn't the same
gridlock be possible but at the level now of
the conference committee?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I would
suggest, as has been the case here a number of
times in the last few weeks, you answered your
question within your question. Because you
used the word "unreasonable."
If you have reasonable people who
will sit down and discuss, then this
legislation will work, no question about it.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
2792
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I thank
the Senator for his responses, his guidance,
the loaf, the anvil, the river and its source.
And I certainly would urge him that there are
stand-up clubs in my district that you would
really blow out should you choose to pursue
that sort of a career.
I think that the difficulty I have
with this legislation is that given what we
perceive to be political differences or
unreasonableness or however we define them,
I'm not sure that this provides the necessary
incentive to force those who may be
unreasonable to become more reasonable. And I
do think it probably represents an improvement
over the current situation, but I think the
fundamental problem still is a political
problem, that we are only as reasonable as the
voters make us.
And that's why opening the process,
televising the proceedings, letting in some
sunshine to this process is essential for us
all. And I commend the Senator for a good
piece of legislation, were it a bill. I have
to concur in Senator Dollinger's comment that
2793
tying this to a resolution that will never
pass I think is unfortunate, and I hope that
it will get a fresh look and that, if we're
serious about these reforms in this house,
that we will try it as a bill.
Because that way we may be able to
get a portion of the loaf from the other
house. And a portion of a loaf is not as good
as a whole loaf, but it's certainly something
for us to snack on as the summer winds into
the fall and we're lounging on the banks of
the river that cannot rise, waiting for a
budget.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you.
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Speaking of
stand-up clubs, we don't have those where I
come from. We have sit-down clubs. But
you're welcome to come anytime.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Malcolm Smith.
2794
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Mr.
President, through you, would the sponsor
yield for one question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Mr. President.
Senator Stafford, the bill talks
about, in absence of a forecast by the
legislative branch by a particular date, that
the Comptroller will then be the one to
provide that forecast.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Right.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Would the
Comptroller himself be the only one, and his
staff, involved in that process, or would he
involve any of the legislative staff in terms
of providing that forecast?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I'm sure
that the Comptroller and his staff would take
into consideration what both the Assembly and
Senate had suggested. But to make a final
2795
determination, the Comptroller -- in this
legislation, the buck would stop there, and he
would make -- he or she, excuse me, would make
the decision.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Malcolm Smith, on the bill.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:
Notwithstanding any comments about the bill
being attached to an amendment, I think this
is a particular resolution in the right
direction. I believe that moving the bill
back is a start.
From a business standpoint, you're
absolutely right in your analogy as to how
high and how far and the limits thereof. And
notwithstanding the fact that if we have
difficulty in getting to a point that you now
involve the Comptroller, clearly that means
you're bringing a third party in, or a fourth
party in, and that's opening up the process.
And I think that's a direction in which we
want to head.
I would urge my colleagues,
2796
notwithstanding, again, Senator Dollinger's
reference to the attachment to an amendment,
but it is a step in the right direction. And
perhaps if we can pass this and perhaps maybe
send it over to the other side, we can begin
to lobby them as well and start the process of
opening the entire process up so we can get to
a point where all is involved, conference
committee notwithstanding, to get to an
appropriate budget at an appropriate time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: With all due
respect, Mr. President, I mean, we had talked
about this yesterday with respect to the end
of the debate.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Do you
have a point of order to make, Senator?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, I do,
2797
Mr. President. I'd simply -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Would
you like me to ask if any other Senator would
like to be recognized on the bill? Because
I'm willing to do that, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Could we
settle it that way? Deal.
Okay. Does any other Senator wish
to be heard on this bill? Going once, twice.
Hearing none, read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect upon the effective date
of the amendments to the constitution
contained in a concurrent resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 167 are
Senators Dollinger, Duane, Espada, Gonzalez,
Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, and
Schneiderman. Ayes, 52. Nays, 7.
2798
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to reports of standing
committees, I believe there's a report of the
Finance Committee at the desk. I ask that be
it read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 3631, by Senator
Alesi, an act in relation to redistributing;
3711, by Senator Leibell, an act to amend the
Executive Law and the State Finance Law; 3712,
by Senator Leibell, an act to amend the
Executive Law and the State Finance Law; and
3713, by Senator Leibell, an act to amend the
Executive Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
2799
bills ordered directly to third reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: No,
there is not, Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: There being no
further business, I move we adjourn until
Wednesday, March 21st, at 11 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Wednesday, March 21st, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)