Regular Session - June 1, 2004
2874
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 1, 2004
3:07 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
2875
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,
Monday, May 31, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, May 30,
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.
2876
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Seward, I wish to call up
Bill Print Number 6554, recalled from the
Assembly, which is now at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
691, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 6554, an
act to legalize, validate, ratify and confirm.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
2877
I now offer the following amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received.
SENATOR WRIGHT: On behalf of
Senator Volker, I wish to call up Bill Print
Number 2326B, recalled from the Assembly,
which is now at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
289, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 2326B, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
I now offer the following amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
2878
are received.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
amendments are offered to the following Third
Reading Calendar bills:
Senator Seward, page number 7,
Calendar Number 130, Senate Print Number 1173;
Senator Johnson, page number 24,
Calendar Number 573, Senate Print 5895;
Senator Bonacic, page number 27,
Calendar Number 676, Senate Print 6392;
Senator Fuschillo, page 35,
Calendar Number 829, Senate Print 6611;
Senator Skelos, page number 35,
Calendar Number 830, Senate Print 6612;
Senator Morahan, page number 51,
Calendar Number 1037, Senate Print 5657A;
Senator Maziarz, page 53, Calendar
1059, Senate Print 510A;
Senator Golden, page 71, Calendar
Number 1279, Senate Print 4186A;
Senator Golden, page 73, Calendar
Number 1298, Senate Print 7290A;
Senator Farley, page 22, Calendar
Number 513, Senate Print 4779.
Madam President, I now move that
2879
these bills retain their place on the order of
third reading.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bills will retain their
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator Bonacic,
please place a sponsor's star on Calendar
Number 1338.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is so
starred.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, I move to amend
Senate Bill Number 839A by striking out the
amendments made on March 22nd and restoring it
to its original print number, 839, on behalf
of Senator LaValle.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
2880
Resolution 5209, by Senator Golden, was
previously adopted. If we could have the
title read at this time and please recognize
Senator Golden.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Golden, Legislative Resolution Number 5209,
commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the
Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944,
D-Day.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Golden.
SENATOR GOLDEN: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'd like to point out that Senator
Marchi himself served during that period of
time.
And D-Day, known as Operation
Overload, began just after midnight on June 6,
1944. Some 4,000 transport, 800 warships, and
innumerable small craft supported the
invasion, under Admiral Sir B.H. Ramsey.
Over 160,000 Allied troops and
30,000 vehicles were landed along the 50-mile
stretch to fortify the French coastline. The
2881
beachheads -- Utah Beach, Omaha Beach. The
British and Canadians fought on Gold, Juno,
and Sword Beaches.
It was a magnificent event that
will be in the history books for many, many
years to come.
And yesterday, as we celebrated
Memorial Day here across this state, we seen
parades up and down our towns and in our
streets, and we seen many people coming
forward as they see that over 1,000 World
War II vets today are dying, and passing the
batons on to the new vets, those coming home
from Iraq and Afghanistan, still defending
this great nation, and will go on to defend
this great nation.
I think this is a great day, and I
open this up to all of our Senators here today
to join with me in this resolution.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: This resolution
was previously adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
first of all, I'd like to call a meeting of
2882
the Finance Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be a
meeting of the Finance Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: And if we could
go to the noncontroversial reading of the
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
263, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 454, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to providing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
314, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 4241, an
2883
act to amend the Tax Law, the Administrative
Code of the City of New York, and the Codes
and Ordinances of the City of Yonkers.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 13. This
act shall take effect upon the enactment by
the United States of a law.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
418, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 5865A, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law,
in relation to including fermented
agricultural products.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
2884
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
659, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
2976, an act to amend the Estates, Powers and
Trusts Law, in relation to disqualification.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
875, by Senator Robach, Senate Print 6399, an
act to amend the Education Law and others,
amending the Administrative Code of the City
of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 9. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
2885
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
919, by Senator Golden, Senate Print 2223A, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to requiring adult care facilities.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
931, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 743 --
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
969, by Senator Stachowski, Senate Print 5891,
2886
an act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
the definition of "employment."
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1038, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5978A,
an act to authorize the Sag Harbor Historical
Society, Inc., Village of Sag Harbor.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2887
1076, by Senator Robach, Senate Print 5461, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law, in relation to increasing the length of
suspension.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1110, by Member of the Assembly Ramos,
Assembly Print Number 9440, an act to amend
the Uniform District Court Act, in relation to
allowing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
2888
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1120, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 7993A, an act to amend
the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to
designating members.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1140, by Senator Little, Senate Print 5873, an
act to amend the Correction Law, in relation
to authorizing the use of the Warren County
Jail.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
2889
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1146, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 6908,
an act to amend the Correction Law, in
relation to custody and supervision.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1159, by Member of the Assembly Sweeney,
Assembly Print Number 2213, an act to amend
the Volunteer Ambulance Workers' Benefit Law,
in relation to increasing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
2890
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1170, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 7197A,
an act to authorize the Temple Sinai of Roslyn
to file an application.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52. Nays,
1. Senator Bonacic recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1172, by Senator Larkin --
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
2891
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1185, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2581 --
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1214, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 5138,
an act to amend the State Finance Law, in
relation to authorizing the provision of
insurance.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1243, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 2333,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
2892
in relation to criminal history checks.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1248, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 6832, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
designating a portion of the state highway
system.
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, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2893
1267, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
2670A, an act to require the New York State
and Local Employees' Retirement System to
accept a retirement application.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a
home-rule message at the desk.
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, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1302, by Senator Saland --
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1398, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 6676, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
authorizing the City of Oswego.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a local
2894
fiscal impact note at the desk.
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, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President. I ask for unanimous consent
to reconsider Senate Bill 5978A. I'd like to
be recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, you will be so recorded as voting
in the negative.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial reading of
the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2895
931, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 743, an act
to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law and
the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1172, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1374, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
providing for standardized health insurance
contracts.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER:
Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay that aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1185, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2581, an
act to amend the Parks, Recreation and
2896
Historic Preservation Law and the General
Municipal Law.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay that aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1302, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2947B,
an act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to the reporting of child abuse.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: To speak on
the bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger,
you may proceed on the bill.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Well, this is a variation on a bill
that we considered last year on the floor of
the Senate. It's the B version. And yet
again, it does not get us to a point where we
could be having a same-as bill with the
Assembly.
And it frustrates me continually
that we can't seem to address what I think
2897
everyone in both houses of the Legislature
wants, which is a bill that would require that
clergy must report sex abuse in a manner
parallel to other mandatory reporters who are
people in positions of trust.
And unfortunately, Senator Saland
has decided to combine that goal with many
other positions he has around abuse and
neglect and the reporting of abuse of
children.
And while I respect Senator
Saland's views about the other concerns around
abused children, by rolling all of those into
one bill what he has done is to put us in a
position where we will most likely pass his
bill today but it will be a bill that is a
one-house bill and does not get us to the
simple assignment, a clergy reporting bill
that can be passed by both houses of
Legislature, the Assembly and the Senate.
I will start out with just one
statistic that I think is very important for
people to understand. The vast majority of
reports of child abuse and sexual abuse around
the country are ultimately not substantiated.
2898
It doesn't mean people shouldn't make those
reports. Of course they should. But making a
report and it actually ending up in a finding
of abuse of the child are not the same things.
And according to the federal
government's Department of Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, who
collects national data and analyzes this data
state by state, it shows that 60 percent of
the reported case of abuse are not
substantiated or unsubstantiated.
Why do I highlight that? Because
under Senator Saland's bill we would shift
from a current model of making reports of
abuse to the state hotline, trained workers
who know about child abuse, who are trained
professionals, to review cases, to prioritize
them and to correctly target them to child
welfare agencies or the police based on their
findings. And under Senator Saland's bill,
S2947B, for a sub-universe of reports, we
would send all of them to the police.
But with all due respect, the
police of New York State are not trained to
2899
handle calls on child abuse and are not, in
many, many cases, the appropriate agency to
follow up on complaints of abuse.
And in fact, it will take police
away from the other functions that we all know
we have greater need for in our communities
and shift them into a new set of
responsibilities that they are woefully
unprepared for unless we're prepared to put
large amounts of money into new training
protocols for police on reporting of abuse.
And in fact, the model that has
been set out in Senator Saland's bill will
likely, in addition to shifting from reports
to a trained child welfare abuse hotline
system to the police, will also likely deter
people from ever going for counseling or for
health care from health-care providers and in
fact hiding the kinds of abuse that we want to
know about.
In fact, under Senator Saland's
bill what we will likely find is that young
people, minors, won't go for health care or
counseling because they will be afraid that
law enforcement officials will intrude upon
2900
and undermine their relationships with their
health care professionals.
If young people aren't prepared to
go to teachers, to counselors, to physicians,
to nurses for counseling around sexual
activity, there are two things we can be
assured of. One, cases of abuse won't get
reported through to the correct process; and,
two, young people won't get the kind of health
care and counseling and information that they
desperately need.
This bill, despite its recognition
of the importance of confidentiality in
exempting privileged confidences that are
shared with clergy, fails to extend those same
protections to other relationships usually
privileged under our laws -- that between a
patient and their doctor, nurse, or mental
health professional. So a counselor or a
doctor serving a young person will become a
conduit to police rather than a trusted
professional who can be confided in.
If young people, if adolescents
believe that talking to their teacher or
seeking health treatment means that the police
2901
will show up at their door, that adolescent
will not seek counseling and will not get
necessary health care.
Even minors who do not fall within
the targeted age range, under 14 with partners
19 or older, will also likely be deterred from
seeking health care and counseling. Once any
teenager hears that their trusted teacher,
nurse, or clinic is obliged to call police or
to report underaged sexual activity, they will
not make the fine distinction that the bill
does.
They will assume it is no longer
safe to confide in those from who they so
desperately need care and information. An
issue of counselling or sexual education
becomes, in the eyes of the young person, a
criminal matter to be referred to the police.
This is particularly of concern to
me, given the patterns and experiences of
young people who have been the victims of
incest in their own homes, a disturbingly
large percentage of the sexual abuse cases
reported through the federal government.
Incest is the type of crime that
2902
young people are least likely to go and
report. They don't show up at rape crisis
centers, they don't turn to the police
because, in their own minds, they are somehow
guilty of the crime because it is happening at
home or they believe, as they have often been
told by the adult in an incestuous
relationship with them, that it must be kept
secret or that it's okay.
Young people who are the victims of
incest disproportionately, when they actually
turn to someone for help, are turning to a
teacher or a health care professional, and
they do not believe that they can go forward
to the police at the time that they first
initiate this discussion with someone. They
are terrified, in fact, that police come to
their home to take them or their parents away,
and they would rather live with the shame and
the continued abuse of incest rather than come
forward.
I know Senator Saland has no
intention of attempting to discourage young
people from coming forward to get the help
that they need by passing this legislation.
2903
But I tell you, based upon my research, that's
exactly what will happen. We will be
discouraging young people from coming forward
to the people that they trust and ought to
trust, because it will suddenly walk into
being a police matter when, again, the police
are not best-trained to handle these
situations.
There's also significant confusion
in this bill about the role of mandated
reporters receiving training on another kind
of child abuse where they must report
suspicions of abuse by a minor's family member
to child welfare authorities versus the
police. This bill adds to the confusion about
what the role of the mandatory reporters is.
And that will guarantee that there will be an
increase in errors on the side, potentially,
of overreporting or underreporting these
charges.
Again, 60 percent of the child
abuse reports that are collected are found to
be unsubstantiated. Having the police walk in
on any case called in, without the role for
child welfare experts, is a serious mistake.
2904
Finally, this bill does not answer
the questions we need answered of assuring
that we can have a bill agreed to by both
houses and passed that would assure the public
and our children that there could be reports
by clergy to the appropriate authorities and
that those cases would be handled
appropriately and immediately.
I am sorry that I cannot urge my
colleagues to vote for this bill, because it's
not going to get us where we need to go. I
won't vote against the bill, again, in my
belief that we have to be doing the right
thing on clergy reporting -- but that, in
fact, this bill unfortunately is likely to
guarantee that we don't have a same-as bill in
both houses, that even if we attempt to
conference these two bills, the Assembly
version and the Senate version -- and I urge
us to do so immediately -- that we're so far
apart between Senator Saland's version and the
Assembly version that at the end of the
session we will yet again say we could not
agree.
I wish so much that Senator Saland
2905
would separate his bill into two bills: his
bill on clergy reporting, which I believe we
could then conference and make as a same-as
piece of legislation and get signed by the
Governor, and then take the other sections of
his bill and open it up to a complete
evaluation by child welfare experts, the
police, and hold it up against other laws
around the country and models that have been
successful or not successful in ensuring that
we have a greater and more effective model for
ensuring that all cases of abuse against our
children are successfully reported, that they
are tracked carefully, that the appropriate
investigations are done, and that the right
outcomes happen on behalf of our children.
So I will reluctantly vote for the
bill. But again, I urge my colleagues and
Senator Saland, who I know has the best
intentions with his legislation, to yet again
reevaluate and move forward with a clergy
reporting bill separate from the other
sections of his bill which actually may put us
further away from protecting our children.
Thank you, Madam President.
2906
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, would Senator
Krueger yield to a series of questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger,
will you yield?
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Certainly,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: I'm sorry,
Senator Krueger, I was at the Finance meeting
and I didn't hear your opening remarks. But I
have heard perhaps the last five minutes or so
of your remarks.
What I would like to start off by
asking you would be, can you think of what
social policy, if any, would be served by not
reporting the sexual abuse of a 6- or
7-year-old child -- and that would probably be
a kindergartener or first-grader -- by
somebody who might be 19, 20, 30, or 40 years
old?
Is there some reason why the
2907
privilege that is currently enjoyed by
mandated reporters in other than family
situations should not be breached to report in
such a case?
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, through you, I'm not familiar with
the scenario where a 6-, 7-, or 8-year-old
would voluntarily be going to a counselor or a
health provider to report their sexual
activity where the health care provider or
other mandatory reporter wouldn't see it as
this is not a voluntary activity by the child
and wouldn't report now under existing law.
SENATOR SALAND: Well, the 6-,
7-, or 8-year-old child would not be there
seeking counseling initially. He or she would
be brought into some health care provider, the
parent might say: This is such a traumatic
thing, I'd like it to end right here, despite
the fact that I know who the perpetrator is.
Would that -- and it's not a member of my
family. I know who it is, I don't want to
identify them.
Is there some socially sound policy
that says that that person -- that pedophile,
2908
that predator, whatever term you would want to
use -- should in effect get a free pass?
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: No, I don't
think they should.
And it's my understanding that
existing law for mandatory reporters is that
they would report that to the hotline for sex
abuse already, that there wouldn't be any
exemption for them not to be reporting that if
they knew a child or believed a child was
being abused.
SENATOR SALAND: There is no
requirement under law that they do that. They
may attempt to do that, and the hotline may
then refer it, should they get such a call.
But there is no requirement under law that
they do that.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you
for the clarification.
Again, perhaps when you were out of
the room you didn't hear me say -- but I'll
just say it -- I don't think that your entire
bill is with bad intent. I believe that if we
separated out the clergy reporting and got
that done as a two-house bill, we should then
2909
follow up with evaluation of all the other
different proposals in your bill.
Because yes, I would agree with
you, Senator, there is a difference between
knowing of sexual abuse of a young child and
what the correct protocol ought to be under
the law, versus the issues of a 16-year-old
going in for in counseling on reproductive
health care to a provider and admitting that
they may be having sex with someone who is
older than 19, who may or may not be a family
member, and therefore you're walking into all
the territory of incest versus a relationship
that may be defined as voluntary, even if not
condoned, of a teenager.
So I do think that the point you're
making is correct and would hope that we could
look at all of those sections of your bill
separate from trying to get the clergy
reporting section passed.
SENATOR SALAND: Let me just
suggest to you, in the example that you gave,
there would be no requirement to report under
this bill. This is a different version than
last year's bill.
2910
So if that 16-year-old came in for
counseling, in an effort to deal with the
so-called high school sweetheart situation, it
basically says that the perpetrator would have
to be 21 or over. So the example you gave
would not be applicable in this bill.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you
for the clarification.
SENATOR SALAND: So this bill is
an effort to try and reach some common ground.
And quite candidly, I've had
numerous conversations with Assemblyman
McEneny during the course of this session.
This really reflected, in large part, some of
the agreements that I thought we had arrive
at.
And when I looked at the ACLU memo
to which you made some reference to earlier in
committee, a week or two ago, there was a
provision which I found, quite candidly,
somewhat distressing or perhaps reflecting a
lack of clear understanding of what the bill
did.
And I'm really looking at the first
page of the memo, which refers to the
2911
reporting practices. And it makes reference
to the language in the bill that says where
the victim is 13 years or less and the
perpetrator is 19 years or older, there will
be no privilege. All such incidents must be
reported.
Now remember, if you're 12 or 13
years old, you're in the sixth or seventh
grade, perhaps even in the eighth grade. But
again, the perpetrator would have to be
19 years or older.
And it goes on to say that this
provision is sweeping in scope, encompassing
all sexual conduct even if consensual.
Now, having dealt with this issue
in a number of different ways, I would tell
you with a great deal of confidence that the
profile of the predator or the pedophile isn't
necessarily this evil-looking person in a
raincoat stalking somebody or hiding in a
doorway.
That person is, more often than
not -- and there are all kinds of studies that
will support this -- a person with whom the
child has established some sort of
2912
relationship of trust, some sort of confidence
in that particular person.
And that person, once they've
tossed out the line and ensnared the child,
will bring that line in slowly. And I've
taken testimony from people in another
context, where we did the fingerprinting bill
that this house passed a couple of years
ago -- after doing battle for some three years
with the Assembly to get them to agree -- who
have described their experiences, how they
were ensnared.
So the fact of the matter is, if
you assume for the moment that someone under
the age of 13 has the ability to give his or
her consent -- which the law really doesn't
recognize, and we all know that. But if you
assume for the moment that they can -- and I
don't concede that. I believe it's absolutely
impossible. But for the purposes of our
argument, let's say it is.
When you have this predator who has
taken advantage of his or her position to
ensnare that child, can that 13- or 12- or 11-
or 10-year-old really consent? Is it truly
2913
consent in the fashion that I might consent or
you might consent or anybody else in this
chamber might consent? We know that the law
recognizes that that is impossible.
So when I look at this memo and I
see them make specific reference to a section
in which I'm talking about somebody who can't
be over the age of 13 and the perpetrator can
be anywhere from 19 to 90, what's consensual
about that? Perhaps you can understand why
it's consensual. I don't have the ability to
understand how it's consensual. And if you
can, I'll be more than happy to try and grasp
your logic.
I realize this isn't your memo,
but --
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
And in fact, I didn't reference those
materials when I was speaking earlier. So I'm
sorry that you weren't here, because -- I
guess I'll go back to my earlier points.
First, I was also, as you are,
focusing in my comments on the fact that you
were right, the majority of children who are
sexually abused, it's not a stranger in an
2914
overcoat, it is a family member,
disproportionately, or an immediate friend of
a family member.
And I talked about the damage done
in incest situations where children don't come
forward, they are terrified to come forward
because they believe that somehow they are
equally guilty in this activity or fear that
if they say anything, mom or dad will be
dragged off, or Cousin Peter or Uncle Joe or
the neighbor next door. And so they suffer
from enormous amounts of guilt.
So I don't think I was discussing
some difference with you about consensual
sexual activity by a 13-year-old.
What I was raising and what I will
continue to raise as my concerns, if I were to
label them, in your bill is, one, the fact
that we are shifting reporting to the police
from an established child welfare abuse system
where you have a trained person who is
hopefully either handling the case correctly
or making the determination that in this case
they need to call in the police.
I was highlighting the fact that we
2915
want to encourage people to come forward, we
want them to feel like they can go forward to
people in positions of trust, to health care
providers, to counselors, to teachers, and
believe that they can seek confidential help,
rather than fearing ever going to anyone for
help because they believe the police will show
up immediately.
And in fact, in your bill you give
clergy that recognition of confidentiality if
it's in a religious counseling session, but
you're actually taking it away from other
health care providers in the rest of your
bill.
I also -- I highlighted, one, I
don't think we should have no mechanism for
confidentiality between people who come to
health-care providers or people of trust. I
don't think we should have a different
standard for clergy and other people of trust,
which I think your bill sets us up for. And I
don't think we should be shifting
automatically, without serious evaluation of a
model where reports are made to a child abuse
hotline structure, to the police.
2916
Because I don't think the police
are trained to handle these cases. I don't
see them as having any additional resources
being provided for in this legislation to take
on new responsibilities that require
specialized training and are extraordinarily
complex.
I believe that we need to be
cognizant of the national data and the fact
that most states have stayed with reporting
through a child abuse hotline situation with
trained workers for very specific reasons,
because it's a model that works.
And in fact that we need to be
cognizant of the fact that in 60 percent of
the cases reported nationally to child abuse,
they are not found to be substantiated. So we
must be very careful about redoing a system
that may in fact not be broken, while agreeing
with you in recognizing that there is perhaps
a number of different issues where we need to
expand mandates and protections.
And I would think that you and I
probably would agree that when you're talking
about sex between someone under 13 and anyone
2917
else, that you should not make an assumption
of consensual. Although as we know from the
statistics, unfortunately, too many of our
early teenagers are experimenting sexually in
ways that you and I probably wouldn't approve
of or that weren't considered experimental and
casual when we were young teens. And that one
has to recognize very different behavior
patterns out there.
But no, if you're saying to me do I
think that 13-year-olds are having consensual
sex and that should be approved? No, I don't.
SENATOR SALAND: On the bill,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR SALAND: Madam
President -- and thank you, Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
SENATOR SALAND: Some of the very
same arguments that I've just heard presented
with regard to bringing in law enforcement for
investigation of what is a crime -- I mean,
when -- we're not talking about a familial
situation, we're talking about a situation
2918
that occurs outside of the household. We're
not talking about an Article 10 proceeding.
But some of these very same issues
or somewhat analogous issues were raised
nearly ten years ago now when, in dealing with
the issue of domestic violence, I proposed the
Family Protection and Domestic Violence
Intervention Act, which ultimately was signed
into law and provided for mandatory arrest.
And there were many people at that
point, including advocates, who said: No, no,
no, we don't want mandatory arrest, that's not
a good idea; it's more than you can ask of the
police, and it takes away certain amount of
our ability to exercise our choice.
Well, it's now 2004; we still have
mandatory arrest. It worked, I think, rather
successfully, continues to work successfully.
We created, in effect, a new paradigm.
There is a crime that is committed
when somebody over the age of 19 sexually
abuses a child that's 13 years or under.
And the reason we use those
numbers, incidentally, was in part due to
negotiations between myself and Assemblyman
2919
McEneny, the concern being that the reports
that were issued at that time by the John Jay
College of Criminal Justice and by the
commission that was authorized by the church
both said pretty much the same thing. Very
significantly and disproportionately, children
14 and under, particularly young boys, had
been abused. And the use of that age category
was viewed as some way within which to deal
with that issue, to require all reporting.
So I believe we successfully have
dealt with the issue of the so-called teenage
sweetheart situation. In fact, even the Civil
Liberties Union provides faint praise in their
memo, I believe in their last paragraph,
talking about the fact that this version
tightens up what they had previously expressed
reservations about with the use of the concept
of a person in a position of trust.
So I don't think there's any reason
for anybody to oppose this bill. I think this
bill certainly expands and was intended to
expand protection for children.
This issue is greater than clergy
abuse. This issue is about abuse of children.
2920
Clergy are a very critical element of dealing
with this particular issue in this context.
But, quite candidly, that's not where I
started from, nor is that where I want to wind
up. I want to create a greater safety net for
children. They are among the most vulnerable
in our society, and we owe them that duty.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I suppose that today's passage of
this mandatory clergy reporting bill will
maybe in some small way protect future
generations of children from being sexually
molested by clergy members. But it certainly
doesn't do enough, and it cannot be seen as a
2921
solution to the current clergy abuse crisis
here in New York State.
For instance, the bill does
absolutely nothing to provide justice and
healing for those who are already hurting
because of being victimized by clergy sexual
abuse. This bill only requires clergy to
release records of abuse dating back twenty
years or less.
And, you know, just bizarrely, if a
clergy member is deceased, then the records
don't have to be disclosed at all. And the
pain and the hurt from being abused, even by a
deceased clergy member, is not erased when the
clergy member dies.
So that's simply not enough. I
have a bill where clergy would have to go
back -- institutions would have to go back
fifty years and release that information.
And also, we still haven't taken up
in any kind of real way the statute of
limitations for childhood sexual abuse. That
has to be lengthened. It's been lengthened in
California and Illinois. That's not happening
here.
2922
So the statute of limitations for
civil cases has to go back and be retroactive
so the current survivors can have their day in
court.
So for those reasons, I'm going to
be voting no on this bill. And I hope, Madam
President -- and I'll continue to reach out to
the sponsor of the legislation to try to craft
real legislation that will deal in a real and
comprehensive way with survivors of clergy
abuse and to prevent anyone in the future from
being abuse by clergy.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I'm going to be voting in the
negative on this legislation.
I think that trying to decipher or
separate out the positive from the -- what I
consider to be problematic, it's the last part
of the bill that I think is very far-reaching.
And we need to, I believe, be much more
careful about how we approach this particular
2923
aspect.
Obviously I'm very much supportive
of including the clergy in the reporting and
the reporting on. But I believe that the
second part of the bill, where we engage law
enforcement as an initial reporting agency, is
certainly problematic.
Because even though the legislation
calls for a Class A misdemeanor charge for
anyone not reporting, at the same time, once
the police are engaged, it is a very different
scenario for the persons who are the alleged
perpetrators, if you will.
And I believe that this legislation
as written, it seems to me, covers much more
than even just sexual abuse.
So we've gone pretty far-reaching
in creating an entirely new process which
brings people directly into the law
enforcement agency before we have the
involvement of experts who would be more --
have more capacity and more time to be able to
ferret out and understand and investigate and
make sure that the reporting is accurate. And
we also have immunity for anyone who reports
2924
and they make an error in reporting.
So I think we need to look at this
much more carefully. Therefore, I'm going to
vote no on this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
One of the mysteries of Albany is
how members of both houses can overwhelmingly
support dealing with an issue and yet nothing
can happen year after year.
I think some of my colleagues have
pointed out some of their concerns. And
whether you agree or disagree, these concerns
have clearly been reflected in the debate and
the results of that debate in the Assembly.
I would urge that this may be an
issue where there is sufficient ground of
agreement to move to a conference committee.
We are having more success with conference
committees this year. And it is something
that is increasingly incomprehensible to our
constituents, that you can have all sides
saying this is an issue we must address, and
2925
yet year after year nothing happens.
So perhaps we can take time out of
Senator Saland's busy schedule to cochair a
conference committee on the issue and actually
move this forward. It is clear to me that in
its present form, we are in danger of ending
another session without addressing this
critical issue and this issue which we have
committed to many, many millions of people in
this state to resolve.
Thank you, Madam President. I vote
yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, you will be so recorded as
voting in the affirmative.
And Senator Montgomery, you will be
recorded as voting in the negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1302 are
Senators Duane and Montgomery. Ayes, 57.
Nays, 2.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
2926
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If I may have unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Numbers 1076, 1120, and 1243.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, you will be so recorded as voting
in the negative on those bills.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Numbers 1076 and 1243.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative on those
bills.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
could we please lay aside Calendar Numbers 931
and 1185 for the day.
THE PRESIDENT: Those bills are
laid aside for the day.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you. And
could we please take up Calendar Number 1172.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
2927
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1172, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1374, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
providing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect --
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill, please.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you
very much.
I had actually had a debate with
Senator Larkin about this bill last year, so I
wanted to skip that process and yet again
reiterate that, while I appreciate his effort
to want to expand the use of the Healthy
New York program, my problem with the bill --
which, again, I won't vote against because I
am not sure it's getting anywhere two-house
until we really deal with the serious issues
2928
of lack of access to health care -- is that
under his proposal we would be allowing
companies who currently care health insurance
for their employees to move their employees to
the less comprehensive Healthy New York
program.
And while it may not be the case
right now that we have a shortage of funding
in that program, because not enough people are
using it, that we're not expanding access to
health care under this bill, we're simply
shifting the population of people who might be
using this health insurance, the Healthy
New York program, because under his bill we
would allow people who currently have
insurance by their employers to move to
Healthy New York when their employers drop
their ongoing coverage.
I don't think it's the intention of
the State of New York to discourage businesses
from continuing to provide health insurance.
I know it is the intention of all of us to try
to expand access to the health insurance
market in our state for the estimated over
2 million people currently not receiving
2929
health insurance.
And while I don't necessarily agree
with all the proposals in Senator Seward's
report of this year on expanding the health
insurance market and affordable coverage, I
actually wish that Senator Larkin had brought
that kind of bill to the floor for debate.
Because at least in that proposal
of Senator Bruno and Senator Seward of
February 2004 in the Insurance Committee, they
were talking about trying to maximize new
coverage of New Yorkers in health insurance
rather than shifting an existing population
already insured from one set of programs to
another set of programs.
And I will just say for the record,
on the floor, we should be looking to a
single-payor universal program here in
New York State. While ultimately we need
federal access to truly assure universal
health care coverage, New York State is one of
the states, because of our size and our market
power, that could seriously explore a model
for universal coverage, single-payor access,
bulk purchase negotiations on the ridiculous
2930
cost of prescription drug costs.
So I wish in fact you were offering
us more, Senator Larkin, than what this bill
does today. But I won't vote against the
bill, even though I don't think it gets us
where we all need to go.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first of January.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Rath, that completes the
controversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR RATH: Can we please
return to reports of standing committees, for
the Finance Committee report.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
2931
following nominations.
As members of the Empire Plaza Art
Commission, Jackie Kingon, of Poughkeepsie,
and Kristin Jannitto Woodward, of Latham.
And as a member of the State
Council on the Arts, Debra Ressler Black, of
New York City.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Move the
nomination, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor of the nominations please signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
hereby confirmed.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: I believe there
are some bills that are to be reported from
Finance.
THE PRESIDENT: There are,
Senator.
The Secretary will read.
2932
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 7369, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act making
appropriations for the support of government.
And 7370, by the Senate Committee
on Rules, an act in relation to suspending
until July 31, 2004.
Both bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Both bills
ordered direct to third reading.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Yes, Madam
President, if we could please take up Calendar
1408.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1408, Senator Johnson moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 11343 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 7369,
Third Reading Calendar 1408.
2933
THE PRESIDENT: Substitutions
ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1408, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 11343, an act making
appropriations for the support of government.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
is there a message of necessity and
appropriation at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR RATH: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the message of necessity and
appropriation please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
2934
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Madam
President, this bill appropriates money to pay
the bills of government for the next six days,
the 1st to the 6th of June. It includes
normal school aid payments, payroll, general
state charges, Medicaid payments, and
transfers to New York City of the money for
the sales tax revenues.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on this bill, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I have
been voting against the appropriation and the
language bills to extend the budget, and so
have many of my colleagues. I will be voting
no again today, and I urge everyone to do so.
I think the issue with regard to
another one-month extension of the sales tax
on clothing under $110 should be clear to
anyone with any sense of social or economic
2935
justice in this state. We are voting to
increase the taxes on those least able to pay.
Extending the tax on clothing and
footwear priced under $110 represents the
enactment of the Governor's budget one month
at a time. It is a disgraceful tax. And the
fact that we are extending that tax while
we're not dealing with any of the other issues
that we could be dealing with in these
extenders to make our tax code less regressive
I think speaks very badly for all of us.
I also want to urge that there are
other problems with the system that we have
fallen into of doing these one-week extenders.
People say, well, you're just keeping the
budget going. In fact, there are proposals on
the table that would provide significant
savings. Every week we approve over
$700 million in state and federal Medicaid
funds, about a quarter of which is for
prescription drug expenses.
A proposal has been advanced by
Senator Paterson in our conference that simply
puts into effect some programs that are
working in other states. Bulk purchasing,
2936
preferred drug lists would save $12.6 million
every week for the state. It would save
New York City $4.2 million every week. Our
inability to deal with the budget is
preventing us from passing reforms like this.
As far as the local share of
Medicaid goes, the proposal presented by
Senator Paterson on March 31st of this year
showed how we can save local governments
$1 million per day if we pass a Medicaid
reform package.
These are the kinds of things that
are not in these budget extenders. These are
the kinds of savings for local and state
governments that we cannot really dismiss as
irrelevancies or things we will get to later
when we pass the budget. I think the system
of sitting around waiting for lightning to
strike and resolve the school financing issue
is just not enough of an excuse anymore.
Once again, I will be voting no on
both of these bills. I think that we are
making our state more regressive. I think we
are failing to enact reforms that clearly
could save state and local governments
2937
substantial amounts of money, and that our
inability to act really should require us to
stay here until we pass a budget and not to
keep providing another dose of legislative
methadone as we pass an extender and take away
the pain, on ourselves, of not passing the
budget and we fail to enactment reforms that
our local governments need and that the people
of the State of New York deserve.
Thank you, new Madam President.
I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Liz Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Liz Krueger, on the bill.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: I too will
be continuing my pattern of voting no on the
extender bills.
But to highlight a few issues that
were not highlighted by my colleague, Senator
Schneiderman -- although he did a superb job
in his analysis -- in this budget bill, now
for the eighth time this year, we have failed
2938
to honor this legislative body's commitment to
my city, New York City, in providing it with
the authority to bond out money that it needs
to do in order to not have a hole in its
budget.
This is the money we approved last
year as part of the legislative budget to
allow restructuring of New York City's $2.5
billion MAC, Municipal Assistance Corporation,
debt, which was currently scheduled to be paid
off in 2008.
As we know, the Governor vetoed the
bill. We overrode the vote. A series of
court appeals ended with the recent court
appeal reaffirming the soundness of our, the
Legislature's restructuring plan.
But yet again, in this extender
bill, there is no approval of an appropriation
or budget language clarifying the terms of the
restructuring. And therefore, the City of
New York can still not go forward to borrow to
restructure its debt, to borrow the money
needed to assure that it does not end its own
fiscal year on June 30th with an estimated
$500 million hole that it expected not to have
2939
because it believed, as I believed, that we
passed this legislation in last year's budget
in good faith.
And so again I'm so frustrated that
the Governor continues to send us extender
bills that don't get us where we need to go
and in fact do harm to localities.
And on the issue of harm, this bill
yet again extends the continuation of the
sales tax on clothing under $110 for another
month, which is raising taxes on people who we
had promised we would remove that tax on. And
of course sales tax disproportionately hurts
lower-income and working-income New Yorkers.
And this specific tax on clothing items under
$110 also disproportionately hurts small
businesses.
And so again it frustrates me not
only that we don't have a budget for June 1st
going forward, but that the extenders that
we're offered actually do harm to the people
of the State of New York.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll
be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
2940
you, Senator Liz Krueger.
Does any other member wish to be
heard on this bill?
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I just want to add my voice to and
to explain why I'm going to voting no on this.
This bill that -- in particular, I
just want to comment on one aspect of it, and
that is the tax on clothing and footwear. And
our staff has given an analysis that says
approximately 40 to 43 million per month is
raised on this particular tax. That is
specifically a tax on poor working families
who must buy clothing and shoes for themselves
and their children. And moreover, it hurts
our businesses.
So I definitely think that in the
least, we should remove this from our bill.
That the Governor is certainly not doing a
service to the working families in this state
by extending this tax.
And I would also add that I will
continue to send a message to the Governor
that if I had the power, I would withhold his
2941
paycheck just the same as I'm not being paid
while we do not pass a budget and we're not
doing the business of the citizens of the
State of New York.
So I'm voting no, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 28. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1408 are
Senators Breslin, Diaz, Dilán, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, Lachman,
Montgomery, Onorato, Paterson, Sabini,
Schneiderman, A. Smith, and Stavisky. Ayes,
45. Nays, 14.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Yes, Madam
President. Can we please take up Calendar
Number 1409.
2942
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1409, Senator Johnson moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 11344 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 7370,
Third Reading Calendar 1409.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1409, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 11344, an act in
relation to suspending until July 31, 2004,
and the effectiveness of exemptions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Is there a message
of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR RATH: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor of the motion to accept the message of
2943
necessity will signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
Read the last section.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: We've
discussed this bill in the context of the
debate over the previous piece of legislation.
This is, in fact, the portion of
the budget extender that does include the
extension of the sales tax on clothing and
footwear priced under $110.
I would like to just raise one more
fact in urging everyone to vote no on this
bill. The temporary income tax that we passed
on the wealthiest New Yorkers is being allowed
to expire. That's not in these budget
2944
extenders. But the temporary tax increase in
low-income New Yorkers is being extended.
So the message we're sending here
is that the families with income less than
$15,000 who pay 9.5 percent of their income in
sales tax have to bear the burden of keeping
the state afloat while the top 1 percent of
taxpayers with incomes over $634,000 only pay
1.2 percent of their income in sales tax.
They're not being asked to share the burden.
What we need in New York is a less
regressive tax structure, a less regressive
sales tax law. And I think it is absolutely
shameful that this, of all the taxes we could
be extending to keep the state afloat, is the
tax that is being chosen by the Governor and
agree to by the Legislature.
I'm voting no. I urge everyone to
vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
in one sense I guess I agree with you, except
for two things.
Number one, as far as the business
2945
of the higher income tax, this Legislature and
the Governor, we all agreed that we were going
to let that lapse. And in a very tough
situation last year, by the way, when we did
the overrides.
And the law, I tend to agree with
you that it's unfortunate that we have to
extend the exemption. The reason, by the way,
that it's in here -- and I asked the question,
Why is it in this extender? And the answer is
you have to give the sales tax people
notification in advance. So that's why it's
in -- you've got to give them -- I don't know
whether it's 30 days, 60 days, whatever it is.
But the answer to your question, I
think we should repeal this. That is, I think
we should let the exemption come into effect.
And I would hope that when we finally do the
budget that we will allow that to happen. And
I am very hopeful that we will do that.
The problem with the other end, the
so-called higher end, is that we as a
Legislature made a commitment last year, when
we did the actual budget -- and the
Governor -- to let this lapse. And if we
2946
actually then said no, we're going to let it
go, the opponents would immediately say:
Well, you know what you did here is you agreed
not to do it. And a lot of people, by the
way, wealthy people would then say: See, we
knew you weren't going to do it.
So I think the answer here is it
seems to me -- and although I tend to agree
with you that normally we wouldn't let this
happen, the truth is we haven't done the
budget yet. And when we do the budget, we
should let the exemption come into effect for
the $110.
But I think unfortunately we're
kind of caught in our own problem from last
year, because if we didn't, we'd be under even
more huge criticism from the other end of the
scale.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President, I would like officially to welcome
Senator Volker to the progressive populist
movement. We know with his support we're
going to be able to produce a more progressive
2947
tax structure in New York State.
My only correction to my new
comrade is that we made a commitment that both
of these taxes would expire. This one was
supposed to expire January 1st. And we are
extending it.
So, you know, if they need some
time to adjust, maybe we should put them on
notice as of today.
But I certainly do share your
belief that we have to get rid of this when we
do finally pass a budget. And I appreciate
your sentiments that we do have some
inequities in our tax system that hopefully we
can begin to address.
The tax system in the State of
New York over the last decade has become
significantly more regressive with taxes and
fees that burden working people increasing,
while we've been cutting taxes on the very
wealthy. And, you know, as -- some of us
benefit from those tax increases. But it's
not creating the kind of society that we
should have in the State of New York.
So again, I appreciate Senator
2948
Volker's comments, but I will be urging
everyone to vote no on this today, in the hope
that we'll be able to vote yes on a budget
that repeals this finally.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I
just want to echo what Senator Schneiderman
has said. It is no small wonder that our
state has the distinction -- albeit a very
negative distinction -- of having the very
largest discrepancy of any state in the
country between our wealthy and our poor. I
think that's a disgrace.
But be that as it may, it is the
tax structure in this state which has caused
this to occur, and this is just another
example of it. We know that in the last 25
years our highest-income earners in our state
have seen their taxes reduced, their state
taxes reduced 50 percent in the last 25 years.
This is taking away all
progressivity out of our progressive income
tax. That is the tax that is the fairest tax.
2949
It is paid by people who have the income;
otherwise, they wouldn't be paying the tax.
And it is certainly a better tax
than what we have experienced growing
alarmingly in our county, which is the
property tax, where we see people that have
been living in their homes for many, many
decades and now their homes are worth maybe
much more, but their incomes haven't gone up
and there's no way that they can afford the
property taxes.
And of course the worst tax of all
is the sales tax. And I'm glad that we will
be seeing perhaps some attention brought to
that in the next few weeks, so that our
poorest residents are not stuck with paying
9 percent of their income to sales tax.
Thank you. I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
2950
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1409 are
Senators Breslin, Diaz, Dilán, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, Kuhl, Lachman,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Parker,
Paterson, Sabini, Schneiderman, A. Smith, and
Stavisky. Ayes, 42. Nays, 17.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is.
Senator Dilán.
SENATOR DILAN: Madam President,
on page 80 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 1366, Senate Print Number
6423A, and ask that said bill retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator. The amendments are received,
and the bill will retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
2951
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you. I move
we adjourn until Wednesday, June 2nd, at
3:00 p.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Wait
just one moment.
Senator Parker.
SENATOR PARKER: I'd like to
request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1408, Assembly
Bill 11343.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection.
SENATOR PARKER: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President, I
move we adjourn until Wednesday, June 2nd, at
3:00 p.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Wednesday, June 2nd, at 3:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)