Gaveled in 5:49 PM · Albany, New York · 2013–14 session
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 26, 2013
5:49 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR DAVID J. VALESKY, Acting President
FRANCIS W. PATIENCE, Secretary
P R O C E E D I N G SACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone present to please rise and recite with me the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:In the absence of clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The reading of the Journal.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:In Senate, Monday, March 25th, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, March 24th, was read and approved. On motion, Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Libous.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I do have a motion, Mr. President. On behalf my friend and colleague Senator Zeldin, I move that the following bill be discharged from its respective committee and be recommitted with instructions to strike the enacting clause. It would be Senate Print 3709, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:So ordered.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, at this time could we have the noncontroversial reading of the calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 113, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1119A, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ:Mr. President, just to very briefly explain my vote.
I appreciate my colleagues' support of this legislation. I just want to note that both the chair of the EnCon Committee, Senator Grisanti, the ranking Democratic member, Senator Avella, and the ranking Democratic member of the Energy Committee are cosponsors of this legislatiOn.
This legislation is very positive for business in the State of New York and it's very positive for the environment in the State of New York. You know, a few years ago I passed an Article 10 siting bill, and at that time Senator LaValle remarked on the number of the memos of support that we had from environmental and business groups. This is the same type of legislation. This bill both helps the environment and it helps business.
Over 40-plus years ago, there was an accident on Staten Island with what they thought at the time was liquefied natural gas, and it was not, ironically enough. And the Legislature back then overreacted; they banned liquefied natural gas. Today New York is the only state, the only state that bans liquefied natural gas.
UPS wants to convert all of their trucks in Florida, Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, California and New York to liquefied natural gas to save the environment and to save their company money. Imagine, thousands of UPS trucks burning diesel fuel or liquefied natural gas, what that's going to do for the environment and save that company a whole lot of money.
They could do it in all those other states except New York. They were stunned to hear that. We can change that. Obviously I do not speak for the Governor, but the Governor, in some private conversations he had in the City of Buffalo with one business organization, is very interested in this legislation.
So I vote in the affirmative.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Maziarz in the affirmative.
Senator O'Mara.
SENATOR O'MARA:I'd like to rise in support of this legislation and thank Senator Maziarz for moving this long overdue legislation in New York to allow the transportation and storage of LNG.
We've been behind the curve in New York in allowing our trucking fleets to make the switch from diesel to cleaner-burning compressed natural gas and, in this case, liquid natural gas that provides much greatly reduced emissions in the transportation of goods and merchandise across our state.
We have locomotives that are turning to LNG alternatives for fueling of this, and it's the trend of the future and something that we definitely have needed to do here in New York for a long time.
So I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator O'Mara in the affirmative.
Senator Little to explain her vote.
SENATOR LITTLE:Thank you, Mr. President.
I'd like to thank Senator Maziarz for putting forth this bill.
In my district I have International Paper, which employs over 600 people in Essex County, and they are awaiting a natural gas line that will be installed probably by 2014 coming down from Vermont and spending I believe it's over $70 million for that.
In the meantime, they have expressed an interest and almost a real necessity to put in one of these liquid natural gas provisions so that they could begin the transfer of oil to natural gas.
So I think this is a very important bill and certainly is going to help my district and those who are employed by International Paper. I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Little to be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 113, those recorded in the negative are Senators Gipson, LaValle and Martins.
Ayes, 52. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 193, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 1905, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 4. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I'm going to vote aye on this bill.
And the importance of it was just seen in Onondaga County where a librarian and her 10-year-old daughter were in their car in a mall frequented by everybody, a huge mall in the area -- Great Northern Mall -- were abducted in their car, driven to a location, the 10-year-old girl was raped and the mother was killed.
And these crimes dealing with cars with children in them and taking these cars, you know, we do have to increase penalties to make that happen, to make the right thing happen.
He should have been in jail for another offense. And ironically, sadly, horrifically, he had been on some type of probation in federal court. He was out of jail with an ankle bracelet, and he was able to disconnect the signal and no one noticed that.
I mean, you know, I don't know what's going on in the world. But we do need stronger penalties for people who simply should not be in the world committing these crimes, they should be behind bars.
So this is an important bill, and I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco to be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 54. Nays, 1. Senator Parker recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 209, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 284, an act to amend the General Business Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 251, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 779, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 255, by Senator Golden, Senate Print 2244, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 256, by Senator Klein, Senate Print 2261, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 54. Nays, 1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
Senator Libous, that completes the noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, the Senate will stand at ease, but we will call a Finance Committee meeting in Room 332 at 8:15, a Finance Committee meeting at 8:15 in Room 332.
Until then, the Senate will stand at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Meeting of the Senate Finance Committee at 8:15 in Room 332. The Senate stands at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 5:59 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 8:30 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, there will be a meeting of the Finance Committee at 9:00 a.m. in Room 332, a meeting of the Finance Committee at 9:00 a.m. in Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:I think you probably mean 9:00 p.m., Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Nine p.m., I'm sorry. No wonder Rebecca is looking at me like I have two heads.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LIBOUS:I'm already thinking about going home.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senate Finance Committee will meet at 9:00 p.m. in Room 332 of the Capitol.
The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 8:31 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 9:26 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, could we go back to reports of standing committees. I believe there's a report of the Finance Committee at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:There is a report of the Finance Committee at the desk.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Senator DeFrancisco, from the Committee on Finance, reports the following bills:
Senate Print 2600E, Senate Budget Bill, an act making appropriations;
Senate 2601A, Senate Budget Bill, an act making appropriations;
Senate 2603E, Senate Budget Bill, an act making appropriations;
Senate 2606D, Senate Budget Bill, an act to amend Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2011;
Senate 2607D, Senate Budget Bill, an act in relation in school district eligibility;
And Senate 2609D, Senate Budget Bill, an act to amend the Tax Law.
All bills ordered direct to third reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, can I now move that we accept the report of the Finance Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:All those in favor of accepting the report of the Finance Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The report of the Finance Committee is accepted.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, I think we need to just chill for a minute as they put the supplemental calendar on everybody's desk, and then we'll get moving.
(Pause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, if we could bring a little order to the house.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:(Gaveling.) Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:We will now have the noncontroversial reading of Supplemental Calendar 26A, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 273, Senate Budget Bill, Senate Print 2600E, an act making appropriations.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is high.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:The bill is high; please lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is high and will be laid aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 274, Senate Budget Bill, Senate Print 2601A, an act making appropriations.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 275, Senate Budget Bill, Senate Print 2603E, an act making appropriations.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Lay it aside.
SENATOR LIBOUS:The bill is high; lay it aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is high and will be laid aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 276, Senate Budget Bill, Senate Print 2606D, an act to amend Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2011.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 277, Senate Budget Bill, Senate Print 2607D, an act in relation --
SENATOR LIBOUS:The bill is high; lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is high and will be laid aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 278, Senate Budget Bill, Senate Print 2609D --
SENATOR LIBOUS:That bill is also high. Could we lay it aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is high and will be laid aside.
Senator Libous, that completes the noncontroversial reading of Senate Supplemental Calendar 26A.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, can we have the controversial reading of the calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will ring the bells.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 274, Senate Budget Bill, Senate Print 2601A, an act making appropriations.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Point of clarification, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gianaris, why do you rise?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Because we've been dealing with a lot of bills tonight, I just want to clarify. This is the Legislature and Judiciary Budget?
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:That's correct.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 5. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Mr. President, the Budget Reform Law Section 54 --
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger, are you speaking on the bill?
SENATOR KRUEGER:It's a point of order on the bill, Mr. President. Thank you.
We do have, unlike two nights ago, the report on the enacted state fiscal year on our desks. But also the same law I was referencing the other night requires that before voting upon appropriation bills submitted by the Governor, each house shall have on its desks not only the full report of such bill and then the full report on the entire budget.
So my question is, since this is an appropriation bill and it has aged more than three days, do we have a report on the bill on our desks?
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The answer to that question is yes.
The report dealing with the Legislative and Judiciary Budget bill is on page 60 and 61 of the booklet entitled "Report on the Enacted State Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Executive Budget."
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, I want to thank the sponsor.
I have a follow-up point of order for you. Is it not the requirement of the Senate that a memo be on our desks describing the substance of each bill? Is there a memo on this bill on our desks?
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't know what you define as "memo." But there are 61 concise pages outlining each of the budget bills in this report. Whether this is called a report, a memo or both, this satisfies the requirement that you just mentioned.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. Thank you.
Well, I accept that the Report on the Enacted State Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Executive Budget describes sections of each bill. And I accept, as my colleague just highlighted, that the sections on the Legislative and Judiciary Budget bill are on pages 60 and 61.
But I'm not sure I do agree that this is a memo to the bills, because this simply talks about what has changed or is different in the budget bills, not the full details of the bill. So I'm not sure it does meet the standard of a memo on the bill.
So I suppose it's a point of order and I'm asking you for your understanding of whether this meets the definition of memos on specific bills.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Yes, Senator Krueger, specific to your point of order, I believe that this bill is appropriately before the Senate and we are moving it forward under the controversial calendar.
If you wish to appeal my ruling, you're certainly willing to do that.
SENATOR KRUEGER:No, I would disagree with the ruling but I won't appeal it. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Are there any other Senators who wish to be heard?
Seeing none, the debate is -- I'm sorry, Senator Parker. On the bill?
SENATOR PARKER:Yes, on the bill. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Parker on the bill.
SENATOR PARKER:And I'll try to be brief.
Where do you start with a bill like this? There is so much wrong. And I know that this bill is dealing with primarily the Legislature and Judiciary, and in many cases you don't have a particular problem with this bill.
But I find this whole -- both the process and this whole budget objectionable. The process is objectionable to have, again, this process with four men in a room. To not have any of the leaders in the room -- not to have any African-Americans, Latinos, Asians or women involved in the process is objectionable.
To have a process in which the Governor bullies us through a budget that doesn't have the things that are important for our communities in it is objectionable.
I represent a community that's served by Downstate Medical Center in the heart of Brooklyn. We have not addressed the issues of the financial crisis or the privatization of that institution. We've failed as a legislature to deal with high-needs districts across the state by not living up to our promise for the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit.
We also are cutting $250 million to New York City schools. We are cutting about $90 million to the developmentally disabled communities, with only a partial restoration. A lack of progress in terms of women and minority business development. Although I applaud Senator Smith and others who made sure that the $3 million is back in the budget for the disparity study, we have yet to do what we need to do to have enough cumulative resources in the agencies around the state that would allow an MWBE agenda to be successfully implemented by the agencies.
The lack of marijuana decriminalization and the NYPD oversight and accountability through an independent inspector general needs to be done. And we can do that through the budget today and tomorrow.
Failing to provide a real living wage. We really, frankly, ought to be ashamed of ourselves for coming with a proposal that says that $9 over three years is what we ought to be doing for the people of the State of New York. They deserve better. We could do better.
Pension-smoothing scheme -- and I know they've corrected some of it, but it's just really not the right thing for us to be doing. It's going to not only burden the next generation of retirees, but I think it's going to ultimately bankrupt our municipalities. I think it's not the right way to go.
Failure to fix New York's unemployment insurance and taxing New Yorkers with an unnecessary utility tax. This 18-a assessment surcharge with a three-year phaseout that was supposed to phase out this year -- and we're now kicking the can down the road for three years -- is certainly not the way to go.
And lastly, without a DREAM Act, I cannot find a way to vote for this bill or any part of the budget. I vote nay.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Parker.
The Secretary will ring the bells.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 5. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Kennedy to explain his vote.
SENATOR KENNEDY:Thank you, Mr. President.
I rise to support this portion of the budget and to speak on a very important program that I've been advocating for, along with many of my colleagues here in the chamber, for quite some time now. And I thank my colleagues for joining us in making this program a reality: CASA, court-appointed special advocates, the specially trained and supervised volunteers appointed by a Family Court judge to advocate for the best interests of children in foster care and in the Family Court system oftentimes in cases of abuse and neglect.
Think about that for a second, children who are abused and neglected. As the father of three, that hits home particularly strong. Those words are difficult to hear.
But the fact of the matter is these kids are out there. And without the CASA program, they'd likely have no one standing up for them. When children are abused or severely neglected, they must rely on adults to help them obtain justice and services. That's the intent of the social service and Family Court systems. But all too often these systems are fraught with escalating caseloads and reduced resources. Vulnerable children slip through the cracks.
That's where CASA comes in. The program provides necessary training for over a thousand CASA volunteers serving nearly 4,000 children across New York State.
CASA's collective mission is a safe and permanent home for every child. CASA helps to secure loving homes for abused and neglected children by investigating and monitoring cases involving children in foster care. The CASA volunteer is very often the single constant in a child's life at the most crucial time, providing a powerful voice that says "I care" when no one else seems to.
Simply put, CASA volunteers are the guardian angels of our Family Court system and oftentimes the lone voice for these abused and neglected children.
Finally, April, which is right around the corner, is Child Abuse Prevention Month. CASA volunteers work to prevent child abuse every single day. On behalf of the thousands of children they serve, I support them in their efforts.
Again, Mr. President, I vote aye. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Kennedy in the affirmative.
Senator DeFrancisco to explain his vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. Since most of you in this room sat through many of the budget hearings, I just want to mention some of the things that were in this budget that people advocated for and were changed from the Governor's budget.
First of all, the legislative budget is flat. Even though we have a 63rd Senator, an additional cost because of that, it's flat. That also includes the Assembly as well, it's flat.
The Judiciary budget went up less than 1 percent, and most of that was as a result of costs of pensions. With respect to -- it was mentioned already that CASA was restored. There was a lot of support among this Legislature for that. Also, there was an increase in funding for civil legal services that is funded by the judiciary and other programs that we had requested.
So I appreciate the comments of Senator Kennedy. I know many others have argued about that same issue. And I think it's a great judiciary and an even greater legislative budget in these very trying economic times.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco in the affirmative.
Senator Gipson to explain his vote.
SENATOR GIPSON:Thank you, Mr. President.
I rise in support of this bill. But I do, however, want to point out that it is now 9:45 in the evening. There is really no logical reason why we should have to be here at this hour of night voting on these important bills that contain over $142 billion of decisions that we will have to make before the sun comes up.
This is a vampire bill. I believe that we can do better. If we would support my Vampire Voting Act bill that I presented to this floor, there would be no reason for us to be here now. And our constituents, who have had a long day's work and who are now headed off to bed, would be able to stay up and actually be a part of these important deliberations.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gipson, how do you vote?
SENATOR GIPSON:As I said at the beginning, I am voting yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gipson in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 274, those recorded in the negative are Senators Espaillat, Hoylman, Latimer, Parker and Sampson.
Ayes, 55. Nays, 5.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 276, Senate Budget Bill, Senate Print 2606D, an act to amend Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2011.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Mr. President, I believe there's an amendment at the desk. I ask that a reading of the amendment be waived and that Senator Parker may be heard on the amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gianaris, I have reviewed the amendment that is at the desk and rule it out of order. It attempts to direct appropriations. As such, it is an impermissible substitution under Article 7 of the Constitution.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Mr. President, I appeal the decision of the chair, and I ask that Senator Parker be heard on the appeal in order to explain the amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Parker on the appeal.
SENATOR PARKER:Thank you, Mr. President.
The amendment I offer would prevent the closing of SUNY Downstate Hospital as proposed by this budget's legislation and provide for a stabilization plan that actually stabilizes and preserves care.
It would eliminate language that would allow for the privatization of services at SUNY downstate and instead promote the continuation of care. This amendment also would vest the Legislature with authority to approve a stabilization plan proposed by the SUNY Board of Trustees.
Mr. President, as you know, the members of the Brooklyn delegation have worked day and night to try and save SUNY Downstate from closure. Years of poor management and difficult economic conditions have crippled the hospital. Yet now is not the time to give up on the fourth largest employer in Brooklyn. Now is not the time to sell the Long Island College Hospital, contract out essential primary care service, and hand over day-to-day administration to a for-profit entity as proposed by this bill.
This current bill in front of us also, as relates to Long Island College Hospital, intends on selling off a $500 million asset without any legislative oversight. Never before have we done such a thing, and I think now is the wrong time to start selling off large assets and eliminating legislative oversight.
Instead, the amendment I propose would prevent the closing of services, require legislative approval of a turnaround plan, and guarantee participation by all relevant stakeholders as the board of trustees works out with our communities to save SUNY Downstate.
This amendment will be paired with another amendment which would actually also -- we need to include $150 million in stabilization funding necessary to stabilize the facility.
SUNY Downstate contributes $1.3 billion to the state's economy and returns $12 to the local economy for every dollar that's invested by the state.
One in three doctors in Brooklyn were trained at SUNY Downstate, and half of Brooklyn's medical specialists were trained at the facility. Eighty percent of SUNY Downstate's graduates live and practice in New York City. SUNY Downstate takes in over 80,000 visits per year. And this is, I think, more than enough reason for us to accept this amendment and to save this institution.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Parker.
On the appeal of the ruling of the chair, all in favor of overruling the chair signify by saying aye.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Show of hands, please, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Those in a favor of overruling the chair signify by raising your hand.
(Show of hands.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 26.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The ruling of the chair stands.
Senator Rivera.
SENATOR RIVERA:Mr. President, I wonder if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco, do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I would.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
I wanted to take some time to -- first of all, just for the record, I obviously would have preferred what Senator Parker just laid out to be something that we approved, because, obviously, having -- this is a very important institution, SUNY Downstate. And so I would have preferred that we resolved it in the way that Senator Parker just proposed in his amendment.
But as we are speaking on this particular budget bill, I wanted to specifically ask a few questions -- Mr. President, through you -- of Part Q of this particular budget bill. I wanted to -- first of all, through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor could just briefly kind of state what the purpose of this particular section is. Let's start there and then work our way through the sections.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, the purpose of the section of the bill is to do our best to not only save Downstate but also to make it a vibrant facility for the same people that Senator Parker mentioned it was important to have this institution a viable institution.
In the period of time in which there were budget negotiations, the determination by the negotiators was that we should get a report, a sustainability plan from SUNY, and that's got to be done by June 1st of this year, in just a couple of months, and submit that plan to the Legislature to come up -- to provide us recommendations on how to save it.
And it also calls for some funding to be made available by SUNY, and hopefully to be matched by the federal government through Medicaid, to provide some initial funding to get Downstate back operating. But that funding will not happen until we see what the report is, or until the report is finalized.
So rather than rush to a result and just throw money at it -- like LICH was thrown at it in the past, which caused more problems for Downstate than they had before LICH was merged into Downstate -- a more prudent plan would be to make sure that it's done in a deliberate way, and that's what's happening. I don't think anybody in this Legislature, no matter where we live, want to lose Downstate Hospital.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Rivera.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
I agree with you, no one in the Legislature and I don't think anybody in the State of New York would want an institution like this, that provides such basic services to an important part of our state, for it to go away.
But I actually want to dig a little bit deeper. Could you tell me, particularly on Section 2, there's a mention of a sustainability plan. You mentioned it yourself. Could you tell me what the definition of a sustainability plan is? What are the parameters for a sustainability plan?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, I don't think there's a definition in the bill. But "sustainability" and "plan" have plain meanings. The sustainability is to make sure it continues as a viable hospital. And a plan is how they propose that this is going to happen.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
Do you not believe it is necessary for us to lay out some specifics as far as what the parameters of a sustainability plan should be, to make sure that -- everything that you've been saying about the institution and how important it is to maintain it, wouldn't it have been important to include language that was specific in that regard in the language itself of the bill?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, as far as the more parameters that you lay in the bill, the less flexibility SUNY has to try to find a viable solution.
And I don't think anybody in this Legislature really wants to limit SUNY from making a reasonable plan that they feel will work, since some of the money is going to come from the SUNY coffers, and since they have two other hospitals that are currently existing and they run hospitals in a specific way. I think the concept was to give them the most flexibility we could.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
I understand the issue of flexibility. But again, would it not have been wiser to at least set some parameters as far as perhaps services that should be maintained, as far as populations that should be served?
If we're talking about the impact that the close of this institution or changes to this institution would have, would it not have been prudent to include language that was -- I understand the issue about flexibility. We're not going to have a listing of three or four pages that outline exactly what a sustainability plan should have.
But at least some general parameters to make sure that the institution would continue to exist and in a way that would continue to provide the services that are necessary for the population that it serves. Through you, Mr. President, would that not have been prudent?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That's one school of thought. I just think the more flexibility, the better.
In Section 3 there's also some language that says that such sustainability plan shall include the elimination and/or reduction of acute ambulatory and supportive services that are not necessary or financially sustainable and any additional measures necessary to achieve such restructuring and achieve financial stability.
I think that's the primary word, financial stability. One plan just a couple of years ago was to acquire LICH. Well, that didn't bring financial stability. The hospital, Downstate, was hemorrhaging millions every month.
So I guess the guidelines are we want it sustainable, we want it to be a viable part of our healthcare system. And secondly, we want to make sure that the plan comes up with something that's financially feasible so we don't have another problem two or three years down the road.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
Through you, Mr. President. Senator DeFrancisco, earlier you referred to a report --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Pardon me?
SENATOR RIVERA:If I'm not mistaken -- we can go do the transcript -- you referred to a report that this language would require to be produced at the end of this process, something of that nature. I don't recall finding language that referred to a report.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't think there was a report. It's a plan, a sustainability plan. I don't remember using the word. If I did, then I was mistaken.
SENATOR RIVERA:You were referring to the plan itself.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The plan.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco, do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor continues to yield.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to get to one part, which is we were talking -- well, I'm going to go by sections. Moving on to Section 5 for a second, you referred to it earlier as far as the timeline is concerned. I want to talk about that timeline a little bit. If I'm not mistaken, the bill as written would require for a plan to be created by June 1st and then approved within two weeks by June 15th to be implemented. Not approved, but implemented.
If I'm not mistaken, that is the language that is included in the bill. I have a couple of questions about that. Let's start with this one, through you, Mr. President.
Do you feel that that is both enough time for a plan to be put together and, more importantly, for it to be implemented?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, I guess you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. On the one hand, you want something to be done, now so the negotiators put a short leash on it, so the report would be done by June 1 and that the plan would begin to be implemented two weeks later.
So I guess that's the compromise. We can't do it right now, but we want to make sure that this doesn't -- the situation doesn't get worse before something concrete is done.
SENATOR RIVERA:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:I want to make sure that I understand the exact context of "dammed if you do, damned if you don't." No, actually I don't, which is why I'm going to ask for clarification.
Do you mean to say that you would have written the language differently, or do you mean to say that the folks that are implementing or would be asked to implement --
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, if I could ask both Senators to direct everything through the chair, it would be a lot easier for us to follow. Thank you. I'm getting older, and it's harder for me to follow the debate.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Senator Libous.
Mr. President, through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Rivera.
SENATOR RIVERA:Referring to an answer to a prior question that Senator DeFrancisco made related to a comment "damned if you do, damned if you don't," I just want to clarify that term, since I did not understand it. Perhaps you did, Mr. President.
Does it relate either to how he would have negotiated the language or would have put the language forth differently? Or does he refer to the folks that would be implementing the plan, would they be damned if they don't, damned if they do? I'm just repeating through you, Mr. President, what was answered earlier.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: What I meant by that was -- I thought it was clear. But what I meant by that was on the one hand you're saying you're unhappy that there's nothing for Downstate to keep the thing open in this budget. And on the other hand, when we have a short leash to get a comprehensive financial and other plan by SUNY by June 1 and then implement it by June 15, that that's -- do we have enough time.
So on the one hand we're being criticized for not doing something now, and on the other hand we are being criticized or questioned on such a short leash and a short time to begin implementation. You're either damned if you do or you're damned if you don't.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
I would think, through you -- thank Senator DeFrancisco for that clarification. I will also just for the record state that I was making sure that I knew exactly what he meant and that really what I'm trying to establish is if you -- whether it is believed that this is a prudent timeline. I'm going to take it to mean that Senator DeFrancisco believes that it is a prudent timeline.
But I want to actually move down a couple of sections to Section 6. And this is one that, Mr. President, I want to make sure that we really explore, because this is the one that, to be honest with you, causes me the most -- is one of the most concerning parts of this whole bill.
Through you, Mr. President, could the sponsor describe, generally speaking, the purpose of this particular section of the bill?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm sorry, I missed the last part of the question. Referring to paragraph 6, what would you like to know about that?
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if Senator DeFrancisco, if the sponsor could tell us, first of all, the purpose of Section 6 of this bill.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, in the effort, once again, to move to a solution as quickly as possible, this section allows for the waiver of certain provisions of the law and allows Downstate or Upstate to enter contracts without competitive bidding or requests for proposals.
In other words, we want to get a decision made quickly on the sustainability plan and we want implementation to happen as quickly as possible. And if we had to then, after a plan was formed, then competitively bid, wait another 6 months, another 8 months while the hospital is hemorrhaging money, there's less chance of it becoming a viable organization again. That's the purpose of the language.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
Through you, there's language in this legislation, particularly in this section, which refers to State Finance Law 112 to State Finance Law 163, and to Education Law 355. I was wondering, through you, if the sponsor could tell us what those particular sections of the law refer to.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: They refer to, in each of those areas of the law, the requirement of competitive bidding or RFPs. Depending upon the section, it has those requirements for contracting by the state.
This would, as it relates to each one of those sections, whether it's competitive bidding or RFPs, would give SUNY the opportunity to waive that competitive bidding process or RFP process.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President. So in all these instances where we're talking about one of them -- for the record, State Finance Law 212 requires any contract of $50,000 or more for all agencies except OGS and $85,000 and above for OGS to be reviewed and approved by the Comptroller before it's effective. State Finance Law 163 establishes standards for state agencies to follow in regards to procurement, including operating principles for evaluating offers and awarding contracts. And Education Law 355 authorizes the board, as it refers to the SUNY Board of Trustees, authorizes the board to execute contracts and includes requirements to purchase the lowest purchase price under the competitive process.
In all of these instances -- through you, Mr. President. So what this section is does is exclude -- I want to make sure that I'm clear with this -- it excludes the institution of SUNY Downstate from any and all of these pieces of the law. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. President.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't have the Finance Law in hand, or the Education Law. Or the Economic Development Law, Section 142. But the intent of this was as to those sections as it relates to competitive bidding and RFP, Downstate won't have to do it. The reason why, it's an emergency situation. We've got a critical situation there, and everyone knows about it. And if you don't provide this flexibility to implement a plan quickly, the hospital might not survive. And we don't want that to happen.
So of course competitive bidding is a wonderful thing. So are RFPs, and we use them all the time. But when you have an emergency, you've got to do something outside the box. And for this case, this emergency authority is only given to the Downstate situation.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco, do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President. So in this instance not only does it remove it from these particular sections of the law, but as far as oversight, as far as whether there would be an agency -- whether -- it's actually, first of all, whether the Legislature would be able to look into what's happening there, Mr. President. Or more importantly, if the Comptroller would be able to look into the expenditures that are made in the middle of this process.
Does this section or does any other section of this law actually allow for either the Legislature or the Comptroller to look more specifically into the expenditures that are made through this emergency plan?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The plan, first of all, has to be approved by the Commissioner of Health. So there's some oversight there. That's number one.
Number two, just like any other state expenditures, the Comptroller's office obviously has some oversight of state expenditures.
In addition, there was actually even a section in here that Downstate shall post on its website for a period of no less than 15 days a description of proposed goods and services to be provided under various contracts. The criteria for contractor selection.
So there's actually public disclosure of what they're doing in addition to the oversight of the Health Department as well as the Comptroller's office.
And by the way, for those in the state -- I know there's some in the state who don't like the idea of this kind of flexibility generally. Again, it's only for downstate, and it's only for a period of one year, thinking that that's the crucial period of time with which things have to be done. And by that time I imagine the state will know one way or the other what else has to be done to save the hospital and go back to the regular procedures.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
So on the issue specifically, Mr. President, of contracting -- and that's one that I want to make sure we establish for the record. So on issues of contracting, which may include anything and everything that could potentially happen in this institution, whether it's providing medical services, whether it's maintenance of the facilities, whether it's renovation of the facilities, in any and all contracts that might be made by this institution during this process of restructuring, I want to talk specifically about the oversight on those contracts.
It seems to me -- and maybe I've interpreted the language wrong, but it seems to me that the Department of Health and the Commissioner of Health have no oversight over those contracts. And if they do, I'd like -- through you, Mr. President -- if the sponsor could correct me. But it seems to me that they do not have that authority.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I wasn't paying attention, I'm sorry.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I was trying to get another question clarified. But I will pay attention this time.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Please restate your question, Senator Rivera.
SENATOR RIVERA:I will absolutely restate my question, Mr. President.
As I understand it, the language does not allow for the Department of Health or the Commissioner of Health specifically to have oversight over the contracting that is done during this period of restructuring by this entity. And "contracts" understood to be anything and everything that this entity could do -- and I'll repeat again for the record -- whether we're talking about medical services directly, whether we're talking about remodeling facilities, whether we're talking about providing food or other types of services. In any and all of these instances, it seems to me that the Department of Health and the Commissioner of Health do not have oversight over the contracts.
And furthermore, if the contracts, as I heard the sponsor state earlier, that this period of this emergency plan would be only for one year, I do not find language in this section or in any other section that would bar any type of contract that could be made during this period when there is no oversight that goes beyond that period of a year. So if the sponsor could clarify that for me, please.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: As far as the oversight, remember, the plan that's got to be prepared by June 1 is a plan that has to be approved by the Commissioner of Health. So as a practical matter, he can put whatever parameters he wants on it that the Downstate has to follow.
And if he thinks he needs specific authority to reject a part of the plan or not allow them to go to a longer-term contract, that can be handled in the rejection of the plan. And that once the plan is in place, the commissioner oversees what they're doing to make sure that they are in compliance with the plan.
So it's not that there's no oversight, it's just that there's more flexibility for that emergency period.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
The process as just described by the sponsor referred to whether the plan is accepted. As we discussed prior, an earlier section of the bill states that the process would be within two weeks -- the damned if you don't, damned if you do part of the conversation -- two weeks for the proposal to be put into effect and be implemented.
What if, during that period of time, the Department of Health rejects the plan? What would happen then?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, I would assume that SUNY would get back to the drawing board very quickly. And I don't think it's a matter of -- what's planned here, I think, is a submission. And while they're submitting it, I'm sure there has to be discussions with the Department of Health as the plan is being developed to make sure they're not going in the wrong direction.
So again, the short leash is to try to get things moving. I would imagine that if they needed legislative authority, for example, after the -- remember, it's while we're still in session, the Legislature. I imagine if it's rejected on June 15th they could come back here and say, Wait, we need two more weeks, or we need whatever we need.
But hopefully there will be discussions as the plan is developed to make sure the planners are accommodating what the Commissioner is really looking for. And I would be surprised if that process hasn't already begun, quite frankly.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:So, Mr. President, let's play hypothetical for a second, just because I want to make sure that we understand what excluding this particular entity from these laws, these sections of the law that I mentioned before, exactly what it means. Let's say that there is a plan put forth by June 1st, it is approved and put into effect by June 15th, and on July 30th, during this new -- the folks that have taken over, have put together this plan and they're putting it forth, then they enter into a contract which actually goes -- let's say it's a five-year contract. Which, as we stated before, would not be eligible for any type of oversight.
And as I understand it, because we're excluding it from State Finance Law 112, there would no longer be oversight from the Comptroller's office over that contract until, you know, until after it's ratified. And if the contract is ratified -- and I would like some clarification from the sponsor -- if the contract is ratified and it's a contract that goes way beyond the year that there's supposed to be restructuring, what happens then?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: First of all, we're in an emergency situation. And if we ask the presidents of SUNY Upstate and Stony Brook whether they would like more flexibility so they can get some things done for their colleges, they would jump for joy to have that ability. What we're doing is giving the most flexibility we can to get this done.
Now, of course there's always a risk that a contract isn't going to be as good as it could have been. There's always going to be a risk that something extends longer than we want it to extend. But if the program doesn't work, Downstate won't be paying any of their bills soon. So whoever is contracting with SUNY under this plan I think would have to look carefully on whether or not this plan makes sense from both sides.
So we're taking a risk. Of course we are. But the alternative is making them go through months and months of bidding while Downstate goes further and further in a hole. When you balance those interests, you could come up with 15 hypotheticals of risks. The risk of something -- not doing anything or doing something on a slow pace is not worth it.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President. I only have a few more questions on this issue and then I'm moving briefly to another.
If we move to Section 9, Mr. President, it adds a new section to the Public Health Law that would allow SUNY Downstate, among other institutions, to participate in the Delivery System Reform Incentive Payments program. That's DSRIP. Is this a waiver program that New York State currently -- through you, Mr. President, is there a waiver program that currently New York State participates in?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco, do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
It is my understanding that this is part of a Medicaid 1115 waiver that the State of New York has not currently submitted an application for. As I understand it, only the State of California and the State of Texas are currently participating in this current Medicaid waiver.
So, Mr. President, through you, does the sponsor have any other information about whether the state has actually applied for this particular waiver?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I guess the answer is that we do this with various other waivers, this particular process. And you're absolutely correct. So when I say that we do these things now, we do.
On this particular waiver, you're correct, we haven't applied for it yet. But obviously this allows for what it says in the bill, assuming that we do obtain that approval by the federal government.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
So am I to understand, then, that we are including a section here in the law which would allow this institution to get access to funding through a waiver program that we have not applied for? And, furthermore, that it is a part of a larger waiver proposal process that we have already been in for over a year, perhaps, that -- and that we have.
So if already for over a year in this waiver process we've been asking for all sorts of money from the federal government, are we saying, then, that -- I did not find language here; maybe I can get clarification from the sponsor. But I did not find language that says that the state is going to apply for this. Are we going to then amend the process that's already been ongoing for a year to make sure that we would get access to money from this waiver?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: We need the authority for this because the -- what we're going to be asking for from the federal government is what is needed in furtherance of the sustainability plan. There's already discussions with the Department of Health and the federal government that we are going to make this application, the reason we're going to make this application. But depending upon what the plan is will depend upon the exact nature of the waiver request.
Now, I would assume we could also just leave this out and, once the waiver is granted, come back, pass another bill to allow for what we want to allow for here. But obviously this just gives us the authority. If we never get the waiver approval, this section would be moot.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:I actually want to go back briefly to Section 6, because there's one thing that I missed and I want to make sure that I get clarification, Mr. President. Section 6, again, is the one that deals with opting out of certain areas of the law which would allow for some level of oversight from different entities, the Comptroller being one of them. And also, as we said, to allow for more flexible -- utilizing the language of the sponsor, a more flexible process by which we could contract more quickly and more efficiently.
What is the consideration in this process -- I do not see language that refers to MWBEs, particularly whether there is any type of standard that will be set to make sure that -- yes, flexibility is obviously important. But if we're talking about an institution that is in Brooklyn and is obviously surrounded by many minority and women-owned business enterprises that could perform some such services that we're talking about, is there something in the language -- through you, Mr. President -- that would allow or that establishes any type of standards as it refers to MWBEs for this particular institution and this particular plan?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The section that waives some of these provisions and gives flexibility from these provisions does not have a section in the section dealing with minority and women-owned businesses.
So we're not exempting the university from any existing law or existing executive order by the chief executive, of all of those laws. It just gives flexibility and waives the provisions of the specific laws that are listed here, sections of the laws that are listed here.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
So just to be clear, State Finance Law 112, which requires any contract over $50,000 for all agencies except OGS and $85,000 for OGS to be reviewed and approved by the Comptroller before it's effective -- for example, that particular section of the law -- or State Finance Law 63, which is about evaluating offers and awarding contracts, so you're saying that even though there is no language in the legislation that we're considering today to make sure that MWBEs are considered as far as the targets that we're trying to hit in different agencies across the state, that that is going to be -- that we should assume that even though there is no requirement for the normal process to be undertaken to make sure that the contracts that are entered into by a state agency or a state entity are good, fair contracts, that even though all of those requirements are waived, that the requirement that refers to MWBEs -- through you, Mr. President -- is going to continue to be observed and respected?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That's my reading of this bill. I don't administer contracts and I don't enforce women- and minority-owned business regulations. I'm just saying the bill does not waive those other provisions that currently exist.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
I skipped over a very important section; I want to make sure we go back to it. And that's Section 7.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I would hope so.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR RIVERA:You were thinking I was going to skip it, but that's the one that you're most ready -- I'm sorry, Mr. President, through you. I'm thinking that the sponsor might be particularly ready for questions regarding this section, so I shall, through you, ask them.
This particular section refers to allowing access to for-profit corporations to operate part or some of the entity. Through you, Mr. President, is that a correct interpretation?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Correct.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
There is language in here that refers specifically to allowing access for a private institution to potentially run the day-to-day operations of the entity. Is that a correct interpretation? Through you, Mr. President.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Potentially. However, there's a provided "however" in here as well, which says that any such contracts with for-profit entities shall be authorized only upon approval by the Commissioner of Health and the Director of the Division of the Budget of a request by the Chancellor demonstrating financial need of the State University healthcare facility.
So it gives that flexibility, but there's a leash on that flexibility, the leash being held by the Commissioner of Health as well as the Budget Director.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR RIVERA:Mr. President, as far as that leash is concerned, that leash does not have one part of the leash that extends to us as the Legislature or another one that extends itself to the Comptroller, is that correct? To continue the metaphor.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Excuse me, I won't use the word "leash," I won't use the words "damned if you do and damned if you don't."
Very clearly, it has to be subject to the approval of both the Commissioner of Health and the Budget Director. They are the administrators of the hospital as well as the overall state budget. So we don't normally administer anything. And I hope we never do administer trying to save a hospital, because I don't know that we'd ever get it done.
And so this is -- there is this oversight and there is this protection.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:I want to actually move on to a different part to ask a few questions. I might come back briefly to the Part Q, but I want to ask a couple of questions about Part P that has to do with the Mental Hygiene Stabilization Fund. I think some of my colleagues are going to be going a little bit deeper into this, but I want to ask specifically about the -- let's ask first -- I'm sorry.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would please explain the overall purpose of the Mental Hygiene Stabilization Fund.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Part?
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would take Part P, which refers to the Mental Hygiene Stabilization Fund -- would explain the purpose of the Mental Hygiene Stabilization Fund.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, this one I have a tough time with because my Part P deals with OTB and assistance with the cost of Medicare premiums, et cetera, et cetera. Maybe I got the wrong bill here. Part P?
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, I believe Part P as in Peter.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I think Part O, unless my numbers are wrong, relates to the stabilization fund.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, my apologies. I was mistaken. It is Part O.
So yes, if the sponsor -- through you, Mr. President -- could explain the main purpose of Part O, the Mental Hygiene Stabilization Fund.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Okay, I needed help on this one. And basically what it is is that the -- we have been charged by the federal government of a billion-one, or a little more than that, of overpayments on Medicaid.
So the purpose of the stabilization fund is to start saving for when we have to pay these bills back over time. And that is the reason for the bill.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
So this refers to the conversation that we've had -- a lot of conversations that we've had over the last couple of weeks related to the Office for Persons With Developmental Disabilities and the cuts to that particular agency; is that correct?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That's correct. But that issue is in a different bill, the Aid to Localities bill.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:If I understand it correctly, Mr. President, yes, he is correct, the sponsor is correct, Aid to Localities refers to the particular money that has been -- funds that have been allocated for that particular agency.
But if I'm not mistaken, this particular fund in this bill deals with transfers that are to happen between the Department of Health and OPWDD for the purposes of covering some of the gap that's going to exist because of the overpayments that the sponsor referred to earlier. So I want clarification on that to see if I am correct.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You're correct.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
There's two different periods that are covered, Mr. President, in this bill as it refers to -- and some of the analysis that we've made as far as the numbers that are going to go through the stabilization fund. This is funding that is going to be allocated from the Department of Health over to OPWDD to cover some of the shortages that are obviously going to exist at that agency because of the cuts we're going to be discussing much more of a little bit later, certainly during Aid to Localities.
I want to discuss specifically the outyears, not only 2013-2014 but, more specifically, 2014 and 2015. Because it seems, and I want clarification on this from the sponsor, Mr. President, it seems that we've identified $445 million in the outyears to be appropriated for the Mental Hygiene Stabilization Fund. However, it seems that what we're doing is we're counting on money that perhaps would be coming from the federal government.
So it seems that the analysis that we've made of the numbers tells us that what's happening, Mr. President, is that we're assuming or we're wishing that in 2014 and 2015 this $445 million is given to us from the federal government, and therefore we would be able to plug the hole that would exist in this particular fund that we're creating with this bill.
Is that correct? Mr. President, through you.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, we're always trying to maximize reimbursement from the federal government for Medicaid. So of course we're wishing that more funds come in. But the purpose of the stabilization fund is to make sure that we will have the funds available from our own budget in the event that those additional funds don't come in from the federal government.
SENATOR RIVERA:Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Rivera on the bill.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
First of all, I'd like to thank Senator DeFrancisco, with his able help from his able staffers, who was able to answer some of the questions that I had. I'm a little bit clearer on some --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Excuse me. I really knew all that stuff, but I asked every so often.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR RIVERA:Apologies to Senator DeFrancisco, through you, Mr. President. Of course you did.
So now that I have a little bit more clarification, I can say right off the bat, Mr. President, that I'll be voting in the negative on this piece of legislation for a few reasons.
First of all, I'd like to kind of go over -- when we're talking about SUNY Downstate, I would agree wholeheartedly with my colleague that no one in New York, no one in this Legislature, certainly, would want this institution to close. And I know many of my colleagues are going to be talking about that more at length, since it impacts them directly and their constituents directly.
But personally I believe that the proposal that we have in front of us is not the correct way to address it, for a couple of different reasons. Number one, it is stated specifically in the legislation that the hospital -- that SUNY Downstate is a teaching hospital and that the purpose of the bill is to maintain its status as a teaching hospital. And I believe wholeheartedly that an institution that produces the majority of doctors of color in this particular area of the state should remain open and should continue to be viable.
However, I believe also that when we're talking about this institution we have to look at it both as -- not only as a teaching hospital, but also as a service provider. We're talking about what is it that this institution does. Certainly it gives us excellent doctors. But also it gives us or gives people in Brooklyn access to basic health services that would not be available if this institution didn't exist.
It is my belief that the language, in the way that it is organized right now, does not provide for that to be the case. As opposed to that, it allows for a level of flexibility -- and this is a word that was used over and over again by the sponsor -- which I believe ultimately is vagueness and does not guarantee that the services will continue to exist.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out by my colleague Senator Parker a few times during the last couple of days, it is the fourth-largest employer in Brooklyn. And that should also be taken into consideration when we're thinking about what's going to happen with this institution.
So to just refer to it -- we want to make sure we maintain it as a teaching hospital, certainly. But if there's nothing in the language that gives us a sense of whether it will maintain its position as a basic service provider to millions of Brooklynites, that is a problem. And as being the fourth-largest employer, we should be concerned about whether this institution is going to continue to exist.
Second, transparency and accountability. We have been talking about this -- we talk about this very much on this floor. And certainly I know that many of us are committed to making sure that the people that we represent know exactly what it is that we are doing up here.
As it refers to what is happening here and what I read the language to be, it really reminds me a little bit of what's happening right now in Michigan. In Michigan, as I'm sure that many of you folks are aware, there is a conversation right now about emergency managers. These are people that in emergency financial situations are put in control -- in the case of Michigan, of municipalities or cities, like just happened to Detroit -- and then we're talking about the ability of these particular individuals to do what they feel they should or what they feel they must without any level of accountability, any level of transparency, any level of oversight.
I have a problem with that. And I believe that we should all have a problem with that. While I certainly think that there is a need for an institution that is under duress to act in ways that it feels it needs to act to save itself, I believe that what is happening here is that we are taking away two leashes, to use some of the terms that were used by the sponsor, specifically to us as a Legislature and to the entity that in the State of New York is responsible for making sure that the dollars that are hard-earned tax dollars our constituents give us are used appropriately and well, and that is the Comptroller.
That is excised from this institution. It seems to be a bubble that is created where no transparency, no accountability and no oversight exists.
And finally, the issue of privatization. We are allowing -- again, for the sake of flexibility, for the sake of trying to save this institution, which I believe we all must do -- for private entities to enter into any type of arrangements that they might with this institution.
But again, I have been very concerned about this and I have spoken about this on the floor before. We're talking about a long-standing tradition of nonprofit healthcare in the State of New York. And while I certainly believe that the people of Brooklyn deserve to have this institution continue to exist, we should be very concerned when we are allowing a private institution -- which is unnamed at this time; we do not know what this organization is, what it could be. But we are creating a situation where this entity could potentially run the day-to-day operations of this hospital.
Now, the issue I have with that is that if you have a for-profit institution, a for-profit entity, it's right there in the name, "for profit" as opposed to "for care." If we allow this institution that, as I mentioned before, serves so many of our constituents in Brooklyn, and we're saying that we're going to inject an institution that might be making decisions based on what kind of money they're going to make, as opposed to what kind of care they can provide, we should always be concerned that that is happening.
And finally, as it relates to the Mental Hygiene Stabilization Fund -- and I know many of my colleagues will speak about this as well, as it relates to the service of OPWDD and what I think ultimately we are doing as an entity in the Legislature, which ultimately is tragic, because we are taking services away from the folks that are the most needy in this state and we are not doing enough to make sure we continue to serve those folks. This Mental Hygiene Stabilization Fund makes certain assumptions about what kinds of money we're going to be getting in the future.
So we're talking about an agency that provides services that are absolutely necessary to the most needy New Yorkers, and we are saying, Well, we're thinking that maybe the federal government will perhaps give us this money in the future, and we're talking about $445 million that we are leaving there.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are just two parts that I wanted to make sure that we went at length into because I believe that both of them are incredibly important for what we need to do in the State of New York to provide access to basic healthcare to New Yorkers all across the state.
I do not believe that in just these two instances -- in one we are just relying on the goodwill of the federal government for almost $500 million of budget for this particular agency, and in the other we are opening up what I believe is ultimately an unwise decision to try to save this particular institution in this particular way.
I believe that there's better ways to do it. I wish that we were a part of the conversation more directly to make sure that this would have happened differently. I know that many of my colleagues here that live and represent Brooklyn and that represent millions of New Yorkers down there would have really wanted to be part of that conversation. It is unfortunate and disappointing that we were not.
The product that came out of those conversations I believe is inadequate, and ultimately I will be voting in the negative.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Rivera.
Senator LaValle on the bill.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Thank you, Mr. President.
First let me thank the chairman of the Finance Committee. He did really a stellar job, and it shows of his involvement in this issue that he was able to move through a very detailed set of questions.
Senator Hannon has been involved, myself, and a number of staff people. I would tell you that the meetings that have taken place were very comprehensive, very long, and every detail was looked at for not just a short period of time, for many, many months, six months.
I felt that Senator Golden was my shadow. Every time I turned around, he was there asking the same question.
I want to make comments that I think supplement and complement the remarks made by the chairman of the Finance Committee.
We are dealing, Senator Rivera and members of this body, with a problem that is a $16 million hemorrhaging problem of Downstate. Of that $16 million, about $4 million is from LICH. So it is a very dramatic problem. It has been the purpose of the negotiations -- and people know where we started -- that this hospital remain as a teaching hospital and that it remain as a public, public entity. And it's cited, and I'll talk about it when we get to that section.
I'm going to try, Senator Rivera, to go through your questions going through it by section.
One of the things that was mentioned about the restructuring, well, the restructuring is needed and a sustainability plan is needed and the language in here for the purpose of achieving fiscal viability while preserving its status as a teaching hospital, as a teaching hospital. So that language was put in there very deliberately. And as you know, we excluded language that would have made this a pilot for private or otherwise.
The sustainability plan that's going to be developed by the chancellor is done in consultation with labor representatives, community representatives, and other regional stakeholders. And -- this is very important, because I think you mentioned transparency -- and will allow for public comment and input from consumers of healthcare services in the development of this plan,
We talked about the June 1st, and the members of the respective chairs of Finance, Health and Higher Education will have notice of that plan. But the importance of the June 15th plan -- remember, we have a hospital that's hemorrhaging, and we have to come up with a plan that's going to draw down money to keep it open. So that's why the June 15th date was put in there, so that we have a plan.
And by the way, this Legislature has asked the State University for a plan repeatedly. At Senator DeFrancisco's hearing on SUNY, we got an outline of a plan Dr. Williams talked about. And he talked about, you know, the reconfiguration and he talked about things that he was doing to try and reduce that hemorrhaging.
Now, in order to get -- and we'll get to the money -- you have to have certain metrics. And we were very sensitive to labor and maintaining the public aspect. But in order to meet -- and this was, I think, agreed by all of the parties, as we struggled with language, was that to meet those metrics you needed some flexibility. And so last year we gave SUNY flexibility in procurement of goods, not services. There was a whole debate on that, and we were very, very sensitive at that time.
Just to give you an idea, the contract, the contract for the hiring of a consultant took nine months through the process of OCS and the Attorney General, nine months. So, Senator, if you're hemorrhaging at $16 million a month, you can't sustain, you know, a process that's going to have the meter run: Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.
So it was done -- I'll yield when I get done. I'll yield when I get done.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Rivera, Senator LaValle will yield after he finishes his remarks.
SENATOR RIVERA:Oh, after he finishes, yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
SENATOR LaVALLE: To show you the sensitivity, we limited the contracts. And they're here delineated in Section 6 that you talked about: Consultant services, revenue collection and billing services, electronic and medical health records, insurance eligibility and verification services. And we also allow for clinical services pursuant to the sustainability plan.
But here's the most important language on page 3: That such contracts shall not be of such scope or nature as to alter the character of Downstate Hospital as a public hospital and shall be limited, shall be limited in terms of the percentage. Fifteen percent unless there's an exigency that takes place, and then it only can go up 5 percent, or limited to a total of 20 percent.
During the budget hearing Dr. Williams was very, very specific in terms of talking about a plan. And one of the things that -- and Senator Hannon has talked about this -- is the change, the change in healthcare that has taken place. And so we're in a new world today. And in order to be competitive, Dr. Williams, as part of his testimony before the Finance Committee, talked about relationships with other providers in the Brooklyn area and wherever, in order to provide to the people of that area continued quality healthcare and done in such a way that meets the economics in today's healthcare world.
The last thing I just want to say is that it is important, that June 15 date, because we have to start putting together a plan to access the monies that we need. And one of those things -- and I get a kick in the healthcare world, where everything is an acronym. And if I told you DSRIP, that's Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment.
So in order to get those monies and other monies, that we need to have a plan and be able to perform that plan. You have -- and Senator DeFrancisco has said this repeatedly -- you have the involvement of the Commissioner of Health and the Director of the Division of the Budget. And you know, if he were in this chamber, you could probably talk to him about the Q section and he could tell you with great specificity what is behind all of this.
Some of the things that are not here in this bill are things that people are working on. Because you don't go from today's date to June 1st and have a plan and access of money.
So this, I would tell you, was a priority. And as a matter of fact, in higher education I think we did great things for the community colleges. And this issue has overshadowed everything that we have done in higher education because of its importance. My colleague to the right, Senator Golden, has been like a tick.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LaVALLE: And hopefully --
SENATOR GOLDEN:Is that the best word you could find?
SENATOR LaVALLE: I was going to say a burr, but --
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LaVALLE: Senator, I'll yield.
SENATOR RIVERA:Mr. President, if Senator LaValle would yield for one question.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
While I certainly will not comment on the insect qualities or nonqualities of Senator Golden, I think we can all agree that certainly he was very insistent on this.
The question that I have either for Senator LaValle or for the sponsor or anyone else, really, is why was the only Brooklyn Senator invited to these conversations Senator Golden? As I figure, I don't know if Senator Parker, Senator Adams, Senator Montgomery or Senator Squadron, either or any of them, were invited to any of these conversations. Specifically Senator Squadron, since it is in his district. I just want to know if the sponsor would yield for that. Oh, and Senator Sampson, too. Apologies.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Senator, in part, as chairs, you are involved in this issue.
But I can tell you, I've had conversations with the ranking member of the committee, Senator Stavisky. And I would tell you, she was up-to-date on everything that was going on. I had a conversation with Senator Squadron, and he seemed very aware what was going on and even had ideas.
So I don't think that this was done -- I think you have responsibilities as chair, and I think that's why, you know, we're involved to that degree.
And Senator Golden's involved because I'm telling you, for six months Senator Golden has been a shadow. So if anyone else was the same shadow, I would have shared whatever information I had.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Squadron on the bill.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, if the sponsor would yield. I'll wait.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle, do you yield?
SENATOR LaVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If Senator LaValle would yield, that's -- I appreciate that as well. Thank you very much.
Senator LaValle, the sponsor when he was here referred to the fact that in the 2010 merger between Downstate and LICH, LICH, in his words, had money thrown at it. Do you remember how much money, state money was given to help the merger between Downstate and LICH?
SENATOR LaVALLE: I'm going to get you an accurate figure on that.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Now, Senator, just anticipating where you're going to go with this questioning -- and I'll get you a number -- you will know as part of our process that we in the Legislature, by law, define other entities or individuals to be responsible for certain transactions. And so SUNY, the board and the chancellor, certainly when it comes to acquisition of properties -- wherever they are, wherever they are in the SUNY system -- will make those decisions.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Perhaps the sponsor -- I thank Senator LaValle for that. I'm asking about state money, state HEAL grant money.
SENATOR LaVALLE: By the way, Senator Squadron, I'm told that that transaction was done in 2010. So you would probably have better knowledge than I in the year 2010.
SENATOR SQUADRON:One of the few years on which I may have better knowledge, Senator LaValle.
Through you, Mr. President, I do -- if the sponsor knows, it was $63 million in state HEAL grant money that went to the merger of SUNY Downstate and LICH, $63 million that was spent as part of a promise that healthcare in Brooklyn, from one part of the borough to another, for millions of people, would be preserved and expanded and would have the support of SUNY and of the state. And as Senator LaValle points out, it was in 2010.
If Senator LaValle would yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LaVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, is Senator LaValle aware of the valuation that the Comptroller recently put on the LICH real estate?
SENATOR LaVALLE: Not until you told me at 5:30 on Sunday night.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Not to keep everyone in suspense, but Senator LaValle was not familiar with the valuation of the LICH real estate until Sunday night after this bill had printed?
SENATOR LaVALLE: Let's go back to my response. When we talk about acquisition of property, that is a decision that the SUNY board and the chancellor make.
And as you know, the focus has been on the terrible failure that LICH was. And we in this Legislature did not make that deal or get into it, that was made by those individuals that by law we designate to make those decisions.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If Senator LaValle would continue to yield.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Is Senator LaValle suggesting -- through you, Mr. President -- that it was SUNY dollars that were spent in order to acquire LICH and to create that merger?
SENATOR LaVALLE: Well, SUNY dollars or state dollars. Is that what you're inferring?
SENATOR SQUADRON:I'm just asking for a clarification from Senator LaValle, who has spoken about SUNY's responsibility to acquire real estate and/or assets. And I'm asking if the implication is that this was somehow SUNY dollars.
SENATOR LaVALLE: They are dollars that the State University had for a capital investment that at the time the board made a decision, based on a plan and based on what I talked about before about where we are with healthcare today, to try and expand the reach in providing healthcare services.
I would say most of the time our boards, the SUNY board makes good decisions. This was a bad deal that went worse.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle?
SENATOR LaVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle continues to yield.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you. And I thank Senator LaValle for his response.
It was $63 million in state HEAL funding, which is approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Health, that went to that merger, from the State Department of Health HEAL grants. And the valuation of the State Comptroller in the report that the State Comptroller did at the request of some members of this body that came out at the beginning of this year, the valuation for the real estate was in the neighborhood of $500 million. That's half a billion, with a B, dollars for LICH.
With that information, is the sponsor aware of the recent vote the SUNY board took to apply to the State Department of Health to close LICH?
SENATOR LaVALLE: Senator, yes, I'm aware of it. But those dollars, when we make decisions, we access -- as we will in allowing this sustainability plan and allowing Downstate to be viable fiscally and remain open as a teaching hospital. Because we're using as -- the state, in making a decision, is using or will use federal dollars.
So to just say, well, this is HEAL grant money, well, SUNY made that decision because they could access HEAL grant money to make this deal happen -- and I don't think you're suggesting -- I mean, it's great today, looking back, to be an armchair quarterback and say it wasn't a good deal. I think the people of Brooklyn felt that this was what they wanted, was a good deal to provide healthcare services to that community.
So, you know, sometimes we look back with the experience and the knowledge that we have today and say, well, it wasn't a good deal, we squandered $63 million.
And by the way, if I recall, at 5:30 on Sunday you told me that the value of LICH was $400 million, not $500 million. So we've upped it by $100 million.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LaVALLE Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Senator LaValle is correct that the low conservative assessment of the property would be $400 million. The State Comptroller's report said it was $500 million, regardless.
And while I appreciate the answer overall, there was not an answer to the question to as to what the SUNY board recently voted to do. It recently voted to apply to the State Department of Health to chose LICH. It has not yet received that approval from the State Department of Health. And we certainly are going to do everything we can to forestall that approval. But we know that it's on the table, it's something the SUNY board has now voted twice to do, once outside of the law, once within the law.
The question is, in the response Senator LaValle suggested that it's going to be federal money that's going to shore up SUNY Downstate or whatever portion of SUNY Downstate continues to survive. Senator LaValle is suggesting that it's not going to be any of the real estate valued between $400 million and $500 million -- the $400 million, let's call it the conservative Sunday afternoon estimate; $500 million being the State Comptroller's estimate -- that none of that $400 million to $500 million will be used to shore up SUNY Downstate?
SENATOR LaVALLE: Senator, I would say that I'm somewhat confused, because LICH is hemorrhaging at $4 million a month and has for some period of time. So I don't want to get into the decision-making of whether LICH stays open or not. But I have not heard anything that you have said on how you're going to deal with that $4 million. Now -- $4 million a week, a week, I'm told.
Now, in here we have a sustainability plan. As part of that plan, Senator, they could, they could, based on your remarks and your input -- and when we spoke on Sunday, your input did not fall on deaf ears. I mean, it sounded like when you're hemorrhaging the way you are, anything should be on the table for consideration.
But I -- well, I'll just end it there, put a period.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the Senator would continue to yield.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:I appreciate that.
To be clear, I have not posited anything in these questions other than just an understanding of the process and an understanding of what was known and considered in the room through the process that you described quite fully previously.
Let me just ask one more time, very directly, $400 million to $500 million worth of real estate in a hospital that's been around over a hundred years that may get shut down, is it the Senator's understanding that those dollars will go to SUNY Downstate, will not go to SUNY Downstate? And if not, what is the Senator's understanding as to where those dollars will go?
SENATOR LaVALLE: Senator, the restructuring says subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Health, the director of the Division of Budget. And of course there's involvement, as we talked, in the development of the sustainability plan, the chancellor shall consult with labor representatives, community representatives, and other regional stakeholders.
So the answer to your question is that in the process of the sustainability plan, and ultimately the June 15th date where we have to start putting real money on the table to keep things operating, that could evolve. So the answer is it could. Not our role, by statute. Other individuals are delegated to make that responsibility, that plan, which is to keep the hospital fiscally viable so that it can operate as a public teaching hospital.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Squadron on the bill.
SENATOR SQUADRON:This is deeply, deeply concerning. The bill is deeply concerning. Tonight's conversation only adds to that concern. We're talking about an entire hospital system here with multiple campuses, one of which is currently at risk of being shut down within 90 days. In fact, its employees have received 90-day notices. One that has gotten a vote from the SUNY board to be shut down has not yet received approval from the Department of Health, and again, we will fight against that approval.
We're talking about a hospital system that's critical to Brooklyn, every one of its campuses. The relationship with the medical school, as Senator Rivera and Senator Parker have both spoken about tonight. We're talking about $400 million to $500 million of real estate and a hospital that has existed over 150 years nestled within a residential community.
In fact, the largest buildings within that community which were allowed to be built because of the community benefit attached to the building of those buildings. And we're having a conversation in which there is no knowledge as to the relationship between that hospital and that campus, that $400 million to $500 million.
At what point would any member of this Legislature recommend that we take $500 million in state assets and say, to any other entity, "Good luck, go on, do your best"? Especially when those assets are linked to an institution that, as Senator LaValle and Senator DeFrancisco and colleagues on my side of the aisle have so eloquently talked about, is at such serious risk at this moment. It makes no sense at all.
Senator LaValle twice quoted a provision of Part Q of this bill and twice excised a key phrase: "The chancellor shall, to the maximum extent practicable, allow for public comment and input from consumers of health services in the development of the plan." None is required. None, zero. None.
In Section 8 of the bill, it says: "Notwithstanding the provision of any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, a portion of such monies credited" -- those are dollars that SUNY gets -- "may be transferred to a State University account as requested by the State University chancellor or his or her designee." Do you know what that means? Not one dollar has to go to protecting SUNY Downstate overall, not one dollar of that $500 million of real estate.
You know what else? Not one community voice has to be listened to. Not one ounce of concern about the value for the community if LICH shuts down has to be considered -- not by SUNY, not by the Executive.
"Don't worry, the Legislature will have a say." No, it won't. There's no legislative input in this at all. None.
No community input, no legislative input, $500 million of real estate that the state paid for three years ago, $63 million -- not SUNY dollars, state HEAL grants -- as part of this merger, in addition to other aid and to all the Medicaid dollars that flow here.
This is simply unacceptable. It's unacceptable for every corner of Brooklyn, from the heart of my district to central Brooklyn and across the state. It's not acceptable that we would say "Good luck with Downstate, see ya later, we're done." And that's what this bill does.
I urge every one of my colleagues to vote against it in order to protect healthcare in our state, in order to protect health education, and in order to protect transparency and the process by which we deal with state assets as a legislature, as a legislative body.
And if none of that works, please just briefly consider my district. Consider the community that has playgrounds that exist and were promised as part of the development of this hospital. Consider a community that depends on the emergency services and the other medical care that my community is able to get. And consider if someone said to you $500 million of state assets in your community were going to be sold to the highest bidder with no regard for community input and no voice for your representatives.
I urge a no vote on the entire bill. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Squadron.
Senator Parker on the bill.
SENATOR PARKER:Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill.
There are two kinds of people in the world. There are people right now who are sick, and then the rest of us who at some point are going to be sick. And the question is when the rest of us get sick, is there going to be an institution in our community that protects us?
There's frankly nothing more important than your health. Right? Senator Sampson likes to say "Your health is your wealth." It's been the biggest conversation we've had in this country over the last four years as we've had a President who's made it his ambition to in fact do a healthcare plan that incorporates as many people as possible.
And what do we do on the heels of that? On the heels of that we come into a community that needs healthcare badly, and we gut it. And I'm not even just talking about this bill. We started with the Berger Commission six years ago, eight years ago. That was the first Berger Commission. Then we went to Berger II, because that wasn't enough, we hadn't cut enough then. So instead of us looking and managing the process in which healthcare was changing in our state, we decided that we were going to go in and instead of, you know, using the scalpel, we decided to use Berger and a hatchet. And so, willy-nilly, we started talking about closing institutions.
Mr. President, my objection to this bill is about everything that it takes away from our communities. And I want to thank Senator DeFrancisco and Senator LaValle for their work, and obviously Senator Golden for his input and doggedness in terms of raising this to an issue. I don't blame them for this. Because we knew this was a problem seven, eight months ago when the SUNY chair came to us and told us this was a problem.
And almost immediately we reached out to the Governor and said "Let's have a meeting." And up until this moment, I am yet to have a meeting with the Governor, and my colleagues are yet to have a meeting with the Governor to talk about this important issue.
And I get that I'm not a chair of a committee and we're not in the majority. But you know what? My district is impacted by this hospital and by the medical school. My constituents use that hospital and they go to the medical school. The people who work at that hospital and the medical school live in my district.
And so how could you deny me and my colleagues a conversation and then walk around and act like this is a better process? That's what's so offensive. Walk around like, you know, all the dysfunction is gone. Yeah, the dysfunction is gone because you're getting an on-time budget and you're getting it three times in a row and you get to say, Yeah, you know, I did, you know, better than everybody else and, you know, everybody jump up and look at me because, you know, I can make everybody do what I want them to say.
But this is not what democracy is about. The whole process of this budget rips at the very fabric of our constitution, the very thing that's supposed to protect us and give our folks voice. I'm not here because Kevin Parker is important. I'm here because fortunately -- or unfortunately, depending on where you stand -- the people of the 21st Senatorial District thought that I was the best voice to come to Albany and represent them on issues. I'm not standing here for me. I'm standing here for the 318,000 people I represent. And we have here a document that takes away their right to be involved in the process that affects their healthcare.
We thought a number of years ago that we were having a problem. And understand, the problems with private hospitals, Mr. President, has been going on for a number of years. We almost closed Wyckoff. We had a significant problem at Brookdale. Interfaith right now is about to close. Brooklyn Hospital was about to close. We closed Caledonia. We closed St. Mary's. You know, we closed private hospital after private hospital. Then we saw Long Island College Hospital on the block and we're like, we can't let one more go down.
We spoke to the folks at SUNY, we spoke to the folks at Downstate and said, "Look, is there something we could do to help?" They said yes. They said yes.
Now, as you know, I'm a very smart man. But I'll admit I don't know everything about hospitals and how they run, particularly hospital finance. So when a director of the medical center says to me, "Yeah, we can do this, we can figure this out and we can make the economics work," a number of us in this chamber said we should make it work because healthcare anywhere in the borough of Brooklyn is good for healthcare everywhere in the borough of Brooklyn.
And we had learned both through our experience on 9/11 and, you know, other things that had gone on that in emergencies you oftentimes don't have enough access to quality healthcare around the borough. So we said yeah, let's do this. It wasn't me or Senator Daniel Squadron, you know, crunching the numbers and figuring this out. We got it from them.
And in the audit that we've gotten now from the State Comptroller, we find out that the exact thing that was the problem was lack of oversight. There wasn't enough oversight. There wasn't enough oversight of SUNY, there wasn't enough oversight of Downstate Medical Center, of the hospital. And we all agreed, when they made changes they came in and did the things that had to be done.
All we've been asking here, Mr. Governor, is to be part of the process. And instead of being part of the process, you've cut us out of the process even more by not giving us enough money to figure this out and then saying, Okay, I'm going to give you a truncated timetable you have to come up with this plan -- oh, yeah, and by the way, you're not involved in it as a Legislature. So forget the 318,000 people I represent, the almost 320,000 that Senator Adams represents, the 316,000 people that Senator Sampson represents, the 320,000 people that Senator Montgomery represents, forget the 314,000 people -- no, it's actually more than that, like 322,000 people that Senator Dilan represents.
Forget all of those people that we represent; you're going to make all the decisions by yourself. That's how we got into this problem in the first place. So instead of creating more oversight, we've created now less oversight over the same thing. It has now, Mr. President, become the definition of insanity.
And your solution is to privatize everything, when I just finished telling you the hospitals that are going out of business in Brooklyn are the private hospitals. You can't make this up. So all the private hospitals are going out of business, so what do we do to improve healthcare? Privatize it. And wonder why people have government jokes.
This does not even begin to address the needs of the people in our community. And part of what everybody is not talking about here is they're planning to lay off almost a thousand people. With the proposed closing of Long Island College Hospital, they have already put into effect laying off 500 people just at Long Island College Hospital, the vast majority of those being 1199 workers.
In addition to that, with this proposal there will be upwards of 200 people laid off at Downstate Medical Center. Somewhere, between 200, possibly up to 400 people laid off as a result.
So, you know, people want to vote for this, understand that you're voting to take away the jobs of somewhere between 600 to 900 people in Brooklyn. That's not a vote I can take. Not when there are alternatives. Not when, for $150,000, we can figure this out. You have that much in HEAL money sitting around right this minute.
So you can decide that the fourth-largest employer in Brooklyn is too big to fail, Mr. Governor, and say I'm going to take all the HEAL money, I'm going to give it to Downstate, let's save the hospital, let's work on this together, let's have a collaborative process. In the same way that we didn't have a collaborative process doing the entire budget, there was no collaborative process talking about Downstate.
And then we want to talk about how great the government is working. It works better when at least there's a conversation. We had a problem last year with Kingsboro, and this is what part of what surprised me. We had a problem with Kingsboro Psychiatric Center last year, and we went to the Governor and said we had a problem.
We met with the Governor bipartisanly, and not just Brooklyn. It was Brooklyn, it was Staten Island, it was Democrats, it was Republicans. And we had like four or five meetings, and we worked the issues at Kingsboro Psychiatric Center. Which I thought was a much more difficult situation.
I'm floored that the Governor and his staff could not find a way to bring people into a room and figure out a collaborative process to in fact help Downstate get through this. And instead what we get is more of the same. It's political bullying after legislative bullying after political bullying.
Mr. President, Downstate contributes $1.3 billion to the state economy. That's a lot of money. Are we ready to let that go? Are we ready just to tell all of these health workers that they no longer can go to a school? Because again, without a teaching hospital, you're not going to have a medical school.
And as much as I know that I think that Chairman and Chairman LaValle were involved in this process and they think this is the right thing to do, they both have SUNY hospitals in their districts. And if this proposal was on your hospital, Senator LaValle, or this proposal was on Senator DeFrancisco's hospital, in Upstate, you wouldn't be voting for this. I can't imagine that you would vote for this proposal for your own hospital. I'm certainly not going to vote for it for mine.
And I'm asking my colleagues an accommodation, and to vote no on this budget. Let's go back to the drawing board, let's fix this. Because Downstate is too big to fail.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Parker.
Senator Golden on the bill.
SENATOR GOLDEN:Thank you, Mr. President.
I stand to express my support for this year's state budget. I want to thank my colleagues Senator LaValle and Senator Hannon for their commitment to SUNY and to healthcare.
And it's the conference here and the Republican Conference and the IDC and the Senate Democratic leadership that will in fact fight to make sure that there is public healthcare here in the State of New York.
This budget holds the line on taxes and controls spending. And both of these measures are critical to New York's economic health and continues to move our state forward. This budget sends a clear and strong message of New York's commitment to job creation.
And as chair of the Senate Select Committee on Science, Technology, Incubation and Entrepreneurship, I am excited that we will be expanding incubator development throughout this state. These incubators will allow inventors and small business people to make their visions a reality while creating jobs and increasing our state's local tax bases. This budget provides real opportunity to small business. And I am pleased that we're able to save the Brooklyn HealthWorks program, which helped over 1,000 small businesses get healthcare.
This budget helps create growth through the extension of the film tax credit for five more years. And it also puts $942 million into education across this state. This budget restores prescription drug consumer choice for lifting a mandate to fill prescriptions via mail order if the prices are the same at your neighborhood pharmacy.
We have taken many steps forward on behalf of many New Yorkers with this year's state budget, but our work is not done. We should not consider this budget finished or complete by any means. This is not a time for the Senate or the Assembly to pat themselves on the back for completing a state budget on time for the third year in a row. Our work is not yet done.
Ask any senior citizen if our job is done. Ask any parent or child with special needs if our job is done. Ask any doctor or nurse who works at SUNY Downstate if our job is done. They will give you the same answer as I am going to give you now, and that answer is no.
I am voting to support this budget. I do not consider negotiations on this document over. In the days and weeks ahead, I will work with the members of both the Senate and the Assembly, I will work with the advocates of the healthcare professionals to revisit and discuss the funding agreements for the budget for the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities and for the State University of New York at Downstate.
But we need to do more than talk. We need to pull together and achieve real results. To thousands of New Yorkers, this budget runs the risk of breaking up families and bankrupting homes. I, for one, pledge to you now that I will not ignore the plight of New Yorkers with special needs. This chamber has a long and proud tradition of caring for our most vulnerable New Yorkers, from State Senator William Conklin, who sat right here in this body, and in 1958 he started the Guild for Exceptional Children in Brooklyn. And Senator Frank Padavan, who in 1976 authored the Padavan Law that allowed for group homes in our communities.
We owe it to these great statesmen to continue the tradition of caring for those who cannot care for themselves. I will not ignore the needs of the employees and the patients of SUNY Downstate.
And I challenge my colleagues, everyone in this chamber, to continue the work we are starting now with the passage of this year's state budget and join with me in finding practical, realistic, responsible solutions to these problems. These are not situations that will go away, and we cannot for one minute allow these New Yorkers -- our friends, our neighbors and our families -- to be forgotten just because of the passage of these bills.
I will be voting aye on this bill, Mr. President, and hopefully we'll get a resolution to Downstate and to those who are the most needy across this great state, our developmentally disabled.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Golden.
Senator Adams on the bill.
SENATOR ADAMS:Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to thank Senator Golden for his support around the Downstate issue. And I'm just going to be brief. And I agree with both Senator Golden and Senator LaValle. You know, this is a very important issue, particularly when you look at that district where the people that use the hospital, Downstate Hospital and Long Island College Hospital, which covers central Brooklyn as well as Cobble Hill, Red Hook, with LICH.
In the central Brooklyn area, you know, one out of five that people that live in that area are living in poverty. Two out of five are on Medicaid. And when you see the need, that's why you probably see so much passion around this issue.
And so I'm hoping that we can move forward and continue the fight as both Senator LaValle and Senator Golden indicated, that we have to ensure that the hospital remains open.
I'm concerned, and when you look at the bill to remove the Comptroller, the Comptroller out of the process of procurement, that raises a concern for me. I'm concerned that when you allow the one year of emergency procurement process, that there are not a lot of safeguards in place. And that's part of the problem on why we're here in the first place, because some of those safeguards were not followed.
And I'm concerned that the numbers that were thrown out by Senator Squadron and Senator LaValle was $500,000 for LICH, but I'm hearing the numbers towards between $700,000 to a billion dollars for that property. I know that area very well. I patrolled that area as a police officer, and I saw it turn the corner. I realize that it is a very attractive and lucrative real estate in the Borough of Brooklyn.
So the question becomes we should all be part of the conversation. I'm encouraged when Senator Golden stated that the next step is to be inclusive and ensure that all those who are impacted by the decision of what's going to happen to Downstate, it should be a conversation that we should all be a part of.
One thing is for sure. The sustainability study, I don't see a final comment on what happens with the sustainability study. Are we saying the hospital is not going to close? And I don't think that's laid out in the bill after the sustainability study is done of what happens at the conclusion of that.
We need Downstate. We need Downstate not only to be an effective hospital and to turn the corner, but we also need it because of what it produces. It produces a quality product. The number of healthcare professionals that leave Downstate, they don't flee, they remain inside the Borough of Brooklyn and provide much needed services.
And I think we can't dismiss what Senator Parker stated. We're creating a model. That model cannot only impact Downstate, but it can impact Upstate when you look at Syracuse Hospital. It can impact Long Island when you look at Stony Brook. So the model that we're creating is a model that can be duplicated and impact all of us that know how important it is to have a hospital in our districts that's going to provide a vital service.
So I'm not comfortable with the language of the bill. I'm comfortable with the conversation that came from both my colleagues who were intimately involved in how this is going to shake out. I'm going to vote no on the bill, but I'm going to participate, yes, in organizing with both Senator LaValle, Senator Golden, Senator Stavisky and my colleagues who represent both LICH and both Downstate, so we can come to some form of a solution that we won't lose these hospitals, because they provide a vital service.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Adams.
Senator Peralta on the bill.
SENATOR PERALTA:Thank you, Mr. President.
The gutting of SUNY Downstate and the march toward hospital privatization are travesties. And that's what several of my colleagues have been addressing tonight. But I'd like to discuss a budget item that appears not to have made the final version, standard wages for nursing home workers.
This commonsense measure would have helped create a smooth transition to a managed-care system. It would have ensured quality care for vulnerable and ailing seniors who need and deserve the best we can give them. It would have helped make sure that our seniors can forge stable, long-term relationships with caregivers that they know and trust, which has been shown to demonstrably improve their quality of life.
It would have served to prevent the kind of high staff turnover that jeopardizes the quality of care and even the very safety of nursing home residents. It also would have made certain that the hardworking and dedicated individuals who care for our seniors are paid a fair wage sufficient to keep them on the job.
Mr. President, we're not talking about people who are getting rich, we're talking about individuals who do vitally important but often thankless jobs in exchange for an average of just over $30,000 a year. This provision did not require these workers to be paid exorbitantly; in fact, it didn't even specify a dollar amount at all. All it did was ask the Commissioners of Labor and Health to make an informed annual determination as to what standard wage would be needed to "ensure the retention of a qualified workforce capable of providing high-quality care to the residents of nursing homes." Best of all, we could have had all these benefits for seniors and workers without an extra dime in Medicaid spending.
Now, here's the interesting part, Mr. President. Unlike some other provisions that I would have liked to see in this budget, this was actually already in the Governor's proposal. And you know what? I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Assembly who fought to get it out of the proposal, because they included it in their one-house budget. So according to basic deductive reasoning, the only answer is that the majority members of this chamber decided not to help our seniors and the people who dedicate their lives for caring for them.
Who decided that a race to the bottom was preferable to ensuring a qualified workforce? I can't even begin to guess the reasons why they expended political capital to make sure this was removed from the budget. But I can tell you that this decision was absolutely wrong. Our seniors and our workers deserve better.
So I agree with Senator Golden when he says our job is not done. And that's why I'm voting nay on this bill and I'm asking all my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Peralta.
Senator Tkaczyk on the bill.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Thank you, Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield to a few questions in the mental health, OASAS, and developmental disabilities portion of the budget.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Hold for one moment, Senator.
Senator DeFrancisco, do you yield to Senator Tkaczyk?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Thank you, Mr. President.
On Part A of the mental hygiene Article 7 bill --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Can you speak up just a bit, please? Thank you.
SENATOR TKACZYK:On Part A of the mental hygiene budget there's a section related to prescriber prevails. It says that language is included that requires managed-care providers to offer prescriber prevails for prescription drugs in the antidepressant, antiretroviral, antirejection, seizures, epilepsy, endocrine, hematologic and immunologic therapeutic classes.
My question is, the antidepressants are included. Are antipsychotics also included in this?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Yes, they are. Even though they're not listed, they are included? Through you.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You said Part A?
SENATOR TKACZYK:Yes.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, it's my understanding that they are included. If I can find the bill, that would be helpful. (Pause.)
Okay, there's a little confusion -- may I answer?
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Yes.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: There's a little confusion. The Governor chose to eliminate provider prevails, and that was rejected. So we're the same as we were before this year. In other words, existing law is still in effect.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Okay, thank you.
Will the sponsor yield for another question.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco yields.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Thank you.
The bill also includes seizure and epilepsy medications that are allowed to be prescribed as written. As you probably know, many patients with depression and bipolar disorder, for example, receive a regimen of medications. Many are receiving these medications in combination with their antipsychotic and/or antidepressants, quote, unquote, off-label prescriptions of antiseizure or epilepsy drugs.
Is the off-label prescribing of these medications to meet people's mental health needs included in prescriber prevails?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: All I can tell you, the law has not changed. If they were included before this budget period, they're still included now. I don't know chapter and verse what the former law was, all I know is that we wanted to change the Governor's recommendation with respect to provider prevails, and we did. So current law is still in existence.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Thank you.
Will the sponsor yield for another question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TKACZYK:This is on Part H on the mental health bill that covers the Community Mental Health Reinvestment Act. The budget includes an extension of the Community Mental Health Support and Workforce Reinvestment Program.
We currently have 2800 beds in 17 psychiatric facilities. So during the course of the coming fiscal year, if there is a bed reduction -- a few beds, a floor, a unit -- what will happen to those savings? Will they go into community mental health services?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That's an academic question, if I understood it correctly, because there's no additional beds authorized to be closed in this budget.
So the question if it were closed what would happen, I don't think -- it can't happen, since we didn't authorize any more bed reductions.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TKACZYK:It's my understanding that we're still in the process of downsizing 2800 beds. And we may not have a facility close, but we could potentially see a few beds or a unit or a floor close and be downsized. And each of these beds costs the state about $370,000 per year.
So my question is, if we for example have 20 beds, 20 out of 2800 close this year, we could potentially save $7.4 million. Theoretically, if that happens, how much of that money would go through to the Community Reinvestment Act to community mental health services?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It would be 100 percent in the following fiscal year that the closure took place.
SENATOR TKACZYK:So any beds we closed this year would -- we would recover?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The monies would go back in the community the following fiscal year.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Okay. Thank you. Will the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Under Part N, the human services COLA, how many years have we been deferring the human services COLA.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Four or five years.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Thank you.
Would the sponsor continue to yield for another question.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TKACZYK:There's another part in the budget that covers OASAS. We have expanded access to gambling across the state in the last few years, and our racinos are among the most successful in the country. Do we have in this budget any additional funding for compulsive and problem gambling?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, not any additional money.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Thank you.
Would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Regarding the developmental disabilities portion of the budget, at the budget hearings we discussed with the Commissioner the potential impact of a 6 percent cut that was proposed by the Governor. She could not explain what impact that cut would have on the developmental disabilities providers.
This budget includes a 4.5 percent cut. What is the impact on the developmental disability providers under that cut?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: What effect? It depends on how the cut takes place.
I think the Governor's intent is to try to make sure it only occurs in the administrative costs of the system, as opposed to direct patient care, because the reason the money had to be cut to pay back the federal government for overpayments, one of the main things cited was salaries of hundreds of thousands of dollars, in some cases $500,000 to some of the operators.
So we tried, by the way, in the Senate and the Assembly budgets both, to restore the entire amount, but the Governor felt that that would not be the right thing to do since it would almost be showing that we were not taking seriously our violations in the past.
So, to me, he would like to do -- there's several things he mentioned, was reducing provider administrative costs, achieving administrative efficiencies, pursuing audit recoveries of misuse of funds by providers, providing alternative payment models, services and programming to improve or transform services.
So he's trying to reform how the delivery is made rather than simply ignoring the fact that we had to pay back the federal government because we did not do things properly in this area in the budget.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Will the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Is there any language in this budget that describes how those cuts will be implemented? Specifically.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: There are references to the cuts in the Aid to Localities bill which will be coming up tomorrow.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR TKACZYK:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Before we get to tomorrow, is there -- I would like to know if you have any response to what is the impact this cut will have on the provider communities.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, I can tell you it's 4.5 percent. How that affects an individual provider, I don't know the answer to that. But we will be -- I'll try to look into it more carefully when we get to the Aid to Localities bill to see if I can get a more precise response for you.
SENATOR TKACZYK:Thank you.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Tkaczyk on the bill.
SENATOR TKACZYK:I would like to share with the chamber how these cuts will affect the OPWDD provider community in my district.
In Albany County, a recent census of Albany County shows we have 1,808 people served by the Medicaid-funded OPWDD programs. Medicaid services paid for in 2012 was $74.8 million. This 4.5 percent cut means they will lose $3.4 million. Combine that with the elimination of the 2 percent the COLA, it will cost them $1.5 million this year, as it did last year and the year before. For the 2013-2014 fiscal year, Albany County developmental disability providers and the people they serve will lose $4.8 million in funds this year in this budget.
In Greene County, 188 people are served by OPWDD programs. Medicaid services paid for was $7.3 million. This will 4.5 percent cut means they will lose $327,000. The elimination of the 2 percent COLA will cost them $140,000 this year, as it did last year and the year before. So for the 2013-2014 fiscal year, Greene County providers and the people they serve will lose $473,000 in this budget.
Montgomery County. The census shows 429 people served in Medicaid-funded OPWDD programs. The services paid for in 2012 was $21 million. This 4.5 percent cut means they will lose almost a million dollars. The elimination of the 2 percent COLA will cost them $432,000. So for the 2013-2014 fiscal year, Montgomery County providers and the people they serve will lose $1.43 million in funds this year.
In Schenectady County, 1,219 people served in Medicaid-funded OPWDD programs. Medicaid services paid for was $49.6 million. This 4.5 percent cut means they will lose $2.2 million. The elimination of the 2 percent COLA will cost them almost a million, as it did last year and the year before. So for 2013-2014, Schenectady providers and the people they serve will lose $3.2 million in funds this year in this budget.
In Ulster County, almost 825 people are served. They are getting services of $338 million. This will 4.5 percent cut means they will lose $1.77 million. The 2 percent COLA will cost them $770,000. And so for the 2013-2014 fiscal year, Ulster County providers and the people they serve will lose $2.5 million in funds this year.
These are real cuts. These impact real people, real providers, real jobs. And we still don't have the answers on how is this going to impact the people we're serving in this agency, in this budget, in this state. These are people who rely on us to care for them. We have to make sure we are not hurting our ability to care for people who have no other option. We need to make sure we're covering the services and the group homes that keep these people in an environment that we think is one that sustains their quality of life.
I will be voting no on this budget bill. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Tkaczyk.
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY:Thank you, Mr. President.
First, let me be very clear: I was not part of the negotiations on this bill. However, I do appreciate the discussions that I had with Senator LaValle. The information that I received, quite frankly, is what I read in the newspapers.
But let me just be very, very brief and say that there are several parts of this bill that have me troubled.
Number one obviously is the future not just of Downstate but of SUNY and medical education in New York State. Because if SUNY Downstate has a problem today, tomorrow I'm afraid it may well be Upstate and Stony Brook.
Secondly, these are problems involving our educational institutions but also the healthcare delivery system in the State of New York. And I come from a county that has lost many hospitals in the last four or five years. We are terribly underbedded. And I don't want to see this extend to other parts of the state.
The SUNY re -- it's not a restructuring of SUNY, as I see it; it's more a dismemberment. We're putting SUNY Downstate into a separate class. And privatization is one area that's already been discussed. But I am troubled by the lack of accountability in the whole restructuring or the whole dismemberment process, the lack of competitive bidding. All of these issues I think are a problem.
The other reason I am going to vote against this bill is the lack of support for the developmentally disabled, the people with developmental disabilities. The 6 percent cut is unconscionable and absolutely must be reversed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Stavisky.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
It's hard to imagine not all the questions were asked, but I would like to ask a question of the sponsor.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco, do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, is there a section in this bill that creates a basic health plan, a BHP, in New York State? Because there's been several studies showing that if we were to establish the basic health plan, we would potentially be saving the State of New York between $467 million and a billion dollars in the next several years. And that New York basic health plan would assure that people between 139 and 200 percent of poverty could be eligible for benefits under the ACA, provide lawful immigrants from zero to 200 percent of poverty to be able to participate, and an estimated 617,000 enrollees in New York State could be provided healthcare benefits in New York State while we were collecting 95 percent of a premium subsidy from the federal government.
So does this bill have in it the establishment of a basic health plan?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No. It's optional by the federal government. There's a work group that's called for under this budget bill to study whether we should do that or not.
SENATOR KRUEGER:I want to thank the sponsor.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger on the bill.
SENATOR KRUEGER:So many people pointed out so many issues over the last several hours about reasons not to support this bill. But I do throw in at this late hour the fact that originally a basic health plan was supposed to be part of this budget bill. And in fact, New York State is several years behind the ball of where we should be in maximizing our opportunities to draw down federal money and ensuring that as many people as possible get health insurance in New York State.
But when you realize that New York State's savings could be between $467 million and nearly $1 billion, citing two studies, one by the Community Service Society and one by the Urban Institute in Washington -- the Urban Institute only being half a billion, Community Service Society being nearly a billion -- that when we talk about all these things we're cutting -- services for people with developmental disabilities, closing of critical hospital core services in the borough of Brooklyn, an inability to explain how we're actually going to fund the second year of a new created fund to try to get us through the first year -- and yet for all the things we're doing in this bill that people have argued so articulately do great harm to our communities, specifically special-need and low-income communities, we're not taking advantage of an ability to increase our savings and maximize money to provide healthcare to people, we're studying it.
Except it's already been studied to death. We don't need to study it, we should do it. And then maybe we would have less arguments over what we have to cut because we don't have the money.
So I could tell you there are things in this bill I like, and I do. And I can tell you some people have raised, Well, how could you vote against a bill that implies you're voting against all this healthcare funding in the State of New York, because of course there is funding for healthcare in this bill. But there are so many mistakes.
And I can't be more articulate than my colleagues already have been. But we could have done better. And in fact on some key issues, we did better in the original bill and then it was pulled out by my colleagues in the Senate. And on other critical issues, we forgot to ask the people in the communities who will be most impacted.
So for me, it's actually pretty easy, Mr. President. I can't vote yes on this bill. I'll vote no.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Seeing no other Senators who wish to be heard, the debate is closed.
The Secretary will ring the bells. Senators are asked to proceed immediately to the chamber so that we may move forward with the roll call.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Dilan to explain his vote.
SENATOR DILAN:Yes, Mr. President. I rise to indicate that I voted no on this bill because I cannot vote for a bill that authorized giving away Long Island College Hospital to SUNY without legislative involvement or oversight on an asset that's estimated to be worth anywhere from $500 million to a billion dollars. Without this involvement, I cannot vote for this bill. This is not acceptable.
Further, I cannot vote for this bill because I believe it's just the first step to the closure of the Downstate Medical Center and/or its privatization.
For these reasons, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Dilan to be recorded in the negative.
Senator Gipson to explain his vote.
SENATOR GIPSON:Thank you, Mr. President.
I will be voting no on this bill. This is the health and mental hygiene bill. This is the bill where we are supposed to be helping all the people in this state that are in desperate need of our help. And instead what we are doing, because of the bad decisions that were clearly made in this bill, is we are sucking the lifeblood out of those who need our help the most.
This is a vampire bill. It is now two minutes after midnight. There is no reason we should be here this late. Certainly voting on a bill that is so important to all the people of this state, I cannot bring myself to vote any other way than no.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gipson to be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 276, those recorded in the negative are Senators Adams, Addabbo, Avella, Breslin, Dilan, Espaillat, Gianaris, Gipson, Hassell-Thompson, Hoylman, Kennedy, Krueger, Latimer, Montgomery, O'Brien, Parker, Peralta, Perkins, Rivera, Sampson, Sanders, Serrano, Squadron, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousins and Tkaczyk.
Ayes, 34. Nays, 26.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
Senator Libous, that completes the controversial reading of Senate Supplemental Calendar 26A.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, is there any other business that the Senate must take up on this legislative day?
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:There is none.
SENATOR LIBOUS:There being no further business that the Senate may conduct on March 26th, and pursuant to Senate rule -- can I have some order, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:(Gaveling.)
SENATOR LIBOUS:-- and pursuant to Senate Rule 6, Section 2, I move that we adjourn until Wednesday, March 27th, at 12:06, at which time we will take up the remaining budget bills.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:All in favor of adjourning until Wednesday, March 27, at 12:06 --
SENATOR LIBOUS:12:06 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:-- at 12:06 a.m., signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The motion is accepted.
The Senate stands adjourned until Wednesday, March 27th, at 12:06 a.m., at which time we will take up the remaining budget bills.
(Whereupon, at 12:04 a.m., the Senate adjourned.)
Highest impact first.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.