Regular Session - April 7, 2003
1648
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 7, 2003
3:24 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1649
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence, please.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Friday, April 4, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Thursday,
April 3, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
1650
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator Skelos, on
page number 11 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 101, Senate
Print 1023, and ask that said bill retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
On page 14, also on behalf of
Senator Skelos, I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 155, Senate
Print Number 1735A, and ask that said bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
1651
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: Those amendments
are also received, Senator, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you,
Senator Meier.
Madam President, there will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there are a series of privileged resolutions
at the desk by Senator Saland. If we could
have the title read on each privileged
resolution and then move to adopt all of them
at once.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Saland, Legislative Resolution Number 1088,
1652
honoring Phil Miller upon the occasion of his
designation as recipient of the Public Health
Partnership Award by the Dutchess County
Department of Health.
By Senator Saland, Legislative
Resolution Number 1089, honoring Ron Osofsky
upon the occasion of his designation as
recipient of the Public Health Partnership
Award by the Dutchess County Department of
Health.
By Senator Saland, Legislative
Resolution Number 1090, honoring Hudson River
Community Health at Beacon upon the occasion
of its designation as recipient of the Public
Health Partnership Award by the Dutchess
County Department of Health.
By Senator Saland, Legislative
Resolution 1091, honoring Barbara Gross upon
the occasion of her designation as recipient
of the Public Health Partnership Award by the
Dutchess County Department of Health.
By Senator Saland, Legislative
Resolution Number 1092, honoring Dr. Ronald
Lipp upon the occasion of his designation as
recipient of the Public Health Partnership
1653
Award by the Dutchess County Department of
Health.
And by Senator Saland, Legislative
Resolution Number 1093, honoring Bill Browne
upon the occasion of his designation as
recipient of the Public Health Partnership
Award by the Dutchess County Department of
Health.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolutions. All in favor please
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolutions
are adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial reading
of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
100, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 556, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
1654
Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to the age
of child witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 44.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
162, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1679, an
act to amend the Education Law and the General
Municipal Law, in relation to deleting the
requirement.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
1655
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
198, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 1970 --
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
204, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2264, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
the confidentiality of records.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 46.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
217, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 743, an act
to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law and
the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation to
exempting farm vehicles.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
1656
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
242, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 549, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
permitting parents of minors to be present.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
271, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1685, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
repeat offender status for petit larceny
offenses.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
274, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 1914, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to expanding the offenses.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
1657
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first of the
calendar month next succeeding.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
275, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 1915, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to authorizing child witnesses to
testify.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
272, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 1891, an
1658
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
establishing the crimes of assaulting a child
in the first and second degree.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
276, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 2259, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
unlawful sale of tobacco products to a child.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
1659
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President. If we could go to the
controversial reading of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
217, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 743, an act
to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law and
the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation to
exempting certain farm vehicles.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. This is a very simple bill. It
simply exempts farm-plated vehicles from a
motor vehicle indemnification act which was
passed by this house in 1994.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
1660
you, Madam President, if the sponsor will
yield for a few brief questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to
yield to a question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, is it
not true that this law would result in farm
vehicles whose owners do not carry umbrella
policies or whose umbrella policies carry
exclusions from liability for farm vehicle
accidents, that these vehicles would end up
with no insurance coverage at all?
SENATOR KUHL: Senator, this bill
would put the farmer in the position he was in
prior to 1994 ever since the existence of
automobiles.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
1661
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to
yield to another question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: But
lacking, perhaps, some of the historical
references, is it not the case that this
legislation would result in some farm vehicles
having no insurance coverage for accidents
whatsoever?
SENATOR KUHL: I can't answer
that question with any factual basis, because
I don't have the experience of how many
vehicles are insured or were insured prior to
1994 or are today, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank the sponsor for his answers.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
that as I read this legislation, while we
don't have statistics, the implications are
very, very clear. There is no requirement
that farm vehicles limit their travels to
1662
off-road activity. Farm vehicles are on the
road quite a bit. Many of us pass them or
attempt to pass them every week or every
month.
This legislation would exempt an
entire category of vehicles that travel
frequently on New York's roads from the
requirement that they have insurance coverage
as every other vehicle has to have insurance
coverage.
The reason for my questions were
that it has been suggested by some of the
supporters of this bill that farm vehicles are
typically covered for liability purposes under
umbrella policies carried by farms to insure
tractors and other farm equipment.
However, there is no requirement in
law that those policies insure all farm
vehicles. Furthermore, there's no requirement
in law that every farm have such an umbrella
policy. So what we're faced with is a
loophole to a series of laws which are
designed to protect innocent New Yorkers who
may be injured in an accident with a vehicle.
What we end up with is a loophole
1663
that anything that is categorized as a farm
vehicle, even if it's riding out in the middle
of a public road, even if the farmer's son and
his friends end up taking off with the car on
sort of a joyride and injure someone, there
would be no requirement of insurance coverage.
It's true that many vehicles would
have insurance, because many farmers do carry
the umbrella policies that the proponents have
been speaking about. But there are many who
do not.
There's no reason to pass a law
like this with these loopholes. Innocent
victims of automobile accidents should not
have to resort to the long, drawn-out
procedures to attempt to deal with
bankruptcies and other things. We have a
structure in place in this state to provide
insurance coverage. We require insurance
coverage for everyone else. Every other type
of business that has vehicles that operate on
the roads that could have an accident, injure
an innocent person, is required to insure
their vehicles.
This law is an exception. And with
1664
all respect to all of the farmers who work
very hard and need support in various ways,
the way for us as a Legislature to give them
support is not to create a loophole in a law
that's designed to protect innocent
New Yorkers. Let's find another way.
If we're going to pass a law that
treats farm vehicles differently, let's
require umbrella policies or some other
provision that will guarantee that innocent
victims of automobile accidents -- whether
they be SUVs, tractors, trucks, or any other
type of vehicle with a farm plate on it -- are
protected and provide the same justice that
they're entitled to when any other vehicle in
this state causes the accident.
I'm going to vote no, Your Honor,
and I -- Your Honor? Excuse me, Madam
President -- and I encourage everyone else to
vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
1665
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 217 are
Senators Andrews, Dilan, L. Krueger, Onorato,
Paterson, Sabini, Schneiderman. Also Senator
Sampson. Also Senator Parker. Also Senator
Lachman. Ayes, 44. Nays, 10.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
242, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 549, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
permitting parents of minors to be present.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
This legislation would require that
parents or guardians of a minor who is a
victim in a sexual harassment incident should
be informed of any proceeding and be allowed
to attend.
1666
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I appreciate the sponsor's efforts
to deal with a very difficult situation, which
is providing security and comfort for children
who come forward with charges of sexual
harassment, and to provide for the involvement
of the parents.
I have a concern that the bill as
drafted has a flaw which I think could be
corrected by revising the language. And the
flaw essentially is this. This bill requires
that whenever a minor comes forward with
charges of sexual harassment, alleges that
they're aggrieved by an unlawful
discriminatory practice involving sexual
harassment, that the parents be notified and
that they be permitted to be present at all
times during any official proceedings relating
to that charge.
1667
The difficulty is this. We know
that most sexual harassment of young people
doesn't happen with strangers, it happens with
people who are known to them, who are familiar
to them, and in many cases they very well may
be close friends or even relatives of the
parents.
So my suggestion is this. I think
the bill as drafted really leaves open the
possibility that, contrary to the clear intent
of the legislation, this could provide for
further intimidation of a young person making
an allegation by requiring and -- providing no
escape clause for any tribunal requiring that
a parent be present at the proceedings related
to that charge.
So I am going -- I have requested
that we attempt to come up, since I don't want
to be critical without offering suggestions,
come up with some language to address this
issue, and I will be passing it along to the
sponsor. This is a very serious attempt to
deal with a very difficult problem. Subject
to that caveat, I think we should move forward
to pass legislation addressing this problem
1668
this session.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard?
Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Thank you, Madam
President. For so long --
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DIAZ: On the bill, I'm
sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
SENATOR DIAZ: For so long we
have taken away the parents' right to their
children. For so long we have been dividing
the family and making the children feel like
they are alone in this world. For so long we
have ignored the parents. We have been taking
little by little that sense of family and that
sense of responsibility from parents and
children.
And I think that this bill gives
back to the parents something that has been
taken from them. This is a very important and
very, very essential bill, and we should all
1669
vote for it. Parents should be part of
whatever happens to their children. If their
children have been abused or their children
have been interrogated, their children are
being questioned, the parent should be there.
And, Senator Skelos, I am very
proud that you present this bill, and I will
proudly vote for it.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm voting no on
this bill again. As I've raised in the past,
I absolutely think that the minor should be
allowed to bring whatever or whoever the adult
1670
that they wish at a proceeding.
And I certainly think that there
should be an adult present, but I think that
the adult should be up to the minor's choice,
particularly since there are minors who may
not have a parent but may have a foster parent
or a noncustodial parent but the legal custody
of the child may not be as definite.
I also think that if a child wants
to bring a counselor in, that should be
acceptable as well.
So I'm going to vote no again this
year on it, in the hope -- with the hope that
the bill will be amended in the future to
include having an adult of the minor's choice.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the negative, Senator
Duane.
Senator Montgomery, to explain your
vote?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, to explain my vote.
I'm voting no, as I have in the
past on this legislation. Because while I
1671
certainly respect and value the presence and
support of parents in any proceeding with a
young child, in cases of sexual abuse in
particular it is very often a family member
who has been involved in this kind of
activity, and very often it is a close
relative.
And so I think in order to protect
the integrity of the proceeding as it relates
to the child and the child's right to have an
opportunity to testify without being
intimidated by a parent or the presence of
someone very close, I think that I'm voting in
favor of the child's right, and I'm going to
vote no on this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the negative, Senator.
Senator Hassell-Thompson, to
explain your vote?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
thank you, Madam President.
I have continued to vote yes on
this bill only because I have some major
concerns about the relationship of parents and
children. But I also feel that I'd like to
1672
hope that we would amend this bill at some
point that would allow a greater latitude of
choice for minors to choose who that adult
would be.
But to this point I have a major
concern that the rights of children are not
always as well protected as they need to be in
the absence of parents.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard to announce their
vote?
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 242 are
Senators Duane, Montgomery, and Schneiderman.
Ayes, 55. Nays, 3.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Madam
President, I would request unanimous consent
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 217, Senate 743.
1673
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, you will be recorded as voting in
the negative, Senator.
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I also
request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 217, Senate Print
743.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative, Senator.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I was out of the chamber in a
Finance Committee meeting when Calendar Number
217 was debated. And in previous years, I've
been an active participant in the debate on
that. And I think it is pathetic that we rush
through the active list while Finance is
meeting when in fact our major job right now
should be to do a budget.
So actually, the Finance issues
before us are the most important ones. And --
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, do
you wish to change your vote or to be recorded
1674
as voting in a certain way?
SENATOR DUANE: Well, I guess I
would be changing my vote. Because,
ridiculously, you have to be present to vote
no, as opposed to you're recorded as "yes" if
you're not in the chamber when you're in,
like, a Finance Committee meeting.
But yes, I'm voting no on 217, with
unanimous consent.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Hearing no objection, you will be so recorded
as voting in the negative.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 217.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, you will be so recorded as voting
in the negative.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
271, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1685, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
repeat offender status for petit larceny
1675
offenses.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
this bill is a fairly simple bill. It deals
with repeat offenders of the petit -- crime of
petit larceny.
Right now, no matter how many times
you're convicted, you will still only have a
misdemeanor. This bill provides that if you
have been convicted twice in five years, it
will become a Class E felony.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect --
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I would like to ask a question of
Senator Rath.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
will you yield for a question?
1676
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery, with a question.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President.
Senator Rath, I'm just trying to
decipher the meaning of this. Is this -- this
fits into the code as it stands now?
SENATOR RATH: Yes. Yes, it
does.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And it
covers any age from 16 and up?
SENATOR RATH: Right.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1677
2. Senators Duane and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam 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 it
be read.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 3935, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act making
appropriations for the support of government;
And Senate Print 3936, by the
Senate Committee on Rules, an act to amend the
Executive Law.
Both bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the bills are reported direct to
1678
third reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could call up Calendar Number 404 at
this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
404, by the Senate Committee on Rules,
Senate Print Number 3935, an act making
appropriations for the support of government
and to amend Chapter 17 of the Laws of 2003.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there a message of necessity and
appropriation at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
and appropriation please signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
1679
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message of
necessity and appropriation is accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 15. This
act shall take effect --
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
This bill appropriates
approximately $1 billion to various agencies
to pay the bills for the week ending next
Sunday, from now till next Sunday. It covers
all the agencies, including the payroll of
your staff and other staffs, capital
construction that's still going on.
New York City MAC gets $64 million
of sales tax revenue to them to keep the city
going. There's 400 million for -- well,
600 million, actually, in federal and state
funds for Medicaid, and Department of Labor
uninsurance -- $95 million for unemployment
1680
insurance coverage.
So it just pays the bills that have
to be paid for this coming week. And I
appreciate you all supporting it.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield for a
couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin,
you may proceed with a question.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Madam President, I'm not concerned so much
with what's in the bill but what isn't in the
bill. And I was wondering if there's been any
withholding of school aid to the school
districts in the State of New York.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, the
answer is no. Last week we appropriated some
money that was allowed to be appropriated to
finish up the year 2002-2003. There's no
1681
further payments required until June 1st. So
therefore, there's no money in this bill for
education.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor would
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Relative to
past years, there appears to be a reduction of
$350,000 in annuities to blind veterans. I
was wondering if you could speak on that.
SENATOR JOHNSON: I guess it's
not an exact calendar parallel with last year,
because there are no payments due at this time
for blind veterans. There will be in future
payments when it's appropriate.
Thank you.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
1682
will you yield for another question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Then there are
no blind veterans who are now due and owing
any monies under the 2002-2003 budget?
SENATOR JOHNSON: That's my
impression, Senator, yes.
SENATOR BRESLIN: And again
through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BRESLIN: In the
2002-2003 budget, there appears to be
remaining, in payments of school aid,
$246 million which has not been passed in the
budgets for 2002-2003. Can you tell us if
that's correct?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I don't --
Senator, I'll try to answer this. And maybe
I'll need an expert, but I understand that
last year we paid in advance the June 1st
1683
payment because the money was there and we
paid it in advance.
This year we're not paying that in
advance, but we will pay it when it's due,
which is June 1st.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again, through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor would
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you do
yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: It would seem
to me there's an expectation on the school
districts to receive monies which, on an
ongoing basis, June 1st which they generally
receive. And if you take that $246 million,
it comes out to over $142,000 a day that those
school districts would have to pay to borrow
money if they didn't receive it. Would that
be correct?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I suppose you
would expect -- or the districts would expect
1684
to receive the money the same time they did
last year. But that was a discretionary
payment paid in advance because we had the
money.
Now we don't have the money, and
we're going to pay it June 1st. And they
expect it then, they would get it then.
SENATOR BRESLIN: On the bill,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I think the
example of the Governor supplying us with a
bill which -- wherein there's $246 million
which the school districts have expected in
the past that payment for June 1st and are now
not receiving -- which means that we further
burden our school districts and we further
burden them without our ability to come up
with a budget so they can make reliances on
our work and put a budget before the voters
that's fair.
And now we have a payment of
$246 million withheld, which creates the
distinct possibility that they'll have to go
1685
into the marketplace and borrow, which would
result in a payment of $142,000 a day in
interest.
And this is only an example of
what's been done in this budget that will
carry us along, penalizing those people who
are least able to afford it.
And in accordance with that, as
well as other areas in this budget, I intend
to vote against it.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President.
In years past, I have voted for
these appropriations. But when I turn on my
television set and I hear the Governor say
that he's too busy to negotiate a budget
because he's protecting New York State, well,
I didn't know that he was the only person in
the militia. I didn't know that he was the
only person responsible for our safety.
Each and every one of us, on both
sides of the aisle, are prepared to work hard.
My colleagues on the other side have brought
1686
forth a budget. They've worked trying to do
what is right by the people that they
represent. Each of us on this side of the
aisle is willing to give all of the hours
necessary to meet our legal requirements.
I would ask that all of you join
with me in letting the Governor know that
we're not happy and that he should live up to
the responsibility of the office that he took
the oath to preserve.
And therefore, I will be voting no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, I am going to vote no again this
week, as I did last week, on this budget --
not because I do not want our state to
continue doing business, but the process I
think that we have been engaging in at this
point in time as a budget process essentially
subverts the constitutional obligation that we
have as state government, as legislators and
governor, to pass a budget which fulfills the
needs and requirements and expectations of the
citizens of our state.
1687
It's a very disruptive process.
The localities and the counties around the
state cannot plan for their own local needs as
government. The school districts across the
state are unable to plan. We have a situation
where students at this point in time don't
know if they're going to be able to continue
with their college education. Colleges and
universities and hospitals, all of these are
entities that depend on this process to plan
on behalf of citizens of our state.
And certainly one of the areas that
I care a lot about, as many of us do,
school-based health clinics are closing as we
fiddle over here in the State Legislature.
That provides health and mental health
services to young people in our state.
So if we say that we care about
what happens to young people, how they
respond, how they're able to cope with the
stress and problems related to 9/11 and the
war and so forth and so on, and we're allowing
the school-based health clinics to shut down
because we refuse to come to the table and
negotiate as adults -- the Governor refuses.
1688
I believe that the Legislature is ready to do
so.
This is a shameful moment for us in
our state, and it's a shameful moment for us
in the State Legislature. And so I'm going to
continue to vote my objection to this process.
And I think that if we all would
agree to do that, we could hopefully shame the
Governor into coming to the table with Senator
Bruno and his conference and us and our
conference and the Assembly, Sheldon Silver
and his conference, we could all come together
and come to some agreement on how we are going
to resolve this situation.
So I'm voting no. And hopefully,
if we all just bite the bullet as
legislators -- we're grownups. Let's just say
no to the Governor.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR ONORATO: I plan on
1689
voting no again on this allotment.
And I really am very surprised at
the Governor for presenting this type of a
budget bill to us, for the lack of funding for
the organizations that are not included in the
bill.
Many of the organizations that are
not included in the bill right now are already
being cut in the Governor's proposal. This,
by not including them, at least a partial
payment of the anticipated funds that are
going to come forward in the future, will
force them to start borrowing money. But
there's no provisions in the budget to
reimburse any of our local communities from
borrowing the money and paying that interest.
For this particular reason, I
believe it is a very, very irresponsible,
partial budget to keep the state going. I
vote -- I'm going to vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Sabini.
SENATOR SABINI: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
Once again we're faced with a
decision as to whether or not to pass these
1690
extenders. And some might say it's
irresponsible not to do so, or at least not to
vote for it. But we're left with little
choice if we want to express our frustration
with the way business is done in this
building.
And I don't fault the other side of
the aisle in this chamber. There are some
that honestly want to work hard, and there's
been leadership on that side of the aisle and
certainly even attempts to reform the process
on that side of the aisle.
But by doing these extenders, we
once again sort of punt. As Senator Ada Smith
said, I too am a little concerned about the
Governor's position on more important business
that he has to attend to.
But there's blame to go around on a
bipartisan level. There's blame to go around
to interest groups that participate in this
process and in fact almost applaud this
process secretly, that they enjoy the fact
that we continue to, as a state government,
procrastinate and play-act.
If there's medicine to be doled out
1691
in this upcoming budget, and we all know
there's going to be medicine, we ought to
prescribe it now. Otherwise, it's going to be
a harsher dosage later on.
It's unfair, as Senator Onorato
said, to the people in our communities to not
know where their programs are going to be.
The only people seemingly in this
state who think this is a workable, good
process are somehow wandering around the halls
of our mall, whether they be in the
Legislature, in the Governor's office, or in
the interest groups that applaud this process
of being delayed.
It's a bipartisan shame. It's one
that the rest of the state has caught on to.
And it's about time that we say it's time to
stop. Games are meant to be conducted in the
street and the playgrounds. As I said last
week, kabuki plays belong back in Tokyo. And
we ought to get real with the process.
The only way we can get real is by
facing up to our obligations and moving on
this. And the only way we as legislators can
express that right now is by saying no to this
1692
extender. And I intend to vote no.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
to a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Through you.
Last week we did pass an extender
bill, although I voted against it. And people
voted for it in order to continue government,
because we had failed to meet our obligation
to have a balanced budget by April 1st. It's
one week later, and we're being asked to vote
on a second extender bill.
So my question to Senator Johnson
is, what progress did we make in the last week
on this emergency?
SENATOR JOHNSON: We've made
1693
progress in paying the salaries of people
working for us and people working in all state
institutions. We kept the process going.
The meetings have taken place
between both houses, trying to agree on
funding items and the revenue stream that
would therefore pay those bills. And there's
no conclusion yet to those conversations. But
we're keeping conversations going and hoping
that we will resolve it very soon.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, if, through you, the sponsor would
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Senator Johnson. Thank you for your response.
Can you offer us some more detail?
I'm very concerned that we're now one week
into being late for the budget. We are in an
emergency situation, as this is an emergency
1694
appropriation bill. And we did not have any
discussion on the floor of this Senate or, as
I understand it, in the Finance Committee
meeting around the specific details of how we
are moving closer to resolving our deficit or
passing a balanced budget.
Are there actually details that
this Senate can discuss about the options
before us?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator
Krueger, I think you're aware of the fact that
things have been taking place the last week or
two not beneficial to the borrowing scenario
which we had envisioned. And therefore that
put a hole in the budget, and now people are
meeting -- and my committee has been meeting
daily and weekly, even with the committee in
the Assembly, trying to figure out what
resources we can corral in order to pay our
future bills and put a budget together.
And they still have not arrived at
a conclusion. We're exploring all sorts of
methods of getting money, including the
possibility of taxes, including the
possibility of borrowing and so on and so on.
1695
But there's no conclusion yet.
And as you know, it is a three-way
discussion. And the Governor is also playing
a role, contrary to what some people think
here, in these discussions. But it's pretty
hard to dance with two guys at the same time,
you know, because you step on each other's
feet. That's what's happening now.
But I think eventually we'll put it
together. And everyone on this side of the
aisle certainly is just as eager as that side,
and is eager as really the Governor should be
to have a budget before too long.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I'd like to speak on the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
I appreciate Senator Johnson's
responses and his sincerity, I think, in
agreeing with us here on the Democratic side
when we object to the fact that we are now one
week into a new budget year and we have not
resolved the issues.
1696
In fact, he highlighted that we are
perhaps further away this week than we were a
week ago in being able to balance our budget,
particularly because of the movement or lack
thereof of decisions around tobacco
securitization and bonding out, borrowing of
money.
Nonetheless, it doesn't change the
reality for the people of the State of
New York who are desperate for us to pass a
balanced budget. And I do object to the fact
that the weeks go on and we don't have the
discussions on the floor or even in committees
about what we could be doing.
I am glad to hear from Senator
Johnson that there are discussions around the
revenue side of the budget and that there are
discussions about the concept of taxes.
Because in fact I do believe that that is a
reality that we must face in this state.
But I would argue that as I am
disappointed that we have not had discussion
in this chamber about what we can be doing to
balance our budget and move forward because we
are in an emergency situation, I'm equally
1697
disturbed that we continue still not to
discuss a third part of the budget formula for
the state, the tax expenditure budget.
I hear vague references in the
newspapers about the idea of closing corporate
loopholes. But I would argue that until we
also look at the third piece of the New York
State budget -- not just revenue, not just
expenditures, but also the decisions we make
not to look at our tax expenditure budget and
our tax code -- that we choose to ignore the
potential for billions of dollars of revenue
that this state desperately needs right now
and that could be drawn in a fair and an
equitable way from individuals and
corporations in the state.
I will vote no on this bill, as
much as I am desperate to help our communities
be assured that they have the money to
continue running their programs. But as we
already heard from my colleagues, we don't
have the money for our local school districts,
and they will end up having to borrow money at
exorbitantly high rates to continue to pay for
their systems.
1698
We don't have the money going out
to community-based organizations and groups
who contract with the State of New York, to
reference what Senator Onorato highlighted
before.
But in fact it is worse that
Senator Onorato analyzed it, because not only
are organizations continuing to run programs
absent payment from the State of New York, as
of April 1st, for many of them, their decision
to continue to run their programs is a
gambling game. Because if we do not continue
to put them into the budget when we pass it,
any monies they have expended to continue
their services for the people of New York will
be unreimbursable. And that could put many of
them in a situation of fiscal deficit where
they go under because they expended money that
the State of New York then chooses not to
allot to them.
So it is critical for us to stay on
time with a truly balanced, fair and equitable
budget. And so while I know that it is
considered in many camps to be irresponsible
not to continue to vote for extenders, I will
1699
join many of my colleagues today in continuing
not to vote for this extender.
Thank you very much, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I just
wanted to briefly point out I can't imagine my
community, my county is the only one facing
this.
But it isn't something of the
future, it is something of the present, right
now. We are seeing hospitals having to lay
off -- one of my hospitals laid off a hundred
people two weeks ago. Another laid off 32
people. One of my community health centers
has just laid off 10. My home health care
agency, the largest one, has just laid off
workers.
I mean, it's happening because they
were in such tight straits before. Many were
in the red before. And that's what we've done
to our healthcare, the business of healthcare
in the State of New York.
1700
Because they were in such dire
straits before, having these payments not come
to them in a timely fashion, they're already
over the top. They are already starting to
disband.
So, I mean, for those agencies that
can hang on -- and I know a few small agencies
that will probably not be able to hang on,
that will be in the future, and we'll have to
see how that goes. But I can tell you that
right now there are many, many agencies,
particularly in the healthcare industry, that
are fatally wounded now.
And the longer we hold off, and the
uncertainty of not seeing so many of these
items funded -- and God knows what that means
for the future -- we are in very dire straits,
and we have to move. And as has been said
before, I think it is the political will that
has resisted moving ahead.
We all know that the economy is not
doing well. It is probably doing worse every
week we're up here. And therefore, the sooner
we can get to a resolution, that's the best
for all of us. It isn't that I'm faulting the
1701
other side of the aisle or that I'm faulting
my friend, but -- but we just have to move
ahead.
And I'm therefore going to be
voting no, because every day we don't move
ahead is a serious loss for my community.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, I had
misgivings about this last year. I have
misgivings about it this year. But I believe
now, when we see this coming up year after
year after year, that I will not be fulfilling
my obligations as a free and independent
legislator, responsible to my conscience and
my constituents, if I did not vote no on this.
We have taken much too long. Our
prime responsibility now -- as it was last
month, as it will be next month -- and the
fiscally conservative position is to get a
budget passed. Not an extender, but a budget.
To say that the $120 million
earmarked for education in March will be paid
in June, at the same time there's a $142,000
interest payment for each school district, is
outrageous.
1702
The total budget has been cut by
3 percent. Education has been cut by
8.5 percent and higher education by
11.1 percent. This is not the way that a
legislature should be involved in the
governing process. We must be an equal
partner, Democrats and Republicans, and we
must pass a budget immediately.
I vote no. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I find it so hard to believe that
year after year it comes as such a surprise to
the leaders of the Legislature and the
Governor that April 1st is the budget
deadline. And year after year, they are
incapable of meeting that deadline.
Now, it's terrible that all bets
are on whether or not those three guys are
getting along or not. It's a little bit like,
you know, when the cardinals get together to
elect a new pope. Are they getting along, is
there white smoke? You know, if they're not
getting along, it's black smoke. I mean,
1703
it's -- you know, everyone tries to read the
signals: Oh, you know, did they have a good
meeting? Did they have a bad meeting?
And everyone's attention is
rivetted on whether or not they're getting
along. And nobody seems to see that that is a
terrible way to run state government.
You know, there are school
districts in the state who have to guess how
much they should borrow, what they should be
doing. There are agencies that have to decide
whether or not they should lay off people now
or if they can gamble on waiting a little bit
longer. There are pundits who will be trying
to decide whether, because this is an off-year
election, does that mean it will happen faster
or that means it will happen slower or because
there isn't any money, does that mean -- and
all of that should not be of any importance at
all.
Now, as many of you know, I've put
in a bill on term limits to throw the bums
out. It would take a little while for that to
happen, because we'd have to go through some
major legislative changes in this state for
1704
that to happen.
But in the meantime, I do have a
few suggestions. Perhaps we could add a woman
or 15 women to that three men in a room.
Maybe that would help things out. We could
sprinkle those three men with a little bit of
diversity. Maybe that would shake things up a
little bit.
We could -- remember conference
committees? Who remembers conference
committees here? Remember conference
committees? Boy, were they fun. Right?
People actually sat around -- although if you
notice, they actually would make the decisions
before they actually sat down in public. But
let's face it, it was a step in the right
direction.
Now even, you know, the good
government groups, last year they said: Gee,
it was, you know, better in the old days when
we had three men in a room, before we had
conference committees.
So, you know, we can, you know,
sort of sit around and bemoan what's going on
and wait for the signals. I know there was
1705
allegedly going to be a meeting earlier today
of the three guys, but I haven't heard yet.
Did anybody hear? How did they get along?
How'd it go? Anybody know? Good news, bad
news, any closer? Pathetic. Absolutely
pathetic.
You know, I know I make light of
it. But you know what? Shame on us. Shame
on us.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I can't tell you how comforting it
is to sit in this chamber and hear all of the
debates, the same type of debates that we've
heard for, I guess, the last decade. At least
when I was in the Assembly we talked about the
same kind of things.
And what's comforting about that is
that though the problem persists of our
inability to get a budget, it means at least
in what might be called this fantasy land
we've gone back to normal. Nothing's
happened. The worst attack in our nation's
history never really occurred.
Yes, a budget being late is
1706
horrible. But can we just for a moment truly
look at where we are in history? Not only the
massive loss of life, but the economic
consequences that occurred as a result of that
attack in this state, in your city and my
city, was the worst we've ever had. And yet
here we are today bemoaning the fact that
people aren't getting along.
Senator Duane, I don't want to be
insensitive to your concern, because your
concern is my concern. We need a budget,
you're absolutely correct. But at least let's
characterize it against the backdrop that
exists.
First of all, let's take a look at
last year. You know, last year, while the
rest of the nation was suffering under the
burden of a malaise in the economy -- just
look at California and many other
jurisdictions that had to raise taxes again
and again -- in New York, we were able to draw
down on $4 billion of reserves, the most
reserves we ever had.
And for any of us who had been in
that negotiation when we were developing those
1707
reserves, beginning in 1995, under Governor
George Pataki, we had to bring the Assembly
kicking and screaming to that reserve table.
Year after year, they said spend the money,
spend the money, don't put any away. I recall
that as if it were yesterday.
But there's no credit given for
that. Because you know what that $4 billion
did? It got us to where we are today without
having to do these changes, these horrible
changes.
The situation today is obviously
the most serious and grave we've ever faced in
this state. This is not about an on-time
budget as much as it is about people being
able to afford to live here, and how do we
recover as an economy. That's what this is
about. The moves we make today, I will argue,
will be the most significant moves we will
make in a decade as to where this state goes
from here.
Every part of the state is
affected. On Long Island there was a
wonderful article yesterday in Newsday, in the
"Living" section, that broke out all the
1708
different costs for suburbanites in Nassau and
Suffolk County. When you consider the
increase in the fuel costs and the increase in
commuting and the real property taxes and all
the other things, we have to take a look at
what's happening to the people we represent.
Whether it's in the city, Westchester,
upstate, there's a huge wave of taxes that has
already hit them. What's our response going
to be?
Well, whatever it is, if there's
any time to be thoughtful and to consider all
of the options, it's this year. Now, I'm not
going to justify a late budget. But we have
set this thing up. Let's look to what we've
done and where we've been and realize that
this is something that we have to do together.
So I would ask my colleagues on the
Minority side, if you've gotten a chance to
take a look at programs and ways to save
money, more efficiencies, well, get them in to
Senator Johnson. I'm serious. That's what we
need. That's the dialogue that all of us
need. Because you know what? In every facet
of government we may know something more than
1709
somebody else of how it affects our community,
of how it affects the programs we pay
attention to.
Get those ideas -- I brought them.
I've given to Senator Johnson several
programs. That's what we ought to be doing.
Contribute in that way.
Yes, conference committees might
have been a better forum. But you know what?
The forum still exists. Because that's how
serious this year is.
And just one comment. The Governor
doesn't need anybody to defend him, but let me
just make one observation. I've had the
opportunity to spend some time with the
Governor talking about security stuff. And it
is very, very difficult issues that he has to
deal with. Enormous amounts of pressure. I
would say more pressure than I've ever seen
him under. Remember, we have to be right a
hundred percent of the time; terrorists have
to be right once. Enormous pressure.
He's fully engaged in this budget,
but he's also juggling a lot of other balls in
the air, trying to make the best decisions,
1710
again, against the backdrop of the worst
budget calamity we've ever had.
Madam President, I'm going to
choose today not to stop government and give
us a chance to continue this dialogue,
realizing that the news gets worse every day.
So I'm going to vote aye on the bill.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, let
me -- give me just a moment. Senator Diaz
first.
SENATOR DIAZ: I'm just going to
take one minute to say that I'm new. But
before I came here, I overheard every year the
same thing.
And then I received a letter this
week telling me that I will not be getting
paid until the budget is passed. I had
nothing to do with it. Why is it that I'm
getting punished?
Only three guys are the ones
responsible. They are the ones that should be
getting punished. Because it's like a
1711
criminal action what we do every year here.
So why don't we pass a law telling them if the
three of you don't get together and don't pass
the budget on time, we're going to send you to
jail. And put them in a room in a jail and
say: You will not leave the room until you
pass the budget.
So to my colleagues here and to
Senator Duane, I will say that I agree with
him on some things, like yes about the three
guys. But I have to say here too that I do
not agree with Senator Duane where he compares
what's happening here with the Catholic Church
and the way they choose their pope. I hate to
believe that Senator Duane is making a mockery
of the Catholic Church, of any other religion.
I think that we are doing serious
business here, we are professionals here. And
if we want respect, we should respect others.
And I don't -- I will not -- I will not -- I
will not keep quiet when somebody is trying to
compare or make a mockery of religion for
anything.
So I don't think -- I think that I
take it seriously. And I will not support any
1712
kind of comparison of the way we do business
and the way the Catholic Church chooses their
pope. Thank you.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DIAZ: Oh, how do I vote
on the bill? I'm voting no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR BROWN: I think all of us
are beginning to experience some serious
frustration that this budget has not passed.
And in the words of a famous song -- which is
old now -- that we've all heard: What have
you done for us lately? I think that's what
the citizens of this state are saying to us:
What have you done for us lately when it comes
to passing this budget?
Now I and I'm sure nobody else in
this chamber wants to see the operation of
state government stop. We don't want to see
1713
people go unpaid. But if there was any year,
any year for us to pass this budget on time,
this was it.
In the face of a budget deficit of
over $11.5 billion, and larger than that --
and as members have alluded to, with each
passing day the magnitude of the deficit gets
larger. So the longer we go, the deeper the
fiscal crisis gets, the deeper and deeper it
gets.
Our school districts, local
governments, and community-based organizations
and the needed programs and services that they
provide can't afford this delay.
And I think what this debate is
about is putting more pressure on the system.
It's putting more pressure on this process.
We've got to say that this budget has got to
be passed sooner, not later. We all know that
April 1st was our deadline. April 1st was our
deadline. This budget should have been
passed. And the longer we delay, the deeper
the problem gets.
Now, I know that the school
districts in my district, in Buffalo and
1714
Niagara Falls and Grand Island, in the city of
Tonawanda -- particularly in Buffalo, the
school district is on its knees. The ability
for that school district to provide the
resources to educate the children of that
community is severely hampered.
They're looking at hundreds of
layoffs of teachers in that school district.
They're looking at class sizes grow to over 30
children in the classroom. We all know that
we're looking at cutting kindergarten and
pre-K in that community.
I am imploring whoever is listening
to this debate that we have to get this budget
passed, and we've got to get it passed
quickly, because the delay is damaging this
state in so many ways that it is sad to
contemplate what we will have in the wake of
this budget continuing to extend.
I am forced, as others have been
forced to do today, to express my protest with
this budget process by voting no to this
extender legislation. I lament having to do
that. But to press for some change, I feel
obligated to vote no.
1715
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, I know that
everyone in this chamber shares the grief and
the sadness and the horror that underlies the
awful attack on the Trade Center on
September 11th.
And I don't question the Governor's
commitment and hard work on the issue of
making our state safe, nor those members who
are working hard on homeland security here in
our own chamber. I know that they in
particular and all of us in general are
working hard to make sure that a horrible
tragedy like this does not happen again. I
don't question those motives at all, not for
one second.
But I do take exception to using
that tragedy as justification for our
dysfunctional budget system. Our budget
system was dysfunctional before
September 11th, and it's dysfunctional today.
And perhaps it's even more glaringly
1716
dysfunctional in light of the terrible tragedy
that befell our great state.
And again, I think that we have to
take responsibility, all of us collectively,
for our not being able to have a functioning
and productive budget system for the state.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Let's move
from small misrepresentations upwards towards
larger misrepresentations. The difficulty
some of us have with the piece of legislation
we are being asked to vote on right now is,
quite simply, this is a bad bill. We have a
gun to our head, we're told they're going to
shut down the government if we don't vote for
this.
And yet we're also told that when
the Governor, to close the 2002-2003 budget
gap, delayed $1.3 billion in payments to
1717
school districts and promised that as soon as
we got to the new fiscal year he would pay --
when we're told that the Governor now is
administratively withholding those funds and
that this bill would not force him to make
those payments, a lot of us have a problem.
It's not true to say that this bill
will not hurt school districts. Let's get the
fact out on the table. All over the state,
school districts are laying people off. This
bill we're voting on today will hurt school
districts.
There are other programs that have
been referred to by my colleagues that are not
funded in this bill. The rationale apparently
is that the Governor says this is a bare-bones
bill. But now the Governor is the only person
apparently deciding what's bare bones.
And if he decides that we're not
going to make payments that have been in every
other extender in the last few years for
annuity payments to blind veterans, payments
that are excluded from this bill, the Governor
decides it, we still have to vote for it or
we'll be accused of shutting the government
1718
down.
Senator Balboni said things are
back to normal. They're not. We're now down
to one man in a room. In fact, I don't think
he's in the room. I think he's phoning it in
from wherever he is defending the state of
New York. So we don't have anyone in the room
anymore.
And I would like to suggest that
we're not back to normal in a much more
fundamental sense. We're not back to normal
because twenty years of spending increases,
through ups and downs, but of a basically
steady climb, and twenty years up and down but
basically on a steady climb of tax cuts for
the wealthiest New Yorkers and the wealthiest
Americans, have produced a structural deficit
the likes of which this country has never
seen.
Other states are suffering from the
same problem. This is not just because of the
tragedy that occurred on September 11th.
Before September 11th, the Governor's own
analyst projected a $3 billion budget deficit
for the next year.
1719
He did preserve some reserve funds,
as Senator Balboni pointed out, reserve funds
to get him through his reelection campaign.
And they did. Those funds are gone, and now
we're faced with the reality that was facing
us before September 11th and would face us
whether or not that tragedy occurred.
We have restructured the state of
New York so that the wealthiest New Yorkers
are paying less, the poorest New Yorkers are
paying more, and that after years of tax cuts
that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, the
Governor refuses to even put on the table the
notion that they should give back.
We are now talking about something
that in propaganda, discussions of propaganda
is called a big lie. This is the big lie:
Raising taxes, even taxes that support good
schools and good healthcare and good
transportation, hurts economic growth. That's
the big lie that has paralyzed us. That's why
we are here with my Republican colleagues
pulling me off the floor and saying: We know
we have to raise taxes, but we don't want to
talk about it publicly.
1720
We all know. Everyone in Albany is
talking about the fact that we have to raise
taxes. We can't talk about it publicly
because of the big lie. Let's start getting
real. We're going to raise taxes. We're
going to have massive tax increases. We all
know it.
So we're not back to normal,
Senator Balboni. We're in a situation where
political debate is at a worse level than it's
ever been. And I would respectfully submit
that it is an utterly incoherent argument to
suggest that raising taxes to preserve
critical services hurts the economy.
In fact, I know constituents from
my district who move into Senator Balboni's
district, where they have relatively high tax
rates, because they know those tax rates
afford great public schools.
People don't flee jurisdictions
that have high tax rates that support good
levels of public service. That assertion --
demonstrably false, economically incoherent --
is paralyzing the state of New York because we
all walk around saying we got to raise taxes,
1721
we got to raise taxes, but we don't want to
talk about it in public.
And I would suggest that, instead
of elbowing each other out of the way to stand
with every advocacy group that opposes
spending cuts, that we spend a little time
focusing on the tax increases that are going
to enable us to prevent those spending cuts.
Things are not back to normal.
Things are worse than ever. Every day it gets
worse. They just laid off a whole group of
paraprofessionals in my daughter's school; I
don't think we're ever getting them back. And
they're not going to get better if we continue
to say whatever lousy bill the Governor sends
us we will vote for and go along as though
nothing is going on.
Something very serious is going on.
The state is facing a structural deficit that
can only be solved by tax increases that we
are not even talking about.
I'm voting no. I think everyone
here should vote no. And I hope that the next
time we discuss this we will have some serious
proposals to raise revenues as a part of this
1722
discussion.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I was just curious if there's a substitution
at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: So to the best
of my knowledge, having been here now my 19th
year, that means the Assembly has passed this
bill. I believe that Speaker Silver then has
agreed on passing this bill.
I also believe that there would
have been an opportunity for the Speaker, if
he so desired, to amend the bill that was sent
by the Governor. He opted not to do it. This
is the bill that is now before this house.
Now, a couple of things. To say
that the Governor doesn't care about the
budget process I think is incorrect. The
Governor is engaged, as is Senator Bruno. I'm
sure the Speaker is engaged. And everybody,
quite frankly, is disappointed that there is
not an on-time budget.
1723
But let me ask my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle: If we put the
Governor's budget bill to a vote, how many of
you would support it? How many would vote for
it? Nobody.
So I think really what it's about,
although there is disappointment that there is
not a budget, we are working as a Legislature.
And I would ask the members of the Minority,
rather than carping and complaining, that you
be part of the process, that you work through
your Minority Leader, who has a great
relationship with Senator Bruno. Come up with
your ideas.
If you as a conference feel that
taxes should be raised, come up with a
proposal as a conference. As a conference, a
united conference proposing tax increases.
But the bottom line here is we are
working as a Legislature, diligently, to try
to pass a revised budget. And to say that the
Governor is not engaged, that the Speaker is
not engaged, that Senator Bruno is not engaged
or that members of the Legislature -- I know
that members of the Majority are engaged.
1724
We've supported reforms that would encourage
an on-time budget. We haven't heard
anything -- many of you opposed those reforms.
We haven't seen the Speaker take up one of
those reforms and pass them to encourage an
on-time budget.
I recall, whether it was last year
or the year before, sitting hours upon hours
trying to get joint conference committees
activated. The Speaker refused to send his
members. Not only refused to send them,
refused to appoint members as members of the
conference committee.
So I think what we should recognize
today, the bill that's before us that Senator
Johnson so eloquently debated is a matter of
keeping government going. As we do, as we
perform our legislative functions in amending
and changing the Governor's budget as we see
fit.
So, Madam President, I support this
bill and I ask that it be brought to a vote at
this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
1725
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I think that it's important for us
to acknowledge the fact that an amendment to
the Governor's proposal in fact would not have
been able to have been passed in a timely
manner because an amendment by the Assembly
would not have matched up with the Governor's
message of appropriation or message of
necessity.
So we have a situation where the
Governor really does have control of this
process, unless the Legislature chooses to
take it away from him and we decide that we're
going to negotiate with the Assembly our own
extenders and our own budget and be prepared
for an override.
I do acknowledge that Senator
Skelos's points relating to our colleagues in
the other house have some merit. As far as
I'm aware, the only person who's had the
courage, actually, and leadership to step up
and call for specific tax increases is our
leader, Senator Paterson.
We are hopeful that our colleagues
1726
in the Assembly will join us in discussing
this issue in the course of the next week.
And we urge simply that everyone on both sides
of the aisle and both parties face up to what
we're doing here.
But there is no way we could
have -- we're in a situation with one-week
extenders -- that we can change the Governor's
change absent our own ability to deal with a
message of appropriation and a message of
necessity.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read the substitution.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 440, Senator Johnson moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 7963 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3935,
Third Reading Calendar 401.
THE PRESIDENT: Substitution
ordered.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 15. This
act shall take effect immediately.
1727
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
As I indicated earlier, I'm not
happy with this particular extender. I'm not
opposed to the Governor's proposal that we
keep government operating. What I am very,
very disappointed in is that we have not, as
we have in previous years, included funding
for all of the people that are included in the
$90 billion that the Governor submitted.
If those people's money were
included into this appropriation -- and I
can't see any justification for leaving them
out of it. They're not going to get the full
amount, but they will get a partial payment
just like everybody else in the state will get
their partial payment. They're going to get
paid to keep their households going. So
should everybody else that's in the Governor's
original budget be included in the extenders.
When they do that, I'll be very,
1728
very happy to vote for the extenders until we
get the real budget on time. But I vote no
now.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 404 are
Senators Andrew, Breslin, Brown, Dilan, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, Lachman,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Parker,
Paterson, Sabini, Schneiderman, A. Smith.
Also Senator Diaz. Ayes, 42. Nays, 17.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 405,
Senate 3936.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 405, Senator Johnson moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 7964 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3936,
1729
Third Reading Calendar 405.
THE PRESIDENT: Substitution
ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
405, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 7964, an act to amend
the Executive Law, in relation to permitting.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there a message of necessity at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. Briefly on the bill.
1730
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: This is
the language bill that accompanies the
legislation we just were talking about. All
of the same arguments obtain.
I will be voting no for the same
reason I voted no on the last bill, and I
encourage all my colleagues to do likewise.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 405 are
Senators Andrews, Breslin, Brown, Diaz, Dilan,
Duane, Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, Lachman,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Parker,
Paterson, Sabini, Schneiderman, and A. Smith.
Ayes, 42. Nays, 17.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
1731
President. I request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 217.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, you are so recorded as voting in
the negative.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I believe
there are some nominations at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there are,
Senator.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Could we take
those up at this time and read them as a
whole, with one vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As a member of the New York State
Bridge Authority, David A. Teator, of
Philmont.
As a member of the State
Environmental Board, David Johnson Miller, of
Ballston Lake.
As a member of the Empire State
1732
Plaza Art Commission, Norman S. Rice, of
Albany.
As a member of the Advisory Council
on the Commission on Quality of Care for the
Mentally Disabled, Judy Eisman, of Great Neck.
As a member of the Mental Health
Services Council, Peter V. McGinn, Ph.D., of
Vestal.
As members of the State Council on
the Arts, Elaine Wingate Conway, of
Bronxville, and Laurie Tisch Sussman, of
New York City.
As a member of the State Hospital
Review and Planning Council, Howard S.
Berliner, of New York City.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Binghamton Psychiatric Center,
John J. Wiktor, of Binghamton.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Broome Developmental
Disabilities Services Office, Kathryn Paddock,
of Binghamton.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Creedmoor Psychiatric Center,
Hector J. Battaglia, M.D., of Centerport.
1733
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Metro New York Developmental
Disabilities Services Office, Claudia H.
Jackson, of the Bronx.
And as a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Western New York Developmental
Disabilities Services Office, Kay F. Cook, of
Batavia.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmations as read by the Secretary.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
all hereby confirmed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President. Is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there isn't,
Senator.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Please
recognize Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
1734
Thank you, Senator Morahan.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I have a motion. But before I do,
might we recognize Senator Montgomery for just
a brief moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 272.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, you will be so recorded as voting
in the negative.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I believe I have a motion at the
desk, and I ask that it be read.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Paterson, Senate Print 1008, an act to amend
the Public Authorities Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, my records show that there has not
1735
been a motion to petition sustained by this
body in 225 years. However, you are going to
be a witness to history.
And I thank my Republican
colleagues, who I spoke to earlier today, and
they are here and are going to be part of this
moment in history.
First, let's take a look at the
reason we have to do this. At the end of
calendar year 2001, the MTA reported, through
its budget, a $25 million to $35 million
surplus. By 2002, during negotiations with
the Transport Workers Union, the MTA reported
its deficit at $2.8 billion.
That negotiation reached a
conclusion without a transit strike in
New York City. And on December 20th, the end
of that week, along with seven of my
colleagues, we held a press conference asking
for an independent oversight committee, an
operations oversight committee to the MTA in
which there would be six appointees, one each
from the four leaders of the Legislature, one
from the mayor of the City of New York, and
one from the Governor of the State of New
1736
York. Of the six appointees, one must be a
commuter and one must be a worker for the
Metropolitan Transit Authority.
Simply, what we want this oversight
committee to do is to take a look at the
operations plan to make sure that the
authority is negotiating in good faith, to
make sure that the authority is reporting its
operational revenues also within 30 days of
the Legislature's adopting their budget.
Right now, there is no restriction. It has
to, under this motion that I'm offering, be
within 30 days.
So we want to know what the records
are 30 days before we vote on it, and we'd
like to have an independent oversight
committee. Right now there's a major capital
plan that the Legislature involves in every
five years, but we want it to be more
specific, more succinct.
Because shortly after the
conclusion of that negotiation, the
Independent Budget Office reported that the
MTA's estimate of $2.8 billion was
superfluous. They estimated the deficit of
1737
only about $950 million. If that was known at
the time there was a negotiation, there may
have been a slightly different conclusion.
But the fact is that just as we
have to report our own personal expenses and
our own issues of ethics to the State Ethics
Committee every year and it is reviewed by an
independent commission, we just want the
entity, the authority of the MTA to make the
same report.
I think that's pretty
straightforward, Madam President. And I know
that the Majority -- who has offered reforms
to the legislative process, who has a whole
new idea of how to negotiate the budget, and
one that we may have disagreed with a few of
the issues that they presented, but they had
their plan out here very early in the session
and I'm sure would have stayed here over the
weekend right before the budget was due to
negotiate it -- I'm sure that that Majority is
going to vote with this motion. So I want to
thank them in advance for their support.
Oddly enough, the same way we knew
we couldn't pass the budget on time, we had an
1738
extender in advantages of the April 1st
deadline.
So I want to be as clairvoyant as
all of us were last week, thank everyone. And
I am not going to take total credit for being
the first member of the Legislature to pass a
motion for petition in 225 years, but my name
is David Paterson, with one T.
And I want to thank all of you for
being here, and there will be a celebration in
Room 314 right after the vote on this motion.
Thank you, Madam President.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: All those
Senators in favor of the petition out of
committee please signify by raising your
hands.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Andrews, Breslin,
Brown, Diaz, Dilan, Duane, Gonzalez,
Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, C. Kruger,
Lachman, Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer,
Parker, Paterson, Sabini, Sampson,
Schneiderman, A. Smith, and Stachowski.
THE PRESIDENT: The petition is
1739
defeated.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I do have to
say that came as close as any other that ever
passed.
Is there any housekeeping at the
desk, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there isn't,
Senator.
SENATOR MORAHAN: There being no
other business before the house, I would make
a motion to adjourn until Tuesday, April 8th,
at 3:00 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday,
April 8th, at 3:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)