Extraordinary Session - July 22, 2004
5383
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
July 22, 2004
10:12 a.m.
EXTRAORDINARY SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
5384
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
I ask everyone to please rise and
repeat with me the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno,
the chair hands down a communication from the
Governor.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I would waive the reading and ask that it be
filed in the Journal.
THE PRESIDENT: To be filed in
the Journal.
The Secretary will now call the
roll to ascertain a quorum.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
5385
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Andrews.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Aqu¡.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Dilan.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
5386
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Flanagan.
SENATOR FLANAGAN: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Golden.
SENATOR GOLDEN: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator L.
Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator C.
Kruger.
SENATOR CARL KRUGER: Here.
5387
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Little.
SENATOR LITTLE: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Here.
5388
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Parker.
SENATOR PARKER: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
(Senator Paterson was recorded as
present.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Robach.
SENATOR ROBACH: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sabini.
5389
SENATOR SABINI: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Here.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno, a
quorum is present.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
Welcome, Senator.
I believe, Madam President, I have
Senate Resolution Number 1 at the desk. I
would ask that it now be read in its entirety.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Extraordinary Session Senate Resolution Number
1, appointing a committee to inform the
Governor that the Senate is convened in
extraordinary session.
"RESOLVED, That a committee of two
be appointed to inform the Governor that in
compliance with his proclamation of July 21,
2004, the Senate is convened in Extraordinary
Session and is ready to proceed with business.
"The Temporary President appointed
as such committee Senators Mendez and
5390
Hassell-Thompson."
THE PRESIDENT: On the
resolution, all in favor please signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I believe I have Senate Resolution Number 2 at
the desk. I would ask that this now be read
in its entirety.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Extraordinary Session Senate Resolution Number
2, appointing a committee to inform the
Assembly that the Senate is convened in
Extraordinary Session.
"RESOLVED, That a committee of two
be appointed to wait upon the Assembly and
inform that body that in compliance with the
proclamation of the Governor on July 21, 2004,
5391
the Senate is convened in Extraordinary
Session and is ready to proceed with business.
"The Temporary President appointed
as such committee Senators Golden and Diaz."
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
the resolution please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I have Resolution Number 3 at the desk. I
would ask that its title be read and move for
its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Extraordinary Session Senate Resolution Number
3, empowering the Temporary President to
appoint officers and employees necessary for
the Extraordinary Session.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
the resolution please signify by saying aye.
5392
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I believe I have Resolution Number 4 at the
desk. I ask that the title only be read and
move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Extraordinary Session Senate Resolution Number
4, providing for the introduction of bills in
the Senate during the Extraordinary Session.
THE PRESIDENT: On the
resolution, all those in favor please signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President.
5393
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Can we recognize
Senator Smith for an announcement at this
time.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Ada
Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President.
There will be an immediate
conference of the Democrats in the Democratic
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Democrats in the
Democratic Conference Room.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I would suggest that we then stand at ease for
one half hour, until ten minutes to 11:00.
Does that work? Okay?
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you.
And thank you, Madam President. We
are at ease.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate stands
at ease for one-half hour.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
5394
ease at 10:20 a.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 10:27 a.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President, I'd like to announce an immediate
conference of the Majority in the Majority
Conference Room. Immediate conference right
now.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
There will be an immediate conference of the
Majority in the Majority Conference Room.
The Senate stands at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 10:28 a.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 11:08 a.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
5395
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 11:09 a.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 11:18 a.m.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we return to reports of standing
committees --
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
SENATOR BRUNO: -- and now read
the report of the Rules Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Extraordinary Session Senate Print
Number 1B, by the Senate Committee on Rules,
an act to amend the Education Law, the Tax
Law, and the Public Authorities Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
5396
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the report of the Rules Committee
please indicate by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The report is
accepted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we take up Extraordinary Session Calendar
1B.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1, by the Senate Committee on Rules,
Extraordinary Session Print Number 1B, an act
to amend the Education Law, the Tax Law, and
the Public Authorities Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
5397
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would move that
we accept the message.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the message of necessity please
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
Senator Saland, our chair of
Education, has done an extraordinary job, I
believe, in helping, by coordinating with the
Governor, with the Assembly, and with our
members, with the constituents out there, in
getting this bill to the floor this morning.
Now, we don't have agreement. We
don't have agreement three ways. We've been
5398
discussing this Campaign for Fiscal Equity
response to the courts on July 30th. And as
you all know, the courts mandated that there
be a legislative response to provide a sound,
basic education for every student in New York
City.
Now, there are high-needs districts
throughout this state. So we have put
together a comprehensive plan to deal with all
of the needs of the pupils of New York State.
So in a broad view -- and Senator
Saland will respond and talk about the
details. But in a broad view, we are
providing or helping to direct very close to
$10 billion of state aid to across this state
for education.
$5.19 billion would come from the
state, representing a 36 percent increase. Of
the $5.19 billion, $2 billion in Sound Basic
Education grants would be targeted for
New York City and other high-needs pupils
throughout the state, in order to comply with
the court order as a result of the Campaign
for Fiscal Equity lawsuit.
Now, we are also responding with
5399
$3.19 billion over five years, which would
increase state support for critical education
functions, including operating aid,
expense-based aid, transportation, BOCES,
special ed, building aid, as well as funding
for teaching centers, teacher support aid, the
mentor intern program, Teachers of Tomorrow,
to attract and retain teachers.
Now, unfortunately, most issues get
politicized here in government. They get
politicized. And there are people that will
vote against this, I don't know for what
reason. Because if these dollars aren't
enough, then I don't know what is.
Now, the state is expected to
receive $1 billion in additional state aid
over the next five years. If you take a look
at history, that's about what has happened,
within a hundred or two hundred million. And
of that, New York City is expected to get
$500 million.
Now, New York City would be
required to provide a minimum of $1 billion in
local funds over five years. Now, we have a
maintenance of effort that is there now for
5400
New York City. And that supplements what
we're doing.
In total -- and I think this is
important, that you understand that New York
City schools would receive $6.22 billion in
additional aid under this plan. Of those
funds, $1 billion would be supplied by new
Sound Basic Education grants, $9.25 million in
additional state operating, and $500 million
in the federal funds that I referred to, and
$1 billion through enhanced maintenance of
effort. Now, we have maintenance of effort
which is present law.
Now, local property taxpayers are
burdened here in this state. And they're
burdened primarily with what? The high cost
of education in the city and in the state.
The high cost of education. It's the biggest
part of anybody's tax bill other than personal
income taxes.
So we are helping direct $6 billion
plus to make that $10 billion over the next
five years. Now, we already break records
with about $15 billion in state aid for
schools and for education. You all know --
5401
and if you don't, shame on you -- we average
$11,500 per pupil now for education in
New York State, the highest in the whole
country.
So have we been shorting education
in this state, with the highest per-pupil
average? No. But the courts have said, and
they were using data two or three years old --
and remember that. The courts were using data
that was outdated. Outdated. But they said
that you must provide a sound, basic education
for students in New York City.
They didn't say how much. Anybody
know how much? Anybody here want to pick a
number how much? Every time I hear from the
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, they've added
another $5 or $10 billion. One of the numbers
I heard reaches another $39 billion. I mean,
it is irresponsible.
The Senate has always had a
priority. This, I believe, is my 28th year
here. And I wish that, you know, I could take
all the credit for the leadership in providing
educational funds in New York State. I can't.
But the Senate has taken the leadership in the
5402
past, presently, and we're prepared to do it
in the future. We're prepared to do it in the
future.
Now, you want to politicize this
issue? Here's how you can politicize it. How
are you going to fund the next $6.19 billion
in five years on top of the $15 billion? How
are you going to fund it? It takes money.
You've got to fund it. Well, the Governor has
proposed, and we support in this legislation,
that eight more video lottery terminal sites
go in across this state somewhere.
Now, some of you are appalled at
that. You're appalled. Well, guess what?
Anybody wants to stand up, I am more appalled
than you are. And you know what I was more
appalled about? When I read that Pennsylvania
just voted -- you know what? Rhetorical,
Madam President. I see some people that would
like to be responding -- 61,000 new slot
machines. Slot machines. Okay? In
Pennsylvania.
Mohegan Sun and Foxwood, get in
your car, drive two hours and 15 minutes and
you will be in the two biggest casinos in the
5403
whole world. Go to Atlantic City. You can
get there from New York in 45 minutes, if you
drive the way some of you drive.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: From here, it's
two and a half, three hours.
Now, you don't want to vote for
this because it has VLTs in this bill. Well,
step up and be responsible. You want to
educate the people in this state? All of the
money from VLTs, constitutionally, goes for
education. Now, you want to keep funding
education? You want to keep being in the
forefront? Well, then, step up. Step up.
Now, what's your alternative? If
you don't compete with Pennsylvania, Atlantic
City, Connecticut -- who I believe surround
New York State geographically. Don't they?
Are there any other states that touch
New York? Vermont. Does Vermont have VLTs
presently? Anybody know? All right, soon.
All right? Soon.
And Vermont only touches in one tip
20 miles from my home. And they're gearing
up. In fact, New Jersey has, you know,
5404
Atlantic City and you name it.
So here's what I'm saying. You've
got $6 billion of new dollars to flow and
you've got to pay for it. Okay? So step up
and let's fund education, let's increase,
let's meet the high needs of the people of
this state, and let's do it with
responsibility.
Now, some of you will lean back and
say, Hey, we can always raise taxes. Oh,
yeah, you can always raise taxes. But we're
not going to raise taxes. Not next year or
the year after. Why? Because we are already,
still, after $100 billion in tax cuts in the
last -- since this Governor has been governing
and we have been in the Senate and the
Assembly has been organized as they are,
$100 billion in tax cuts. Guess what? We are
still the highest tax per capita in the entire
United States.
Why? Because of the educational
taxes that go up. With seniors having to sell
their homes and move out. Senior citizens
can't afford the escalating taxes. You hear
from them. People on fixed incomes, people
5405
moderate, in lower incomes, they can't afford
to live in their homes.
So what I am saying is I gag when I
have to vote for VLTs. And you know what?
You don't know this, because most of you
weren't here. I debated against the lottery.
And I think I'm one of the two votes against
the lottery when it first went in in New York
State.
And you know what? I was wrong.
First time in my life I was wrong.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: And I haven't
been wrong since.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: Now, I was wrong.
Why? The lottery has about a billion and a
half, a billion-six some that goes into
education. Constitutionally, that's where the
money has to go, into education. Now, what is
more important in our lives, in our future,
than properly educating our young people?
So I was wrong. I'd like to be
able to go back 18, 20 years ago, when I
didn't know better, and vote for the lottery.
5406
Why? Because it's all over the country. It's
all over the country.
So I'm going to vote for VLTs. I
have voted for revenue from gambling to
support education. Not because I like it --
because I gag, and I don't like it. I don't
think any municipality should raise money by
encouraging people to gamble. But you know
what? We can't close Monte Carlo. You can't
stop gambling in Atlantic City. You can't
close the casinos in Connecticut. You can't
close or stop Pennsylvania with their 61,000
new slots. You can't do that. I can't do it,
the Governor can't do it, the CFE, the judges
can't do it.
So why are they doing this? They
want New York State voters, New York State
taxpayers to travel conveniently and spend
their money -- to educate people in
Connecticut, educate people in Jersey, educate
people in Pennsylvania.
Well, you know what I'm saying to
you? Vote for this, increase state
educational funding, let's meet that court
order and step up and vote for a funding
5407
mechanism that you can hold your nose but you
can't control because people are going to do
it. They're going to do it.
And you don't have to have VLTs on
the street where the lowest-income people walk
in and spend their bread money. You don't
have to do that. You can put them in places
that aren't as accessible to people, if you
want to step up and be responsible.
Now, you know, great luxury -- you
fold your arms: Oh, we're for more money for
education. Yeah, we want to meet the court
order. Shame on you, Bruno, you can't get
together with the Speaker and the Governor.
And you sit there, you know, and you're going
to vote against this, potentially.
Although I don't know of anybody
here that would want to vote against it. I
can't imagine, Senator, anybody voting against
this. I mean, it's beyond my powers of
comprehension. Especially given this, you
know, great monologue that I've just been
giving that I'm giving primarily, I guess, to
impress myself. Because I'm not impressing
any of you. And I'm not sure that any of you
5408
are going to do anything different than you
were going to do 15 minutes ago, or 12.
But I just feel as if I owe it to
you to let you know how I feel personally
about what's on the floor. And we have got to
get this done. We should get it done now.
When we leave here, it's not going to get
done. The courts are going to mandate.
And I promise you, if the courts
mandate, New York City I doubt will get the
dollars that we have in this plan. And they
won't get them because you're going to be in
court for the next two or three years,
minimally.
And there are lawsuits now all
across upstate being pondered to do something
if all the money flows to New York City, as is
mandated by the courts. So the dollars are
not going to flow. So who gets the
satisfaction? Who gets the education?
So this is a plan that works. I
can tell you now, this is the Governor's
language, mostly. These are our numbers. If
the Assembly passes this, with your support, I
believe the Governor would sign it. He hasn't
5409
said he will, and maybe he won't. But I can
tell you this, that if it passed both houses
and lands with the Governor in a balanced
plan, with the spending balanced by revenue, I
believe this Governor would look at this
seriously and hopefully sign it. And you'd
have a plan that goes to the courts.
Now, without this, the courts are
going to mandate. And then we're going to be
back here implementing the court's mandate.
You know that. Someday. Two years from now,
three years from now, whenever. The dollars
are not going to flow.
So, Madam President, thank you for
listening so attentively. Thank you to my
colleagues to listening so attentively. And
we'd appreciate your support for this best
bill that has been put together thanks to
Senator Saland, who may have something to add.
Although I can't imagine.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you wish to add?
SENATOR SALAND: If the leader
can't imagine, why should I?
5410
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SALAND: Very briefly on
the bill.
I would just call the attention of
my colleagues to pages 20 and 21, which talks
in terms of a five-year commitment.
Obviously, as we discussed several weeks ago,
subject to an appropriation of some $19.69
billion dollars, of which some $2 billion
would be used for Sound Basic Education
monies.
The long and the short of it is, is
that there's a maintenance of effort
requirement required of the city if the city
fails to match the $1 billion that we're
proposing to provide to the city under this
construct, they would in fact have their SBE
money reduced by the amount of their failure
to maintain that maintenance of effort.
Ladies and gentlemen, we went
through a lengthy debate some four or five
weeks ago. Many of the provisions that we
discussed at that time when we discussed our
LEARN proposal are contained in this bill.
Let me just point out a few things
5411
where there is some divergence. There is a
maintenance of effort requirement now imposed
upon the remaining members of the Big Four,
based upon the existing City of New York
maintenance of effort requirement.
There is an effort to try and
provide greater accountability by ensuring
that independent auditing firms would not be
able to provide those services to a particular
school district for more than three years,
after which there would have to be a contract
with a separate firm.
It provides the ability of the
Commissioner of Education to conduct, in
conjunction with the Comptroller, annual
examinations of financial conditions of each
school district, and particularly conduct
audits in those districts deemed to be in
financial distress.
There is a provision for an
expedited 3020A hearing process for tenured
teachers, with due process provisions for
remediation during a 90-day period after the
result.
Those are among the most salient
5412
features that have been added. Please be
mindful, again, we are attempting to deal with
a mandate of the Court of Appeals to come up
with a response by the 30th, now, of this
month. It's been more than a year since we've
been faced with that mandate.
Our responsibility is to determine
the actual cost of providing a sound basic
education in the City of New York. We are
obviously all interested in a statewide
solution, not interested in leaving this to
the court, which can only deal with the city
solution.
We do propose to ensure, as the
court directed us, that every New York City
school has the resources necessary to provide
the opportunity for that sound, basic
education. And we do have a system of
accountability that's in this bill, again,
that substantially parallels what we did
previously.
Lastly, Senator Bruno discussed the
kinds of dollars that are proposed to be spent
under this construct. The total amount of
those dollars is nearly $10 billion over a
5413
five-year period. Keep in mind that's an
annual increase of in excess of $1 billion.
$1.37 billion would be the average increase.
The record that this Legislature and Governor
have ever managed to provide by way of an
increase was back in 2000 when we provided
$1.1 billion. There is a 36 percent increase
over a five-year period.
Again, we've prided ourselves over
the course of these ten years on the kinds of
dollars that we've added to aid our education
system, our districts, whether they be city,
rural, or suburban districts. We did some
$4.5 billion over 10 years. That's about
$450 million per year. We are more than
doubling that under this construct, providing
some $1.1 billion. New York City would be the
beneficiary of some $6.2 billion of those
dollars.
Be mindful, if you will recall,
that the Zarb Commission said that the
resource gap statewide was $2.5 billion, of
which $1.9 billion was in New York City. This
would provide $6.2 billion to the City of
New York over the course of a five-year
5414
period, more than triple what Zarb has
identified as the resource gap for the City of
New York.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
First of all, I'd like to thank
Senator Bruno and Senator Saland, who have
worked very hard since the Court of Appeals
decision came out.
This has been a contentious issue
for all of us. Some of us initially felt
there was judicial activism here. They went
too far; this should have stayed with the
Legislature in addressing education.
Those representatives from New York
City are probably jumping up and down: Hey,
this is great, we're going to get more money
for our schools. And, you know, any time you
increase aid to education and invest in our
children, it's not a bad thing, it's a good
thing.
But it raised a lot of other
concerns. As good as it was for a New York
5415
City decision and their schools, we were
concerned upstate as to where the money was
going to come from. Was it going to come from
our school districts to fund New York City?
What is the right number where we can be
comfortable for everyone?
So I will say in conclusion -- I'll
be real short here -- I support this education
package because I believe our main mission
here is to educate our children. That's the
primary job of state legislators: make them
the best that they can be.
But both sides of the aisle,
whether you're from New York City, whether
you're from upstate, none of us should
disagree that we need accountability. We need
reforms in the schools. Because we're going
to make these kinds of investments, we'd
better make sure the mechanisms are in place
and the quality of teachers are in place and
the class sizes are the right order that we're
actually helping our children.
So accountability and reform in the
system, we should be embracing. And it has to
be part of any money package.
5416
This bill provides a way of paying
for the investment in further education
without exacerbating the taxation system,
whether it's income tax, whether it's property
tax.
So it maintains shares. It doesn't
take the Robin Hood approach that we were
concerned with. And it addresses the Court of
Appeals' needs. So the bill seems to be
reasonable, and it meets our goals.
There's a property tax rebate in
here. I've been talking about reforming the
property tax system. So there will be some
relief to our property taxpayers in this
state. However -- however -- we have to
seriously look at reforming the property tax
system.
School taxes are really getting to
be a heavy burden on our constituents in the
whole state. Not as much in New York City,
but from Westchester up. It's double-digit
increases. Families are having to choose
between owning their home or approving school
budgets and paying school property taxes.
And I believe -- not relevant
5417
today, but coming down the road -- that may be
the next constitutional lawsuit, about our
flawed real property tax system to pay for
education.
Do you know that some localities
have 85 percent of their tax roll value off
the rolls, that 15 percent of it is shifted to
all the homeowners and small businesses? Do
you know that one-third of all the land in the
State of New York is tax-exempt? And that
continually, that big rock, gets shifted to
our constituents.
So I ask you to keep that in mind,
as we go down this road of education, how
we're going to pay for it. And I thank you
all for doing your best efforts in trying to
get this CFE decision done.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
5418
you.
I would like to be able to say that
I'm in support of the bill, but I cannot and
would not. There are eight days left until
the CFE compliance deadline is reached. For
the record, the Court of Appeals handed down
the CFE decision on June 26, 2003. Thirteen
months later, we are no closer to compliance
than we were.
I have heard us being applauded for
putting $6.22 billion into this plan for
New York City. But the questions that need to
be answered to me are: How much of this 6.22
includes the $3 billion that can be borrowed
by New York City? How much of this is the
federal portion that would be allocated to the
CFE? And how much is the New York City tax
increase? What is going to be their debt?
When you answer these questions, or
if you can't answer these questions, then the
question has to be where is New York State's
portion in this budget. What is New York
State's new money that it's going to allocate?
And where is the 2004-2005 allocation for this
plan?
5419
The courts are not going to accept
what we have proposed. Therefore, I will be
voting no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
I want to congratulate Senator
Bruno, Senator Saland, and certainly the
Governor for so much of the reform language
which is in the bill that we are passing
today.
Number one, in terms of reform,
we've seen, unfortunately, in certain school
districts on Long Island, and perhaps in other
parts of the state, that money was improperly
and illegally spent and it did not go towards
educating the children in those districts.
And I believe the reform language will help
avoid that type of a situation in the future.
My understanding of the court
decision is that the court did not say how CFE
had to be funded, that it could be the state,
it could be the city, it could be a
combination of factors in funding that type
of -- that decision.
5420
But what's significant to me is
under Senator Bruno's leadership, Senator
Saland's, the dialogue has changed from just
funding the needs of the CFE decision to a
recognition that there are high-needs
districts on Long Island, that there are
high-needs districts upstate, especially in
many of the rural communities. And that
dialogue has been changed to make sure that,
through this legislation, that those needs are
taken care of.
But also there is an understanding
that there are many school districts
throughout this state that year after year
after year the residents of those school
districts have made major investments in those
school districts, are paying high taxes, and
they should not be penalized for what they've
done generation upon generation; in my home
community, my grandfather, my parents and now
me, in giving our kids a quality education.
No Robin Hood approach, as Senator
Bonacic mentioned. And we should not start
diminishing the education in so many of those
school districts by taking the money away.
5421
It's a recognition that every
school district has particular needs, whether
it's high needs, whether it's high taxes. And
I believe that this legislation should be
supported by all in this chamber and we should
get this behind us, pass a budget, take care
of the needs of the children of the city of
New York but also the children in the entire
state of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is a very, very emotional
issue and one of those issues which drives
wedges between upstaters and downstaters,
between rural, urban and suburban districts,
and has no simple solutions. And I have great
respect for those who have worked so
diligently trying to come up with some answers
in this house.
Sadly, the other chamber has been
led by an individual who seems to prefer
having a court decision that would perhaps
cripple us financially in the state by having
a dollar figure imposed that would wreak
5422
havoc, even further havoc on our budget.
And it behooves us to remember that
we are here today as a special session called
by the Governor of this state, who,
recognizing the need for leadership under this
issue, brought us back here, presented us with
a proposal that would seek to address this
situation that we refer to as the CFE case,
the Campaign for Fiscal Equity.
People of the City of Syracuse are
now contemplating a lawsuit for the city
schools in Syracuse, New York, having watched
what's happened in New York City and felt that
they have been treated differently. They are
looking for a solution that would provide the
kind of dollars that would drive more
assistance into the city schools.
Out in little places like
Brookfield, a tiny school district with,
unfortunately, some very low test scores, they
too would like to see some additional dollars.
But they have not felt that they have been
part of this discussion in the past.
But today we have in front of us a
bill -- even though many of us have not had a
5423
chance to study it in the detail that Senator
Saland has, we have a measure in front of us
that would be a reasonable first step to
provide the kind of equity to the school
districts across the state. And it has within
it some significant reform and accountability
requirements for the New York City school
district, which has over and over again
demonstrated a lack of accountability and some
well-documented cases of actual corruption.
Nobody likes the idea of requiring
gambling dollars be raised in order to fund
education. I understand how Senator Bruno
felt during that first debate on the lottery.
I have voted against increased revenue through
gambling a number of times in my tenure here.
But it is much worse for us to shift that
burden on the already beleaguered property tax
bases, be they New York City, Syracuse, or
little old Brookfield in Madison County.
I therefore am willing to support
this measure out of the respect for the
Governor, who showed the leadership we needed
to bring us back here; out of respect for the
process in this chamber, which tries again and
5424
again to find the most equitable ways to help
the people in all parts of the state; and most
of all out of respect for the children, the
future of this state, who now already receive
the highest per-capita expenditure of any
students in the nation at $11,000 per year and
would receive even more and an enhanced level
of education if we pass this measure.
I call upon my colleagues to
recognize that the leadership of this chamber
and the Governor is the only way that we will
reach an equitable solution to CFE, and we
should not allow the courts to dictate what
the Legislature's prerogative.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
If in January you would have said
to me that we would have on this floor a
proposal that spent almost $10 billion in
state aid and almost another billion dollars
in real property tax relief, I would have
looked at you with a doubtful eye.
5425
If you had said to me that we were
going to have on this floor a bill that dealt
with multiple years in terms of state aid, I
would have again been doubtful, since the
process of state aid has been an annualized
process. We deal with state aid one year at a
time.
But as I have said on this floor
before, people -- Senator Saland, Senator
Bruno other members -- have been working for
the better part of a year -- Senator
Hassell-Thompson -- the better part of a year
to put this bill on the floor, working with
the Governor, working again in a very
collective spirit to try and meet the court
mandate.
And I think we have done that.
We've talked -- had debates that it is not
only the money, but the courts talk about and
talked about the capital piece, the school
buildings that children must learn in, the
teachers that teach the students, the class
sizes. This legislation deals with that, puts
the dollars into dealing with that.
Many of us have spoken about moving
5426
towards using the greater resources, the
broad-based taxes of the state, and moving
away from the real property taxes. Senator
Bonacic talked about that. Well, this
proposal does just that. We add, on top of
the $2.7 billion that we are spending in STAR
monies, another billion dollars. We are, on
top of the $15 billion that Senator Bruno
talked about, we're adding another
$10 billion.
That is a tremendous commitment to
education. That's a tremendous commitment and
a sea change to the taxpayers of this state in
how we pay for those educational services.
We do have just but a few days left
to ensure that the Legislature and the
Executive come together and enact a plan. And
I am sure that today's efforts will help be a
catalyst towards bringing the parties together
in these last few days, so that we will have
not allowed all the time and the effort -- and
I will tell you again, a lot of staff time
that has gone into this proposal, that will
not be left behind.
So, Senator Bruno, Senator Saland,
5427
you really are to be commended for this
proposal. It is an enormous proposal with the
accountability pieces and the tax pieces, and
it all comes together in such a wonderful way.
So I would hope that those
individuals who think that this is not the
perfect solution, just remember, as Senator
Bruno said -- and it needs repeating -- this
proposal spends money now. And it means that
we could get on with the business of educating
those students in the high-needs districts and
students across this state now without going
through a litigious process and delay the
expenditure of this money until a year or two
or three or four ahead.
So I ask my colleagues to support
this.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: On the bill,
Mr. President.
I've read the court decision and
many of the reports issued by the Campaign for
Fiscal Equity. The court said that we have to
provide a sound, basic education. Does this
5428
legislation do that? I don't think so. And
I'll tell you, we heard some good things. But
there are some things, some major flaws that
are lacking. And I don't believe this
legislation responds to the mandate of the
court.
What is lacking, for one thing,
Senator Skelos discussed the problems in a
suburban school district of high taxes in
high-tax districts. This bill does not
provide a regional cost factor, which I think
is essential. It obviously costs more to
educate a child in the City of New York or in
Rockville Centre than it does in upstate
New York. It obviously costs more.
Secondly, this legislation does not
respond to the issue that it's the needs of
the child that we are concerned with. Where a
child lives should not determine the kind of
education that the child receives. A child
born in Syracuse should receive the same kind
of education as a child who lives in Montauk
or Shelter Island or any of the school
districts in New York State.
Thirdly, there is no simplification
5429
of the formula that is so essential. Our
current formula has 50 or 60 components and
transparency, ability to understand the famous
formula, as it's called. That I think should
be part of any legislation that we pass.
This is not a statewide bill. I am
as concerned about the children in my Senate
district as I am about the children upstate.
And there are areas of upstate that have
children who also are entitled to a sound,
basic education. And I don't think this
legislation responds to that either.
The New York State Constitution, in
Article 11, says that the Legislature shall
provide for a system of free common schools
wherein all of the children of the state may
be educated. It doesn't say that the
court-appointed master has this job.
And if New Jersey is any
indication, I agree with Senator Bruno, this
is going to go on and on and on. And I am
willing to bet -- the only bet that I'm
willing to undertake is that it's not going to
be two or three years. My guess is that it's
going to drag on even longer.
5430
And I think that's the sad part of
this bill, that the children will continue to
receive an inferior education and not receive
what the court has mandated as a basic right,
the same kind of right that is needed by a
child in my district or in anybody else's
district.
And for that reason, Mr. President,
I think this is a mistake and I will vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Liz Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
Well, Senator Bruno was right, it
was one of his better monologues. He made a
very good monologue. Unfortunately, with all
due respect to Senator Bruno, he wasn't just
wrong once when he voted against the lottery;
he's wrong today to support this bill.
This bill doesn't answer the
questions that each of you in your statements
today imply that it does. There's no funding
formulas in this bill. So in fact, when
Senator Hoffmann talks about poor Brookfield
and Syracuse, I hope Senator Hoffmann knows
5431
that there's no new money for education for
Syracuse or poor Brookfield in this bill. And
so if she believes they might be going to
court, I think she might be right.
Utica apparently filed a lawsuit
today. Other areas of the state will continue
to file lawsuits as we leave today, because
this bill not only will not become law but
shouldn't become law, because it doesn't
address the problems.
And there was a lot of discussion,
and I respect Senator Saland's analysis of the
numbers. But what he didn't say in his
presentation was the total dollars that this
bill offers between now and 2008 and 2009 is
technically no more than the dollars that we
would have adding to education under our
existing plans at a basis of we've been, since
George E. Pataki has been governor, growing
education funding annually by 7.1 percent.
This bill would increase it to an
annual growth rate of about 8 percent, except
now we're factoring in federal dollars and
local maintenance of effort dollars,
particularly heavily laid as a burden on the
5432
City of New York in the increased numbers
here.
So we're not increasing education
funding in this bill beyond where we would
reasonably expect to be by 2009 if we did
nothing to address our funding formulas. But
in fact, the court's told us that in fact we
don't have fair funding formulas, and this
bill doesn't even go near the question of
funding formulas.
And in fact, Senator Bruno and
several other members here talked about that
we have an incredibly high average rate of
education spending per student in this
state -- over $11,500 per year was the number
I believe I heard.
The problem with averages is that's
what they are. So we have communities in this
state that are spending $6,000 per student,
and we have communities in this state that are
spending over $16,000 per student. That's why
you can get to an average of $11,500, or an
approximate number therein.
That doesn't address the inequities
in education funding throughout this state,
5433
not just for the City of New York but for
high-needs areas, as Senator Skelos said, all
over the state. We flunk the test for the
City of New York in this bill, and we flunk
the test for other communities that are
high-needs that we are also wrongly, unfairly
funding in this legislation, because we don't
even address funding formulas.
I would argue there's not one
Senator in this house who could actually say
what they think this bill will mean in dollars
for their school districts between now and
2008-2009.
I heard that the City of New York
would get a billion more, but again, they have
to match it with another billion of their own
maintenance of effort in order to get that
billion. And we're again assuming federal
dollars that frankly may or may not ever come,
depending on, I suppose, who's controlling
Congress and the White House over the next
four years.
We also mislead ourselves and the
public if we don't think through the question
of the VLT money. I heard Senator Bruno's
5434
argument about the ethical dilemmas of
deciding to support gambling in order to get a
win for education. I have that same ethical
dilemma about gambling. And I appreciate and
recognize his arguments that everyone else is
doing it, and so if we are not, at what cost
to ourselves in comparison to other states.
I would be more comfortable with my
ethical dilemma over expanding gambling if
that money actually went to increased funding
for education. But this bill doesn't do that.
In fact, since we would have been at
approximately $19 billion of state money for
education by 2008-2009 if we never saw this
bill, and we get there with this bill with the
assumption of $2 billion of VLT money, what
this bill actually does is say, yes, New York
State, expand gambling and then take
$2 billion of what you otherwise would have
been putting into education from your General
Fund and supplant that with VLT money.
So to go down the road that for, I
think, many of us is an ethical dilemma of
expanding gambling, to actually see no new
dollars for education but actually a
5435
replacement of gambling dollars for other
General Fund dollars, I think raises a very
different question than the way it was
presented to us on the floor.
In fact, I would argue that I could
be more comfortable with VLT money being
factored into education money if we had some
kind of expanded maintenance-of-effort concept
for the tax dollars, that you can't decrease
what your otherwise normal, natural growth
rate in education dollars would be if you have
revenue from gambling. The revenue from
gambling would actually have to be above and
beyond what your normal, expected, natural
growth rate of education dollars would be.
But that's not in this bill.
So not only are we not actually
putting more money into education with this
bill, we're technically cutting ourselves a
$2 billion break at the expense of expanding
gambling in the State of New York. Which, as
Senator Padavan has pointed out over and over
on the floor of this house, has very high
costs in its own right to make the decision to
expand gambling.
5436
So to make that decision and to
allow that to happen when we in fact get no
dollar win for education I think should give
us all pause.
Senator Bonacic made some very
interesting points. And I often agree with
Senator Bonacic. I will just clarify, there
is no tax rebate in this bill. I believe
that's another bill we're going to address
later on today. And I'm opposed to that bill,
so I'll address that later. But that was not
part of this bill.
But he did talk about the problems
of the fact that our taxes are so high and yet
we don't collect taxes. And it's been an
issue of his, for as long I've been in the
Senate, that we don't have property taxes on a
significant portion of the land of the state.
And he argues that that transfers costs to
other property owners when some property
owners don't pay taxes and therefore others
have to pay more.
Well, I would argue he is right,
but it's a much bigger problem than he's
describing. And it in fact goes to the crux
5437
of the question Senator Bruno raised: how are
we going to pay for this?
Well, we have billions of dollars
of tax expenditures in our state budget every
year we never look at, we never evaluate, we
never analyze. We have over $20 billion per
year of tax expenditures, meaning people who
get special exemptions from not paying their
taxes or get tax credits or get tax rebates.
And that's not even counting your property tax
concerns, Senator Bonacic.
But if we want to pay for education
and we prioritize it as high as I think
everyone here in this room would argue we do,
that we make it our number-one priority, then
we would be obligated to be asking the
question why are we giving away another
$20 billion a year from the budget by not
collecting taxes from subspecialty populations
in the State of New York, special interests,
special industries.
Maybe some of those tax credits and
exemptions are valuable and justified and
worth it and even a higher priority in their
own right than education. But surely
5438
$20 billion of them are not. Surely
$20 billion of tax expenditures are not higher
priorities to the State of New York than fair
funding for education, for our schools. But
we did not address it at all since the CFE
lawsuit even went to court, better yet got
resolved by the courts and we were ordered to
do something.
In addition, we don't do anything
because we don't have new funding formulas
here to try to equalize the funding formulas
and address the concerns of the court. Which
is why my colleagues Senator Hassell-Thompson
and Senator Stavisky are right, the courts
will not accept this. We don't meet the
standard of what they told us we need to be
doing to address this.
And, finally, Senator Skelos and I
believe someone else mentioned that at least
this bill, even if it doesn't put new money
into education, even if it doesn't have
funding formulas, even if it gives us more
gambling, at least we avoid the Robin Hood
problem of taking away from some districts and
giving to others.
5439
Well, I would argue we have a Robin
Hood problem in this state. And we have a
Robin Hood problem when it comes to the City
of New York and in fact Long Island, where
both of those areas give significantly more to
the State of New York than they get back from
the State of New York.
And in fact, New York City is the
basis for the CFE lawsuit, so we have
underfunded our New York City school system
for decades, at the same time as New York City
has been the Robin Hood, moving revenue from
the City of New York to the State of New York.
Mayor Bloomberg commissioned a
study that was released two weeks ago,
"Balance of Revenue and Expenditure Among New
York State Regions: Analyzing the fiscal
years '97-'98 through 2000-2001." It didn't
get a lot of press attention. So I just want
to reference that this study found that
New York City, on average per year, sends
between $7 billion and $11 billion more to the
State of New York than the City of New York
gets back.
New York City is the Robin Hood to
5440
the rest of the state of New York. And yet
we're still trying to fight for even a
reasonable discussion about what education
funding formulas ought to be this late in the
game. We clearly are not accomplishing the
intentions of the court or the people in this
bill, since we don't provide additional money
beyond basically what normal growth rates that
would naturally happen each year would get us
to by 2008-2009.
We do expand gambling. We don't
address the problems of the rest of the
underserved communities in this state. And I
appreciate several legislators raising that
point. You should be raising that point. I
would argue there's no State Senator here that
doesn't have some underserved community or
some underserved school district in their
area. Please don't have the illusion your
problem is solved by this bill. No one's
problems are resolved by this bill.
We need to go back to the table --
no disrespect to all the work that was put
into this by so many people over the last
year, as Senator LaValle said. But we didn't
5441
pass the test. If we were students, we would
be getting an "F" for this assignment. We
need to go back, improve our grades, and meet
our obligations to the people of the entire
State of New York.
I hope that everyone will vote no
on this bill today.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Whew. It's been
a long haul. Thank you, Mr. President.
You know, we've been at this for
about an hour and ten minutes now. And the
one thing that bothers me is I hear from the
other side "New York City, New York City" and
then, all of a sudden, in a twinkle of their
eye, they talk about "Oh, the rest of the
state."
Senator Hassell-Thompson said, you
know, "I can't vote for this, this started in
2003." I disagree with you. It really
started in 2001 for us, when the Governor
authorized the casinos and the VLTs in
October 2001. And trying to get an agreement
5442
here, maybe everybody ought to read the New
York Times today, and the Times Union, that
talks about the uncomfortable position we put
ourself in.
We're talking about money. Forget
all of the rest of this. This is about money.
Your commissioner in the city, Mr. Klein, came
up and said "We need $30 billion." I came
back from a conference last weekend, and they
said what bowl glass he's looking at,
$30 billion for New York City. If we gave
30 billion, they'd be at Bruno's door pounding
on it saying, "We want 10 more."
We talk about the children. We're
not worried about the children, not in my
opinion, from the debate I'm hearing here.
We're worried about money into New York City.
The Majority Leader has worked on
this for many, many months. Saland's worked
untirelessly. Our staffs have. We need to
stop petty-footing around with ourselves and
trying to make ourself look good back home.
And what we ought to be doing is
talking about how do we divert this money
directly to the schools. It's there. There's
5443
a five-year plan. You know, I don't know
about the rest of you, but when I go out and
shop and I want to buy something, there's a
problem. If I don't have it here, I can't buy
it.
And we talk about we don't want the
VLTs, we don't want the VLTs. You tell me
where you're going to get the money for this.
The people in my district are taxed out of
their wits. We're going to lose seniors. But
yet we talk about accountability in this bill,
which is a very, very important issue. I
don't hear anybody talking about we have to do
a little bit better on accountability.
Now, we have needs. Right? I
didn't hear anybody over there say how you're
going to pay for those needs. Nobody. I
wanted to ask Senator Krueger, but she's gone.
But she -- oh, there, she's -- she moved.
I'll catch her later.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LARKIN: But the point
here is, why do we make a fool of ourselves?
I heard someone here say that your
side of the aisle is going to vote no, party
5444
vote no. Well, you know what? I'll go to
your districts, I'll go to your district and
I'll hold the bill up and say: You see this?
This would have fixed your school district, it
would have paid for your teachers, it would
have taken care of your administration, but
your Senator and your Assembly member said no.
That's a shame. What you've done
to the children of the state of New York here
is said politics is more important than
addressing the issue. The issue is, how do we
pay for this?
And I hear people talk about the
court, the court. I'm not a lawyer, but I had
a couple of constitutional lawyers look at it.
And what did they say? They said a quality
education. It didn't say $5 billion,
$10 billion, $15 billion. It said a quality
education. Whatever it costs. But that's not
what we're talking about over here. We're
talking over here is money, money, money.
You know, politics, I was told a
long time ago, is the art of compromise -- not
compromise to failure, but compromise to come
up with a product that represents the needs of
5445
our people. What we're doing here today is
destroying the credibility, if we have any
left.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I -- after listening to this debate and at the
end of this week, I think that what we should
engage in for the future is a new program
called "responsibility in government." If
you're a Court of Appeals, you can't ask
questions without providing some kind of
answers. You can't say fund basic, sound
education but actually give no road map as to
what would be constitutional. I mean, if
you're going to weigh in, you might as well
weigh in all the way.
In addition to which, if you're
going to vote against the plan that's coming
before this Legislature to meet the needs of
the court case, then you got to have your own
plan. You got to come up with your own
numbers. You got to come up with a way to
fund it.
Because what's happening here,
5446
we're in an echo chamber. They have thrown
out all these mandates, the court. We have
responded, but there's nothing coming back.
You can't have a compromise, you can't have an
agreement that way.
And we get nothing from the other
side, just platitudes. We'll fund it some
way; something will come up. But, you know,
we don't really have a number, we don't really
have a way to fund it. Oh, and by the way,
we're going to ask for more.
That's not responsible at all. And
lest we think it's the voters who are at risk
because of our seats, it's not. It's the
children, not just of New York City but of the
state of New York. They're the pawns in this.
I know it's politically difficult
to put your name to a measure, to take a
stand, to say, yes, I believe in this number
because it at least -- it may not be the
perfect solution, but it is a solution. I
know that that's hard to do. Because in this
business, it's not what you come up with as a
solution, it's the mistakes you make along the
way that your opponents can take and throw at
5447
you, that the editorial boards can say you're
wrong about. That's how we do business in
this state, and it's wrong.
This is a movement, this plan is a
movement in the direction of solving the
problem. If you don't like the bill, we need
your answer. Because it's not a political
thing, it is a responsible thing. How would
you pay for it? How many years would it be?
What's your total number? Give us those
answers.
Because if you don't, then join
with us, do this measure with us, because at
least it's the start of a dialogue. And
that's what we've been missing so much in this
state this year.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Parker.
SENATOR PARKER: Mr. President,
on the bill.
I'm very interested in having this
dialogue, as Senator Balboni has invited us to
be engaged in. However, if we're going to
have dialogue, it must be premised on proper,
5448
accurate history. So we begin, you know, in
the beginning. We can talk about how much
money we spend overall, we can talk about, you
know, where money is being spent upstate and
Long Island and New York City. But the
reality is New York City schools for a long
time have been underfunded.
And when it was brought to members
of the Legislature, when it was brought to the
Governor -- to several governors, not just the
current governor -- they were unwilling to
change it.
So here as we stand in this
extraordinary session and we start to applaud
the Governor for finally coming up with a
bill, the Governor could have taken care of
this for a long time ago without us having to
go to court, without us having to call an
extraordinary session in 2003 [sic], in July,
when he could have taken care of this,
technically, the first year he came into
office.
He could have settled the lawsuit
and said, You know what, we don't need to go
forward with the lawsuit that was actually
5449
being engaged then. And we could have, you
know, fixed the formula, given more money to
New York City, given more money to other
school districts that needed it.
And in fact, in the first year of
Governor Pataki's administration, he actually
cut education. I mean, you know, I wasn't
here, but -- you know, I wasn't here in the
Legislature, but I was working in government
then. And if you go back, you'll see.
And as a matter of fact, we have a
governor who's been one of the most
anti-education governors in the history of
this state. And in fact, last year we stood
together overturning 119 vetoes exactly
because the governor was going to zero out
universal prekindergarten. Anybody forget
that? It was just last year. I mean, so I'm
not overly impressed that finally he's saying
that we need to do this, you know, in July of
2003.
We're here because we had to go to
court and say we're not getting enough. We
had to win. And then, even after we won, the
Governor didn't say, you know what, my bad --
5450
let me take care of this right now. I over --
you know, I must not have seen it, I must not
have looked at it correctly. You know, let me
deal with this right now, because this is
important for all of the children of New York
City, and the children of New York City
deserve no less of an education than any other
child in the state of New York.
But instead, he spent another
$11 million, appealed the case -- appealed the
case. When Judge Lerner decided the case, he
says, and the Governor agreed with him, that
all we are bound to provide in the State of
New York is an eighth-grade education. I
wonder if the Governor has anybody on his
staff with only an eighth-grade education. I
wonder if any of us would, you know, as we're
going through resumes, say, "Oh, only an
eighth-grade education? You know, that's good
enough." Maybe just on the budget staff.
But when we look at the history of
this problem, this didn't just start now.
We've tried every angle not to have a judicial
solution but a legislative solution or an
exclusive solution to this problem. So then,
5451
after finally it goes to the Court of Appeals
and CFE wins, now all of a sudden it's like,
you know, okay, you're forced into doing it.
And my colleagues who stand up here
day after day and talk about law and order,
who talk about following the laws of the State
of New York, the same folks that sit in
committee meetings and talk about how we in
fact need to raise penalties in order to, you
know, have people apply to the laws, are now
telling me when the court gives an order, a
mandate, that in fact we shouldn't follow that
mandate in terms of dealing with this before
July 30th, but instead we should come up with
gimmicks and schemes.
And I think that what's before us
now is a gimmick and a scheme. It's
insincere. It doesn't deal with what the
court decision asked us to deal with, which
was to add more money.
And to be quite honest with you, I
am not satisfied -- and let me be on the
record, I am not satisfied with simply dealing
with the issues of the children of the State
of New York. That in fact I agree with you,
5452
there are high-needs districts all over the
state, in Buffalo, in Rochester, in Syracuse,
in Binghamton, in Yonkers, out in Long Island,
both in Suffolk and in Nassau. And we in fact
ought to be talking about how do we in fact
add more money to all of those school
districts. And I think we're going to have
that dialogue.
And when we're talking about a
$100 billion budget, the issue is not really
where you get the money from. Everybody's
saying, well, where do we get the money. The
money is in the $100 billion. We have the
third largest budget in the country -- the
federal government's budget, the state of
California, and the state of New York. Out of
a $100 billion budget, you're telling me you
can't find another, you know, billion dollars,
$2 billion, in $100 billion?
So just in case people were
confused about whether there's a plan --
because I've heard some of my colleagues get
up and say, Well, where are the numbers,
where's the plan, and where's the money going
to come from? -- this conference put together
5453
a plan before April 1st that would have dealt
with CFE, that would have added another close
to a billion dollars -- another billion
dollars for education this year, and at the
same time spent no more money than the
Governor had proposed.
And not only did we put it forward
in the context of a plan, but we actually put
legislation on this floor in the form of an
amendment that my colleagues voted down. So
not only was there a plan that detailed where
the money was going to come from, but we put
it forward in legislation, we called it for a
vote, and we were told that that plan wasn't
good enough. And that was a real plan.
So if people want to -- you know,
if anybody is interested in getting a copy of
the plan, I'm sure that Senator Paterson has a
few lying around, we'll get some copies made
and we'll distribute it again so that we can
re-see it, you know, and revisit that plan and
maybe, you know, we can come up with a real
vote.
But certainly that plan added
enough money that we could deal with this
5454
issue over time. This is not a matter of just
taking care of New York, this is a matter of
what we all care about. It is a quality
education for every single child in this
state.
And in fact, if we don't in fact
care about that, then we'll continue to come
up with schemes and plans that are change
without difference and continue to have, you
know, a lot of rhetoric without any real --
without any real decision-making.
I'm really not trying to assign
blame. I'm not interested in assigning blame
or saying, you know, who's responsible for it.
We're here at this point now. Let's create a
legislative -- we have, you know, roughly
eight or nine days left before the courts come
in. Let's commit to stay here and deal with
this, pass a bill that really adds money. And
we can talk about where the money goes. We
can discuss about the school districts that
need to get it.
I think, you know, when you start
talking about adding an additional billion
dollars to a budget, there's room to share.
5455
And so let's talk about what Binghamton needs,
let's talk about what Yonkers needs, let's
talk about what they need in Suffolk and
Nassau, let's talk about what they need in
Buffalo.
But let's decide that we're going
to help children of the state of New York,
that we're not going to just continue to come
up with proposals that we know are not going
to pass, with one-house bills that no one is
going to consider. And let's just really give
a real fair-handed approach and a sincere
attempt to resolve our differences on this
issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
We've heard a lot here today. And
I think it's important that we take a hard
look at some of the background information
that led us to this.
When I came into this chamber in
1995 in a special election, there was a
$5 billion deficit, $5 billion deficit
5456
inherited by the Pataki administration from
the prior administration. That had to be
dealt with. It took us a couple of years to
get out from under that deficit.
By 1997 -- and if you look at the
record, the facts are clear. Since 1997, this
Legislature, led by this house and this
Majority, led by Senator Bruno, and the
Governor, have added record increases in aid
to education. Record increases in aid to
education for every district in the State of
New York. Fifty percent of that money went to
the City of New York. That's fact. You can
look it up.
So we have been addressing problems
created by prior administrations. Again, I'm
not trying to point fingers. The facts are
clear. Go look them up. Go look them up.
But what we have now, through CFE
and the lawsuits that are coming, there are
lawsuits on Long Island in the works, there
are lawsuits upstate in the works, some being
filed -- is the balkanization of the state of
New York.
That is a mistake when it comes to
5457
education. That's a mistake when it comes to
anything. We should never, never pick one
part of the state and their interests against
another part of this state. We are elected
here to represent, yes, our districts, but we
are elected here to represent all of the
constituents, all of the people of the State
of New York, and we have to think like that.
This bill thinks like that. This
bill is a statewide approach. It is not
limited to any one area. It provides and it
affords accountability. It gives support to
at-risk and high-needs districts throughout
the state -- yes, including the City of
New York. Yes, including Long Island.
That was not the court decision.
If this case goes to the courts, the courts
will only look at the City of New York. And
that bill will be paid for by the rest of the
state. That's the way it will be.
There is a maintenance of effort in
this legislation. The city will be required
to step up to the plate and add money to
education. I taught in the City of New York
for twenty years. I understand their
5458
problems. I've been in their schools. I know
the issues. I also served on a Long Island
school board. I know suburban issues. I
understand their problems too.
You can't rob from Peter to pay
Paul. We have to take a statewide approach.
This bill does that. We changed the dynamic
in this state and in the conversation about
this. Senator Skelos pointed that out once
before. The conversation shifted from just
the city to all high-risk and high-needs
districts in the state. That's where it
should be. We should be looking about the
education of all of our children, all of our
children, not just one area, not just one
segment. And we should be looking at a way to
pay for it.
The Assembly measure is a statewide
measure as well, but it doesn't pay for it.
There is no funding mechanism there, and
that's a mistake. There has to be a funding
mechanism.
VLTs, I don't like them. I don't
like gambling to pay for education. I don't
think that's the way to go. But you show me
5459
an alternative. Show me an alternative. The
Assembly's approach, the economy will grow.
The economy will grow, and we'll pay for it
out of increased revenues. It's as if they
never heard of the business cycle. We've just
come out of a recession, for heaven's sakes.
We want to go back into one?
You can't keep adding on costs
without paying for it. We need to have a
funding system. This bill approaches that.
Is it perfection? No. I don't know of any
bill, and I've passed a few in this house,
that have become law that are perfect.
Nothing is perfect. Only the Almighty can do
that. I don't pretend to be that.
But I do believe we need to take
this approach and move ahead in a positive
direction, pass a budget for all the citizens
of this state, and let's go forward and do the
people's business. This bill is a good step
in that direction. It deserves to be passed.
Senator Bruno is to be
congratulated. Senator Saland, who has done
yeoman's work with his people,
congratulations. Let's move forward. I
5460
intend to vote aye, and I urge all my
colleagues to do the same.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I certainly can identify with
Senator Marcellino's "Show me the money."
I want to also join my colleagues
in thanking the staff and Senator Bruno's, the
Majority Leader's staff for their work on this
legislation. And as I look through the memo,
the sponsor's memo, I see that our
legislation -- I tried to read as much as I
could, but the memo sort of makes it concise
and readable to me -- that there is a lot in
this legislation that I certainly can feel
that I'm appreciative that the staff has taken
so much time to deal with, especially around
the whole question of accountability.
They have tried to talk about what
do we do with poor-performing schools, what do
we do to improve schools, what happens when
schools are not improved. And that speaks to
the children. I think that's what we want to
5461
keep in front of us and we should be concerned
about. The bill deals with educational and
fiscal accountability, and I think that's
good.
I see that the bill also has a
whole section where we are changing the
structure of some of the local school boards.
For instance, I believe the bill gives the
mayor of Albany a seat on the local school
board here in Albany. I don't know if the --
I have not heard from people in Albany that
that's what they want, but it's in the bill.
They should know that. There's mayoral
appointments being added to school boards in
Buffalo and Rochester and Syracuse. Maybe
that's what they want; I don't know. But it
certainly is in the bill. And it goes on and
on.
The bill talks about a requirement
for the Governor and the leaders to receive a
report annually on the financial and fiscal
operations of the local school districts. I
think that's good. We need to know what
happens. There needs to be fiscal
accountability in every school district. And
5462
it goes on and on.
It also creates, interestingly
enough, something that is referred to as a
"National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards certification achievement grants."
What that is, I have no idea. But this is a
little more program, another little program,
and some more money. We're giving it to
teachers, granted. But we -- I don't know how
those decisions get made which teachers.
We also set up a New York State
Teacher of the Year Award fund, and that's
$10,000 for the most outstanding teacher in
the state for that year. Sounds to me like a
political program. But that's in here, so be
it.
And the bill also deals with
teacher certification and standards and that
sort of thing.
So I appreciate all of that.
That's what we need to be talking about. I
believe that some of this is an answer to what
the Board of Regents has been requesting and
requiring and trying to do to improve schools
in our state for some years. So it's now been
5463
codified in this legislation. And to some
extent, we're very happy.
But the problem is, I think, that
the court case came out of what we refer to as
the Campaign for Fiscal Equity. Which means
that in order to bring equity to every student
in our district as it relates to education
funding, we have to change the formula. We
must do what the court has ordered us to do.
The court did not order us to do all of this
without and unless we also change the way that
we fund education in the State of New York.
It has finally been declared that it is
inequitable and unconstitutional.
So what we've done is we've tried
to talk about every other aspect of education,
except we haven't dealt with what the judge
and the court clearly decided for the State of
New York. We are unconstitutional in the way
that we fund our schools. So as long as we
continue and put a little more money on top of
a little more money, or put a little more
money on top of less money, or put money here
and take it away from there, as it looks like
we're doing now with the VLTs, we do it with
5464
the lottery -- everybody wants to know from
me, my constituents, Where is the lottery
money? And what I tell them is it's there,
but whatever is there, that same amount has
been taken away to use for something else. So
it adds up sum zero.
So we're just playing the same game
that we always play. We are not really and
truly addressing the court decision with this
legislation. We are simply talking about
every other thing that comes to mind. We all
agree on these things, for the most part. But
what we can't agree on, because it's painful,
but we must do it because that's what the
court has ordered us to do, Mr. President, is
that we must change the way that we fund
education in the State of New York.
It is inequitable. And as long as
it is based on property tax payments, where
wealthy districts spend more money and
districts that are not wealthy all over the
state -- rural, urban, wherever they are -- if
they are not able to fund their districts
based on the lack of a property tax base which
allows them to do that, we are
5465
unconstitutional in the way that we fund
education.
So while I agree with a lot that's
in this bill, it certainly is not the answer
to the CFE, Campaign for Fiscal Equity ruling
by the courts. And I will be voting no on
this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, since the day that
the CFE decision was announced, I have walked
around with my attache case with a copy of the
decision, which I have read some six or seven
times. And let me assure anybody who believes
that the court ruled that the funding formula
is unconstitutional, that you are absolutely,
totally 100 percent incorrect. Nowhere,
noplace, nohow did the Court of Appeals say
that the funding formulas were
unconstitutional.
Now, during the course of the
Senate finance hearings, the executive
director of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity
5466
said the very same thing. He said the court
ruled it unconstitutional. And he and I
engaged in a little bit of a colloquy and
dialogue, and as a result of that he
acknowledged or admitted that the trial court
said it was unconstitutional, but the Court of
Appeals -- and both he and I are lawyers --
did not.
In fact, the Court of Appeals said
they may be cumbersome, they may not be
transparent enough, but they didn't say it was
unconstitutional. All the Court of Appeals
said was -- and it's a rather large "all" --
the state has failed to abide by its
constitutional obligation to provide a sound,
basic education. Words you won't find in the
State Constitution, words that were given us
by a prior Court of Appeals in the Levittown
decision of some twenty-plus years ago.
Nowhere, nohow, noplace. That's it. Period,
the end.
I heard some talk a bit earlier
about the fact that in a $100 billion budget,
it would be relatively easy to find $1 billion
or $2 billion. Let's try and be honest. That
5467
$100 billion isn't all state money.
Thirty-five or so billion of it is federal
money. We have no control over that. How
much of that money is off-budget, another 15
to 20? There's $42 billion left.
Of that $42 billion, we're already
spending $29 billion for education and
Medicaid. Now, is there anybody here who's
proposing on that side of the aisle to find a
billion or two in Medicaid? I don't think so.
That leaves another $12 billion or
$13 billion, perhaps. Find me $2 billion
worth of cuts in that $12 billion or
$13 billion, and then we'll be able to talk.
Talk about rhetoric.
Now, the bottom line is the court
dealt and dealt only with the City of
New York. If in fact Senator Bruno and this
conference did not advance a bill some four or
five weeks ago, we'd still be shooting at each
other with press releases.
The Assembly is not interested in
resolving this issue. They want to keep the
issue. It behooves them to keep the issue.
We are keenly interested in
5468
resolving the issue and desperately looking
for partners with whom we can deal with the
issue.
The Court of Appeals doesn't care
where the money comes from. They were pretty
plain about that. They were clear about it.
So to say that somehow or other or imply that
somehow or other the City of New York should
not be putting up any money is ludicrous. The
court specifically said the city is a creature
of the state. Work it out with the city.
It's your problem. If you say they're not
paying enough, you fix it, State.
And that's what we're doing here.
We are requiring a maintenance of effort. A
rather modest maintenance of effort for a city
that's currently spending $5.5 billion to
$6 billion for education. We're saying an
average of maybe $200 million more a year over
the course of the next five years, some 3 to
4 percent increase. When the state is talking
in this bill, we're talking about providing
some increase in excess of a billion dollars a
year. We think that's a modest contribution
that they could make.
5469
You know, I'm astounded by some of
the math. I heard something earlier to the
effect that there is no new money for
education. Now, granted, this is not an
appropriation bill. And I'm not going to go
into the same debate that we went into last
time. This is a language bill.
This language bill has a commitment
which is the only kind of commitment we can
make. I don't care what the resolution is, I
don't care which bill it is, I don't care if
it's a three-way, I don't care if it's a
one-way, I don't care if it's a two-way. One
legislature cannot bind a subsequent
legislature. You can put language into law,
and it's always got to be subject to an
appropriation.
And what we are saying here is in
this bill we are committed to sustain a
commitment to $19.7 billion, five years out.
Subject to an appropriation. Nobody can
predict the vagaries of the economy. Nobody
can predict what will happen over the course
of this next five years. We have established
a template that we hope to be able to
5470
accomplish.
And as part and parcel of that, we
say there's going to be $2 billion for SBE,
sound, basic education monies. Now, those
sound, basic education monies, as I mentioned
earlier, combined with all of the other
revenues that would be focused on the city,
would result in the city exceeding by some
300 percent the money identified by the Zarb
Commission as being their resource gap. Zarb
said 1.9.
Now, according to my math -- and
again, I will acknowledge that this is not an
appropriation bill. But it is a language
bill. And the numbers will follow, assuming
we can come to an agreement -- we're talking
$2 billion in SBE money, building upon the
present state aid.
Again, the Court of Appeals did
not -- underscore, did not, did not, did
not -- say that the formulas were
unconstitutional. What it said was: Fix it.
Fix not the formulas. You do that, that's
okay. Fix the problem of providing the
opportunity for a sound, basic education to
5471
children in the City of New York, to schools
in the City of New York. $2 billion for that,
$2.5 billion in additional aid.
We provide, on top of that, some
$688 million in what we've termed regional
aid, regionalization. And these aren't
dollars that anybody is going to find
anywhere, these aren't dollars that you'll
find referred to in last year's budget as
being projected as the commitment for the
state for this year. These are new dollars.
Regardless of what phoney math you use, these
are proposed to be new dollars.
Lastly, when the court spoke about
the problems of New York City, it spoke in
terms of instrumentalities of learning. And
among those instrumentalities of learning
certainly they talked about the woeful state
of buildings in the City of New York.
The City of New York needs
authority if it wants to bond more. We give
them that authority, $2.8 billion worth of
authority. That's in addition to the Mayor's
proposal, I guess for some $13 billion over
five years for his capital improvement plan.
5472
And while the city will borrow that
money if this in fact becomes part of any
three-way -- if in fact there is a
three-way -- by way of building aid, the state
will provide its share, some $1.4 billion, to
the city.
So the city is a big winner. The
rest of the state is a big winner. High-needs
districts everywhere, whether it be based on
sparsity, whether it be based on poverty,
whatever measure you use -- English
proficiency -- those districts are targeted
and will be targeted. Those are the
definitions that will be used.
Is it perfect? Nothing in this
life is perfect. No one has ever voted for a
bill that was perfect. Does it respond to the
Court of Appeals? It certainly does, in every
single way. It provides the opportunity for
the sound, basic education by way of funding.
It provides for accountability.
There will be yet another
accountability measure that we will probably
entertain before whenever this session or any
other session that we may subsequently return
5473
to will in fact conclude. The accountability
is absolutely critical. Spending the money
without providing the accountability is a vain
and wasteful gesture.
So, my colleagues, this bill, in my
opinion, is a bill that works. It's a bill
certainly that this side of the aisle should
have no problem in supporting. It's a bill,
absent some of the political sentiment, the
other side of the aisle shouldn't have a
problem supporting.
Nobody is keen on VLTs. Nobody
wants to use that as a source. But the bottom
line -- again, absent an alternative -- that's
the only game in town.
And that's what is provided for in
this bill for the sound, basic education
money. Not for the $2.5 billion in new money,
not for the $688 million in regionalization
money. For the sound, basic education money.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman, just a minute.
Senator Onorato, why do you rise?
SENATOR ONORATO: I was
5474
wondering, Mr. President, if the Senator would
yield for a question.
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator, you
made mention -- everybody in this chamber so
far has been making mention about the monies
that are going to be forthcoming from the
video lottery terminals. I think we passed
the video lottery terminals in 1999.
And that first year that we passed
it, we anticipated approximately $2 billion
worth of lottery money from the video lottery
terminal money, plus another half a billion
dollars from the federal government, which was
not forthcoming. We had no video lottery
terminals in place at that particular time,
yet it was built into our budget.
We still do not have lottery
terminals down at Aqueduct or Yonkers Raceway,
which was probably the most lucrative
locations in the entire state of New York.
They're not online now, and we have doubts as
5475
to when they will actually come online.
Where are we going to get the money
when these lottery terminals do not come
online and do not produce the amount of money
that we're anticipating?
SENATOR SALAND: Let me remind
you of the lottery fund guarantee from the
General Fund. The lottery fund guarantee,
which at least three or four times in the past
10 to 15 years the state has backfilled money
when projections for lottery proceeds have not
attained the level that we anticipated.
As you know, when we do our budget,
we anticipate a certain amount from lottery
proceeds. If we don't attain that level, the
State General Fund is responsible to provide
those dollars. Once you make that SBE
commitment, once that is in law, that
mechanism effectively is going to control and
ensure that if the level of revenue -- and
again, let me say, Senator, I take no joy in
using VLTs as a basis for providing these
revenues. But if you don't attain that
revenue, then the lottery guarantee will have
to kick in.
5476
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
through you, will you yield to another
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Based upon your
current answer, prior to this you asked
Senator Parker or everybody on this side where
will we get the money to provide the --
because nobody has given any answer as to
where the money is coming from. Which is
another issue.
Now, you just stated that based on
the projections that were not forthcoming, we
did not get the money -- where did we wind up
getting that money from?
SENATOR SALAND: Let me suggest
to you that it's vastly different to talk
about skimming off $1 billion or $2 billion
than finding perhaps 200, 300, or $400 million
to make up a shortfall. There's a vast
5477
difference.
SENATOR ONORATO: But that was
not the case. We were talking about
$2 billion in budget deficits, $1.7 from the
video lottery terminals in 1999 and a half a
billion dollars from the federal government
which was not forthcoming. So that was a
$2.2 billion built-in deficit.
Where, with some smoke and mirrors,
did we find that $2 billion during a time --
SENATOR SALAND: I don't -- I
don't understand your question. I don't
understand your question.
What I'm saying is there's a
lottery guarantee. What I'm saying is, and I
think we can both agree, that regardless of
how much money VLTs will spin off, they will
spin off money.
The Governor says they will spin
off minimally $2 billion when fully engaged,
effective. If they spin off 1.5 or 1.7, the
shortfall is either 500 or 300 in the example
I gave you. That's vastly different than
having to find $1 billion or $2 billion, as
was suggested earlier.
5478
SENATOR ONORATO: Again, through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Perhaps we're
not communicating correctly.
I already stated that in 1999 we
did produce a $2.5 billion deficit in that
budget. How did we make up that $2.5 billion
shortfall?
SENATOR SALAND: Was that $2.5
billion --
SENATOR ONORATO: $2.5 billion,
not million.
SENATOR SALAND: Was that in the
lottery?
SENATOR ONORATO: $1.7 of it was,
video lottery terminals.
SENATOR SALAND: $1.7 billion?
SENATOR ONORATO: $1.7 billion
was video lottery terminal money, and a half a
5479
billion dollars from the federal government in
additional aid which was not forthcoming,
because they informed us way ahead of time
that we were not going to receive it.
SENATOR SALAND: I think you're
using an example of a full year for a year
which was not fully implemented. I don't
believe that that 1.7 reflected that '99 year.
SENATOR ONORATO: Okay. Forget
about it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, I rise in
opposition to this bill. But I want to
commend Senator Saland for the time that he
and the Majority Leader spent working on the
bill.
About 11:00 a.m. today, the
Minority conference met and we received for
the first time an outline of the Governor's
request. An outline, not the total
legislation.
I discovered an hour later when the
debate had commenced and people were speaking,
that a Republican colleague of mine stood up
5480
and said: I haven't had time to read the
entire bill. I haven't had time to read the
bill, but I know that Senator Saland and
Senator Bruno have read the bill, have worked
on the bill, and I take their word for this.
What kind of Legislature is this if
we are voting or being forced to vote on a
bill that only two or three or four people
have been able to read? There's no
transparency here. There is no honesty of
endeavor.
Now, I'm saying this at the same
time that I'm saying I don't like either
members, the Majority or Minority, saying we
are becoming balkanized, we don't think of the
entire state. We are not thinking of the
children in different areas of the state, we
are not thinking of different areas, we are
only thinking of what concerns our political
needs.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a
political body. Nothing can get through this
body unless we have a political process. And
the political process is the reflection of the
needs of our districts and the concerns that
5481
we have as well as our political philosophy.
I mean, Winston Churchill once said
this is the worst form of government except
all the other alternatives. Hooray for
Winston Churchill. Down with all the other
alternatives.
What we have here is a need for
dialogue. This is a one-house bill. If we're
truly to dialogue and come up with a
compromise, which we must come up with, then
it must be done together with the other house
of the State Legislature. Rather than going
back into our districts and telling our people
that we helped them by voting this way or that
way, when we voted no way, because there is no
bill.
Now, there are different
interpretations of what was recommended by the
Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals would
never have entered anything dealing with the
State Legislature, especially in the area of
education, unless they found an egregious
error, an egregious mistake. They found there
was an egregious mistake here.
The Campaign for Fiscal Equity had
5482
said $10 billion will resolve the issue. The
New York State Board of Regents said anywheres
between $6 billion to $7.5 billion would
resolve the issue. The Zarb Commission
appointed by the Governor said anywheres
between $2 billion and $3.5 billion would
resolve the issue.
We haven't been able, as
legislators, to fully, to fully develop their
positions and try to work out a compromise as
legislators. We have allowed the body to come
under the control of the few rather than the
many and rather than all of us.
In closing, I would say that I do
not in any way, I do not in any way denigrate
the position of any person in this chamber.
We all want to improve the education of our
children. We all are against a Yugoslavian
balkanization of this state. We all want to
dialogue, but sometimes we don't dialogue
completely with those who have to dialogue.
A lot more has to be done to
correct this legislation before we have an
adequate bill. Unfortunately, we have to wait
until August 2nd at the earliest for that to
5483
be done.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
I need to respond to the question
that was asked by many of my colleagues,
which, while they were much more eloquent,
basically comes down to "show me the money,"
how would we pay for this.
And so I referenced earlier in my
comments that we have a tax expenditure budget
that we don't look at. Senator Parker talked
about we have a $100 billion budget. Senator
Saland very correctly explained where those
dollars go now.
But what I'm saying is we have
money that we're not collecting that we should
be, because what we need it for, education,
are higher priorities.
So if we required an affiliated
business to file as a single taxpayer in
New York State, as many other states do, we'd
raise another $450 million that could go to
5484
our top priority, education.
If we defined as taxable certain
untaxed components of a corporate taxpayer's
income taxes headquartered in New York State
and adopt the federal definition of business
income, we could raise another $310 million
for education.
We spend about $400 million a year
on the Empire Zone programs, another issue we
have not dealt with this year, even though
they're sunsetting. But even conservatively,
with reforms to the Empire Zone program, we
could save another $75 million to go into
education.
If we expanded the Bottle Bill, as
many people in both houses have proposed, we
could raise another $170 million in unclaimed
deposits. Which is more important, the
objections of the bottling industry or the
need for our children to have an education in
this state?
Why are we letting the Governor put
$250 million more into, quote, unquote,
undefined economic development seed money in
this budget this year if we don't have money
5485
for education, assuming we ever get to the
Executive Budget again?
Why do we have a sales tax
exemption of $100 million a year for bullion
traders, precious metals? I know that they're
very happy not to pay sales tax, but is that a
higher priority than education? It's not for
me.
Why do we allow $100 million a year
in corporate tax exemptions for renovation of
historic barns? I like historic barns. Is
that more important than education, the
hundred million we don't collect because we
give corporations tax exemptions for
renovations of barns? I don't think that
rises to the level of education for me.
Why do we have a brownfields bill
that I voted for and then have recently
learned had loopholes in it such that, with
all due respect, the New York Times seems to
be able to get $170 million in tax exemptions
defining a piece of midtown Manhattan that has
been used perpetually and has never been left
open, for deductions from their taxes through
our brownfields legislation?
5486
Why don't we ask questions about
why our state authorities are investing in
venture capital models? Is that more
important to us than education?
Why don't we look at our tax
expenditure budget and ask a question? We do
know that we don't collect $735 million a year
because we give a tax exemption to used-car
salesmen for the trade-in allowances on cars
that will be resold.
When we passed that law in 1965, it
was a couple of million dollars a year. It's
$735 million a year we're not collecting for
education. There might be good arguments for
tax exemptions for a trade-in allowance on
used cars, but I think we've got to ask the
question when I'm being told we don't have
money for education.
And why and how will we justify, if
we take up the bill that we're scheduled to
later on today, to pass another $900 million
to $990 million in tax cuts in the STAR
program? I ask the same question that my
colleagues have been asking of us. How are we
going to explain paying for that? What won't
5487
we spend money on in the New York State budget
next year if we pass that, if we lose another
$900 to $990 million?
If we were prepared to have serious
debate and discussion about how we collect our
money and how we spend it, we would in fact
have the answer for how to put the money that
we need into our schools, not just in New York
City but throughout the State of New York.
That's just looking through the tax
expenditure budget briefly during this debate.
There are, as I said, over $20 billion of tax
expenditures, credits and exemptions. We
refuse to even discuss them or entertain the
concept that some of those monies would be
better spent on education for the future of
New York State than how we're spending them
now.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, to close for the Minority.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President.
We've talked much. But one of the
things that I think that we have failed to
5488
recognize is that the response that many of my
colleagues on this side of the aisle today
have been talking about is the response to the
Appellate Division's letter, when in actuality
we have a proposal from CFE in the original
court order.
And what that proposal does is it
creates the formula -- and this is partly for
the benefit of many of my colleagues who say
that the courts created a mandate without
telling us how to do it. Well, I've always
heard in these chambers that we don't want the
courts telling us how to do it, because that
would mean that they would be doing our jobs
for us.
But what the plan does say is that
there is a formula and that formula is
predicated on needs. And those needs are
driven with the dollar amounts applicable to
the high-needs schools.
We have failed to use the plan as
the basis for how we would proceed. And
therefore, it is just -- in my quick closing
remarks, I have to say that I continue not to
be impressed by what has been proposed today.
5489
Because if the Senate passes this
bill, there will be no new resources, and it
fails to address the problems that really face
the high-needs districts, the school districts
across this state. This measure provides no
details on the funding formula and no spending
plan for the coming 2004-2005 school year. It
only requires that the state spend
$19.7 billion on educational aid in 2008-2009.
However, assuming, as we've said,
that there is just a normal school growth,
continuing that 7 percent, as has been
historical -- and which a lot of my colleagues
have taken credit for in this
administration -- the state will spend
$19 billion on school aid in 2008-2009 if we
do nothing. If we increase it to 8 percent,
it will then be $19.7 billion.
But this plan only maintains the
status quo. The high-needs districts that
have been underfunded for years will continue,
Senator Marcellino, to be underfunded. And
they will continue to be shortchanged. The
problem that they face will only be
exacerbated, and the quality of education that
5490
we all say we want for all the children of the
State of New York will continue to
deteriorate.
Further, this plan relies on
unpromised and unlikely increases in federal
aid. And it also imposes new debt and
increases in taxes on residents of the City of
New York. And while you may say that New York
City, New York City, New York City -- New York
City proposed the CFE plan. And it does not
surprise me that other cities across this
state are recognizing that we have been
underfunding the children of the state of
New York and that we have set a precedent, and
now it has come home to roost.
The court has declared that
educational funding is the constitutional
responsibility of the state. This bill gives
no new money on behalf of New York State to
the children of its state, and yet it claims
this is a historic day. I beg to differ.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 37. This
act shall take effect immediately.
5491
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Party
vote in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Party
vote in the negative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Party
vote in the affirmative, with exception.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 33. Nays,
22. Party vote with exception.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
take up Resolution Number 5, have it read in
its entirety, and move for its immediate
adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Resolution Number 5.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Extraordinary Session Senate Resolution Number
5, appointing a committee to inform the
5492
Governor that the Senate has completed
business and is ready to adjourn.
"RESOLVED, That a committee of two
be appointed to inform the Governor that the
Senate has completed its business and is ready
to adjourn.
"The Temporary President appointed
as such committee Senators Wright and
Montgomery."
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could take up Resolution Number 6, have
it read in its entirety, and move for its
immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Resolution Number 6.
5493
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Extraordinary Session Senate Resolution Number
6, appointing a committee to inform the
Assembly that the Senate has completed its
business and is ready to adjourn.
"RESOLVED, That a committee of two
be appointed to inform the Assembly that the
Senate has completed its business and is ready
to adjourn.
"The Temporary President appointed
as such committee Senators Marcellino and
Sabini.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
at this time could we have the title read on
Concurrent Resolution Number 7.
5494
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the title of Concurrent
Resolution Number 7.
THE SECRETARY: The Assembly sent
for concurrence Assembly Concurrent Resolution
Number 2. Senator Bruno moved to substitute
Senate Concurrent Resolution Number 7 for
Assembly Concurrent Resolution Number 2.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: "Concurrent
Resolution of the Senate and Assembly relative
to the adjournment of the Extraordinary
Session of the Legislature sine die."
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
The Extraordinary Session is
5495
adjourned sine die.
(Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)