Gaveled in 11:27 AM · Albany, New York · 2015–16 session
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 12, 2015
11:27 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR JOSEPH GRIFFO, Acting President
FRANCIS W. PATIENCE, Secretary
P R O C E E D I N G SACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The Senate will come to order.
I ask all present to please rise and join with me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:In the absence of clergy, I ask everyone to please bow your heads in a moment of silent reflection and prayer.
(Whereupon, the assemblage respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The reading of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY:In Senate, Wednesday, March 11th, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Tuesday, March 10th, was read and approved. On motion, Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: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 of state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Mr. President, would you call on Senator Gianaris for a motion.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Parker, I move that the following bill be discharged from its respective committee and be recommitted with instructions to strike the enacting clause: Senate Bill 2731.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:It is so ordered.
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Mr. President, I believe there is a privileged resolution by Senators Skelos and Klein at the desk. I ask that the title be read and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The resolution is before the desk, and the Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Resolution by Senators Skelos and Klein, in response to the 2015-2016 Executive Budget submission, to be adopted as legislation expressing the position of the New York State Senate relating to the 2015-2016 New York State Budget.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Mr. President, would you please call on Senator Skelos for opening remarks.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:I'd ask that we have some silence in the chamber. I know there's a lot of movement. So if we can take conversations outside the chamber, I'd appreciate that, and keep order in the house.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS:Thank you, Mr. President.
Today the State Senate will act on its "Brighter Future" budget plan.
I want to start off by thanking our Finance chair, Senator DeFrancisco, for his weeks upon weeks of attending budget hearings. I know how exciting they all were, Senator DeFrancisco, and we thank you for that. And of course our Finance staff and our Counsel's office for all the work that they've accomplished to get us to this point.
This should serve as a blueprint for a final budget that cuts taxes, creates jobs, and invests in New York's infrastructure. Our plan builds a brighter future for overburdened taxpayers by creating a new property tax rebate program.
Under this rebate plan, the average New York homeowner will receive a check for $458. When combined with the existing freeze credit and the STAR exemption, it is the most property tax relief ever proposed in the state's history. And it's my understanding that the total value is approximately $5 billion statewide. And this is something we should all be very proud of.
Our plan also builds a brighter future for job creators and job seekers. We advance $200 million in a small business package to help create new jobs and grow our economy. We eliminate the 18-a energy tax surcharge that was imposed several years ago, to save taxpayers and businesses $285 million over two years.
Rather than create winners and losers and force competition for economic development funds, the Senate plan provides assistance to every region that needs it. We provide $1.5 billion for upstate revitalization and another billion and a half for highway and bridge capital projects as part of a five-year road and bridge plan.
Our budget proposes $700 million for regionally significant economic development projects and a $50 million, $50 million increase in CHIPS funding to rebuild our roads after another severe winter.
Our plan also builds a brighter future for students by providing them with historic new opportunities. We increase school aid by $1.9 billion dollars, including elimination of the $1 billion that remains of the GEA that was imposed several years ago.
To provide even more opportunities for school-age children, this budget includes the Education Investment Tax Credit. We dramatically increase per-pupil charter school aid and accept the Governor's recommendation to raise the charter school cap.
To make college more affordable for New York families, the Senate increases community college base aid and raises the TAP ceiling to benefit an additional almost 16,000 students. We double the tuition tax credit, which hasn't been increased in 15 years, while college costs have steadily increased.
Our plan also builds a brighter future for the next generation by making major new investments in New York's environment, including a $38 million increase in EPF funding.
The Senate supports enhanced disclosure to ensure transparency and accountability, and will work within the Governor's ethics proposals so that we can restore the public's trust in government. And that includes both the Legislature and the Executive Branch.
As part of our budget, we are once again advancing a constitutional amendment to cap state spending at 2 percent so we can build on the gains we have made and secure a brighter future for New Yorkers.
Passage of the State Senate's budget today is an important first step in our effort to deliver a fifth -- a fifth consecutive on-time budget. So I thank you for your hard work on both sides of the aisle, and we're getting there. We will have an on-time budget.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Thank you, Senator Skelos.
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Mr. President, would you recognize Senator Klein for remarks.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Klein.
SENATOR KLEIN:Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Senator Skelos. This will be the third year that we're coming together to craft what I think will be another on-time budget that reflects the interests of all New Yorkers.
Over the past several years I think we've done a lot to recognize that we need to help our hardworking New Yorkers all over our state. We've made New York more affordable through commonsense solutions and worked in a productive bipartisan fashion to deliver for hardworking New Yorkers.
Well, this year, at the start of the year, the Independent Democratic Conference put forth a bold plan which we called Invest New York. Invest New York has many layers, but most importantly, it invests in hardworking New Yorkers -- investing in our children to make sure they have an education that's second to none, helping college students with spiraling student loan debt. We're also investing in housing, low-income housing, middle-income housing, to ensure that people can afford to live in this great state.
But first and foremost, what I want to discuss is something that we put forth in the beginning of the year, and it's a New Deal for New York. I think everyone knows that there's $5 billion in settlement money that was part of a settlement with financial institutions. That money was money that was taken from hardworking New Yorkers, so I think it's only right that we use that money to put back in the pockets of New Yorkers. So our $5 billion plan, called a New Deal for New York, would do just that.
This is a combination of being able to invest in our infrastructure. We have infrastructure needs all over the State of New York. Unfortunately, they've been ignored for too long. We can accomplish our goal of making those repairs and at the same time create good-paying jobs.
We have two layers to the program. The first layer is the Empire Works program. This is aimed at creating jobs through large infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, rail, transit, water and sewer and parks projects, and will build, repair, and upgrade New York's infrastructure to a 21st-century standard in the process.
The investment is structured as a revolving loan fund, meaning that instead of just spending this money once, the state will be able to invest the money multiple times over. This is something that is extremely important, because as I said earlier, this is going to create jobs, but create good-paying jobs. As you know, most of this work will be covered by prevailing wage, guaranteeing hardworking New Yorkers a very, very good wage.
The second part of the program is the Community Jobs Program. While the first part of our program would create over 97,000 jobs, this goes a long way towards creating additional jobs. The Community Jobs Program goes right to the heart of unemployment and will make a difference in our own backyards by reconnecting marginalized workers with good-paying jobs.
These are the smaller projects -- the town halls, the housing authority developments, small and not-for-profit projects, which certainly need help. And the way we would structure this program is that the money would be available at a minimum of $15 an hour. And if it is not a prevailing wage job, we would create a wage board all over areas in the state to ensure that we have good wages in those specific areas.
I think this is a plan that provides a way for municipalities across the state to repair, rebuild or modernize facilities that are really in need of repair.
I think also the next part of our program is something that is just as important, our housing program. I think we're clearly in a housing crisis in New York State at all levels.
When it comes to middle-class housing, we've got to make financing available and attractive to developers. That's why we're proposing a middle-income tax credit, which would provide for a tax credit for developers, financing the construction of middle-class units. This will ensure that housing remains affordable for all New Yorkers at all income levels for many years to come.
Through the moderate-income loan program, we put the focus on new construction. It can be used for both rental and condo and co-op construction. These funds could be used in a building that contains market-rate development to create a portion of units affordable for middle-income households. This is something that's critical.
But just as critical is the poor condition of our New York City Housing Authority stock. I'm sure all of us, especially in the City of New York, recognize that the dilapidated condition of our New York City Housing Authority needs to be dealt with right away. It's been ignored for too long.
And most recently the Independent Democratic Conference put forth a study where we did a real investigation and took a look at the conditions of Housing Authority developments all across New York City. And we found, unfortunately, that the New York City Housing Authority can very well be considered the worst landlord in the City of New York.
We want to change that. We're proposing a $500 million combined state and city investment. The state would provide $250 million in capital funding to NYCHA, with the requirement that New York City provide another $250 million in matching funds. These funds would be available immediately for repairs, reconstruction and upgrades.
Money is not the only answer. We have to make sure that these repairs are made and repairs are made in a timely fashion. So we have all types of accountability measures. We want to have the stakeholders, including NYCHA tenants, on board to monitor these repairs. If the repairs are not made, the money doesn't come. It's as simple as that.
I also want to put forth a NYCHA repair certificate program which would allow private developers to obtain a zoning bonus in areas being upzoned, in exchange for conducting expeditious repairs in NYCHA buildings.
I thank my members of the Independent Democratic Conference. I do want to thank them, because we worked long and hard to develop this plan. I also want to thank Senator Savino, who sat through all of the budget hearings and made sure that our voices were heard loud and clear during these hearings.
I know my other colleagues are going to be talking about the other aspects of Invest New York, which is job creation, expanding educational opportunities, providing debt relief for our college students, and giving our senior citizens the financial support they need to live out their golden years in comfort and dignity.
I look forward to moving forth with an on-time budget, and once again working very closely with Senator Skelos. And once again showing that we can come together as one and serve the residents of New York State.
Thank you, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Thank you, Senator Klein.
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Mr. President, would you recognize Senator Stewart-Cousins, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Stewart-Cousins.
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:Thank you, Mr. President.
Of course I want to thank my colleagues for all of their hard work. And I especially want to thank my ranker on Finance, Senator Liz Krueger, because she too sat through the budget hearings and, you know, helped us to really craft our priorities in our letter that I know the body received earlier.
We just have three weeks to deliver a budget that works for all New Yorkers. And I'm looking at the resolution that my colleagues have put together, and clearly there are some positive things. And I think you've heard those from both Senator Skelos and Senator Klein. And of course there are things that we in the Democratic Conference would have liked to see and will continue to work hard to make sure that we see in the resolution.
I'm glad that we understand the importance of adequately funding our public education system and eliminating GEA and increasing somewhat Foundation Aid. But we still haven't dealt with CFE, and we haven't broadened the conversation to stop the rhetoric and policies that solely target our teachers while ignoring the broader issues.
For example, in one of my school districts, Yonkers, the superintendent came up, he needs $89 million to get them to status quo because there's one psychologist to 600 children. There's no music. There's no art. There's no JV.
We have to address the issues that are impacting our children's success. We know that education is the great equalizer. And if we don't do this right, we won't be able to do the things that we need to do to so that our kids can be lifted, many of them, out of poverty.
And when we talk about lifting people out of poverty, what's missing here is addressing the minimum wage. We already know that raising the minimum wage will not only make a difference within the families, but it will spill over in terms of economic development for communities. Because people who are our lowest-wage workers are not saving money, they are putting it right back into the needs that they have, their immediate needs for their family.
Just last week I met a woman in Yonkers who walks to her job at a fast food restaurant in Harlem four days a week, because she cannot afford a MetroCard. She's at minimum wage. So we've got to address minimum wage and lifting people out of poverty.
I'm pleased that we've found common ground in providing needed aid to our upstate communities to spur economic growth, and without competitive strings attached. However, we have to include meaningful property-tax relief for our hardworking families across our state, those who need it most, not siphoning funds to households making a half-million dollars, like our Senate Majority Coalition has proposed.
We need to ensure we provide tax relief to working families and small business owners and not just corporations in the top 1 percent. We need to ensure that we fund and provide critical services for our seniors, our veterans and our children. And we are greatly disturbed that the Senate cut funding for research to end the AIDS epidemic.
It's also disappointing that my Senate Republican colleagues, just a year after announcing a heroin addiction scourge and a task force, has cut funding to combat this deadly addiction.
We need to help all students realize the dream of going to college by increasing Tuition Assistance Program programs for all New Yorkers. And that includes passing the DREAM Act, so we are no longer closing the door on young people who are here, no fault of their own, who want to contribute and want to build their communities, their families, and our society.
And again, we have to increase aid to our college students in general and people who want to attend college. Again, education is the great equalizer.
We need to provide more aid to our struggling municipalities. I know some villages and towns got aid. Again, my mayor came and asked for at least a 2 percent increase in AIM, and we have not managed to provide any of those municipalities relief.
Lastly, we can and must do meaningful ethics reform. My conference has introduced substantial ethics reform packages for four years now. We do have the ability to pass policies that work for all of our government, apart from this budget and apart from this appropriations bill, and we should really get it done now.
The budget simply doesn't go far enough to help all of New Yorkers in the myriad of ways that we can. But we have three weeks to fix that. As Winston Churchill said: This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning.
So I'm looking forward to working with all of my colleagues to make sure we have an on-time budget and a good budget for all New Yorkers.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Thank you, Senator Stewart-Cousins.
On the resolution, Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you, Mr. President.
A variety of us are going to raise different issues, but I have been asked to be the starter.
I appreciate all the leaders' opening remarks. Senator Skelos talked about $5 billion for homeowner rebates, but what he didn't talk about is what we will have to cut out of the budget in future years because we lost now perhaps $3 billion more in revenue based on the resolution before us today.
Senator Klein talked about a number of programs, but it's not clear there are appropriation dollars in the budget to cover those costs, so I'm very concerned about that. But I'm going to be, I assume, asking the sponsor to yield, who might be the Finance chair; is that correct?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Correct.
Senator DeFrancisco, do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Already?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:Already.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Already, okay.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The Senator yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
We received, just as we came into the chamber, the fiscal financial plan for this year based on the Senate Republican proposal versus the Executive's. But when we went through the actual resolution, the vast majority of changes in money -- increased tax reductions, increased costs -- were actually in the outyears, in Year 2 and Year 3. Could you tell me what the --
(Cellphone tone.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:Sorry. There's a strange noise. Oh, is that you?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:Turn that phone off.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It was the Governor, but I turned it off.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:Mr. President, pardon me. I was being thrown off by an odd noise.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:That's your ring tone for Senator DeFrancisco.
You may continue, Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Can you tell me, for the outyear of 2016-2017, what your proposed budget would do compared to the Governor's Executive Budget? What would be the increased capital cost, what would be the increased program cost, and what would be the lost revenue compared to this Executive Budget?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'll have to get it for you. This summary deals with this year, it's this year's budget. And it's consistent with other budgets we've had in the recent years where we've stayed under the 2 percent cap that we put on ourselves voluntarily, and that's on operating funds.
So it does that this year for sure. I don't have the information about outyears. I can provide it to you.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Well, through you, Mr. President, I'd be happy to take a look at that after today. Of course we'll have to vote today. But just for the record, when you go through and you add up, even just from the revenue bill changes, you're looking at probably $2.5 billion to $3 billion in lost revenue just from this one set of changes in the outyears.
So I do think it's critical for us to understand, when we're taking a vote on anything, it has an impact on the state for many years and it has a growing impact over the years the way many of these proposals have been designed.
Turning specifically to the revenue sections of the budget, Part E is the recoupment of improperly granted STAR exemptions, and STAR is a program that applies to homeowners. And yet the actual language for Part E is all about whether or not rent-regulated tenants -- who are not owners, they're renters -- have filed tax returns, which they are not always legally obligated to do. And if they have not, it requires that they be immediately evicted from their homes.
Why would a tenant eviction proposal be within the revenue section of the budget on a topic that is called "STAR rebate exemptions"? What do they possibly have to do with each other?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, just like in homes, it was determined in many instances that the STAR rebate was incorrectly or wrongfully received. And just like with homes, that you weren't supposed to receive it because you either falsified documents or in some way mistakenly put in documents that showed that you were entitled to it, the same thing holds true with respect to the tenant situation as well.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. For the record, this has actually been a proposal of the Senate Republicans for quite a few years. It actually has been overruled in case law in a variety of different way because it's based on the premise that if you are a tenant, you must be filing a tax return from that address. And of course the case law in tax policy is that those do not match.
So for the record, this is a terrible proposal. The good news, it couldn't really go into effect. But I do object to it being thrown into a revenue bill in a budget proposal.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It's in as a revenue bill because it's going to result in additional revenue coming -- by getting back those rebates that were wrongly provided.
SENATOR KRUEGER:There are two sections. So the rebate is one issue, which has nothing to do with the renters; the rebate would only apply to homeowners. Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Part G creates the real property tax relief credit. That, again, is the expansion of STAR. And just to highlight, can the Senator confirm for me that even though it is an estimated $300 million this year, it's projected to grow to $1.66 billion in the outyears? Is that correct?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I agree.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The more property tax relief we can get to our constituents, the better.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, does the sponsor think -- oh, I'm sorry, through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:I'm going to exercise and allow some flexibility today, Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:But Senator DeFrancisco will yield. Go ahead.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Does the Senator think rebate formulas should have anything to do with income or cost of taxes or the concept of progressive taxation for progressive rebates? Or should everybody who lives in a house just get that same rebate?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, it's progressive in the sense that you're getting a rebate. The amount of the rebate is based upon how much taxes -- how many taxes you pay. And that's the progressive nature of it. If you pay little taxes, you shouldn't get as much rebate as the higher taxpayer because they're paying more in taxes.
SENATOR KRUEGER:And through you, Mr. President, should the higher-income person get the same high rebate as a lower-income person?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It depends upon what the taxes are being paid on the property that's getting the break. And it doesn't -- it's not based on income, it's based upon property taxes of what you've paid, to give relief from what you're paying. Not necessarily relief from what other people may be getting.
SENATOR KRUEGER:We disagree, Mr. President. Will the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
On Part R, it is a change in the Governor's proposed reform of the Brownfield Cleanup Program, and it rejects the Governor's reforms, which include having to ensure that the property is going to be used in certain ways, that it would not be remediated and used without tax credits, et cetera. And it also leaves New York City out of the program.
Could the sponsor explain why we rejected the Governor's proposals and we threw New York City out of the program completely?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, number one, the advocates that I speak with that live outside of New York City thought the program worked great.
And from my understanding, some of the problems with the program which gave it a bad name were some abuses that occurred south of Poughkeepsie.
And what we're saying is not that New York shouldn't get a brownfield -- be involved in the brownfield program, we're saying there should be -- it should be discussed so there's separate rules and that the rules change only in those areas where there's something to change because of problems that were experienced.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. I thought some of the scandals associated with the brownfields legislation happened right there in Syracuse where Senator DeFrancisco represents. Wouldn't you agree?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, I agree that someone took advantage of it. I believe that the result was because of a favorable faulty court ruling under that situation. I'm not practicing law anymore, so I don't have to worry about seeing that judge again, and so I can confidently say it was a real bad decision.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Too bad we can't agree on how to fix that at this point in history.
On section -- excuse me. One moment. Section Part WW, you -- the Senate Republicans reject or repeal the existing stock transfer tax. Is it not true we're not collecting the stock transfer tax now? Why do we need to repeal it?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It's silly to have a -- yes, we're not collecting it now. It's silly to have a law on the books that says that there's a tax in effect when there's no such tax being collected. So we would like reality to have some relationship to the law.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Part XX. It's lovely to see a new tax revenue stream, $1 million from mixed martial arts. What a shame we'll see such an increase in brain injury in order to get that million dollars.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You know -- may I respond?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You know, there's all kinds of things in this resolution that I guarantee you that at least one person doesn't like. But I'd really like to have a civil discussion about this budget rather than snarky remarks, because it's not going to help anyone here make a decision on how they're going to vote.
SENATOR KRUEGER:You know what, I apologize for the snarkiness of my comment.
I do, though, for the record want to reiterate mixed martial arts legalization will increase traumatic brain injury among the fighters if they are participating in our state.
Part --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Krueger, are you continuing to ask the sponsor to yield?
SENATOR KRUEGER:I am continuing to ask questions of the sponsor. Yes, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor will continue to yield.
As I've indicated, I will exercise some flexibility, but also will caution the members to be mindful of the discourse.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Part RR amends the Tax Law to benefit a particular taxpayer under the state's Empire Zone program. Could you please tell me the name of that taxpayer?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm sorry, could you tell me --
SENATOR KRUEGER:It's Part RRR, excuse me, triple R, of the revenue section of the budget proposal.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm not familiar with that. I'll get an answer for you right now. And the question was?
SENATOR KRUEGER:The name of the taxpayers. Because it's particular to a taxpayer under the sunsetting Empire Zone program.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It's an Empire Zone project dealing with vending machines.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. So the vending machine company is moving locations to be eligible for the Empire Zone program at this time?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm being advised no, but we'll find out why that's not true.
Well, apparently there was a Tax and Finance ruling that this company, which owned all the machines, were not given credit, Empire Zone credit. So this would fix that ruling in order to provide the Empire Zone benefits that the Senate leadership and Senate Republicans believe was inconsistent -- the interpretation inconsistent with the intent of the Empire Zones.
SENATOR KRUEGER:And the name of the vending machine company?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't know the name of the company.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Your staff don't know? You don't know? Well, I would love that name later. Thank you.
Part VVV establishes a New York City-based property tax cap with a 2 percent limit on the rate of inflation. I suppose not unlike the cap on other localities in the state, except when the cap was created by this Legislature it was understood that because New York City does not pay for its schools through its property tax system, that it was under a different situation.
What has changed that makes people think this is now a reasonable proposal when it was not acceptable prior?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: What has changed is several years of experience with an extremely successful program that has cut the cost of government in localities in the State of New York substantially, government and schools, to a substantial extent.
And we thought it makes sense to be consistent throughout the State of New York so that the taxpayers in the State of New York, property taxpayers, get the same benefits. I'm always concerned about New York City, as you know, and I wanted to make sure we were fair to New York City.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor will continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR KRUEGER:It's actually I don't believe part of the revenue bill, it's part of expenditures.
The Senate Republicans say they reject the competition for the $1.5 billion in upstate infrastructure, but they leave it in the budget. In the Governor's plan it also appeared that it was primarily to be used in a competition for private companies through what I call expanded corporate welfare.
In the Senate Republicans' plan, is that $1.5 billion intended for infrastructure needs by the cities, towns, counties for actual government infrastructure projects? Is that what the $1.5 billion is for?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It's very loose. And I've been involved in this discussion. I believe, as one person, that it should be primarily used for infrastructure and it shouldn't be a competition about whose infrastructure is worse than the others in upstate New York State, but everybody should participate.
The Governor believes very strongly that it should be part of an economic development competition, much the same as the REDC competition, where you bring good economic development projects to a community and use these funds for the best projects and the areas that get the best projects will get some extra money for it.
I don't think that's the way to go. But the Governor is obviously very strong on that. We hope that it can be melded to the extent that we get good projects -- not depending upon who wins a competition, we get the best projects and we can use the money to enhance the infrastructure of those areas where the good projects are coming into.
So it's in a state of flux. In fact, this is one of the big issues that is yet to be resolved.
SENATOR KRUEGER:But -- I appreciate that. But in your actual budget bills and resolution, what do you, the Senate Republicans, define that $1.5 billion to be for?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It's simply a revitalization fund, a capital fund, in order to provide infrastructure and economic development for upstate cities and upstate regions because of the -- how far behind upstate is from downstate as far as economic recovery.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. So you are concurring with the Governor's proposal or changing the Governor's proposal?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: We're changing the Governor's proposal, but we understand full well that he's very intent on this.
We would hope that we would be able to end the competition and provide a pot of money, $1.5 billion, for upstate to choose the best projects and also use some of the money for infrastructure -- not just give a region extra money because at that point in time they found a good project while the other areas maybe didn't find a good project but are just as much in need of infrastructure.
So it's really a very flexible fund that we hope to define more carefully, and I would hope that it would be defined more carefully giving infrastructure the priority.
But there's infrastructure money in this budget as well; I think there's $1.5 billion of infrastructure over and above this.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:I want to thank him so far for the answers. I feel very strongly that $1.5 billion for the upstate communities should absolutely be distributed based on need for local government needs. We are -- we are creating a crisis in many of our upstate communities because government does not fund them adequately and has been reducing its funding to them.
Part -- now we're into the quadruples. Part BBBB actually extends a program called SCRIE and DRIE to include non-elderly and disabled households whose rent is over 50 percent of their income and their income is below $50,000 and they live in rent-regulated housing. It is a new cost for the City of New York and perhaps a few other localities in the state.
For the record, I like the proposal. But in each and every other time we have changed the law in property tax formulas and exemptions, it has been at local option. Is this at local option or a new unfunded mandate?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It's a local option, and it's a mandate so that senior citizens can live comfortably in their homes and be provided vouchers to be able to afford the high cost of housing in the city.
And I can't imagine the mayor, based on his position on housing and other things in the City of New York, that he wouldn't welcome 10 percent of the cost of that to be borne by the state.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. I appreciate, yes, it does allow 10 percent to be borne by the state. It's not actually for seniors; we already have the program for seniors. So it would be an expansion to non-seniors. But I actually don't disagree with the sponsor on why it's a successful model.
It's also not a voucher, technically, it's a property tax reduction to the owner of the building equal to what they would otherwise be increasing the rent by.
So it's been a very successful model for the elderly and disabled. I'm just concerned about not putting unfunded mandates on any locality.
Part CCCC is specific to Suffolk County local property tax exemptions. Again, it's for seniors. It's within manufactured housing. But it transfers the cost of that tax not paid by seniors to the state.
Can someone tell me what that new cost to the state will be?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: What the cost will be for that program?
SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, sir.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It's under a million dollars. Chump change. Chump change.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:And that continues beyond one year?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR KRUEGER:And does -- going back to the expansion of the SCRIE/DRIE, the 10 percent that the state picks up for the city instead of 100 percent, does that go on beyond one year?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, it does.
SENATOR KRUEGER:It does, thank you.
And Part GGGG is specific to a public housing revitalization fund, and it puts new restrictions on how the New York City Housing Authority can spend money. But I don't see any appropriation giving them any money.
Can you just clarify? We have new rules for money if they got it somewhere else, but we're not giving them money that we're putting restrictions on?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: This money is coming out of the large settlement, the $5.4 billion settlement. So I guess you could say it would be appropriated out of that fund.
SENATOR KRUEGER:So, I'm sorry, I must have missed the section of the budget resolution or the bills where you were giving settlement money for public housing. What amount is that, and where can I find that?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It's not lined out in the budget -- in the resolution.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Is it in a budget bill?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No.
SENATOR KRUEGER:So how do we know there's any money?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Because I told you.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:Mr. President, does my esteemed colleague think that works?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, I don't. I was --
SENATOR KRUEGER:Do we do budget by "I told you" as opposed to we have it lined out in the budget?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, it doesn't --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Order in the chamber, please.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It doesn't work that way.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I apologize for trying to add a little humor.
There is a line in the reso that we're looking for as we speak.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Good. Because I'd be very concerned that we would actually put new mandates on divisions of government saying thou shalt not do this or must do this or must do this in order to get the money, when it's sort of like pulling the rug out from under them, we don't have any money that we're giving them, we're just giving them new requirements.
And for the record, New York City Housing Authority has pointed out that they have a minimum of $13 billion and a maximum of $16 billion in capital needs. So if there were a few billion in this budget resolution for NYCHA, I personally would be delighted. But I could not find it.
I want to thank the sponsor for his answers to my questions.
I wish that we were able to work together more closely when we're actually developing our budget proposals in comparison to the Governor, because I actually think we do agree on many things. We don't agree on many things. But our failure to actually go line by line through the Executive's budget together, as one functioning house, results in issues just like I was attempting to raise today.
I have run out of time, because we're on a tight schedule, but I simply attempted to highlight some of the significant problems on the revenue side of the budget resolution, and the fact that they were putting policy into the tax bill, when I think we actually both agree that we are concerned when the Governor attempts to put policy and language sections of a budget into his appropriations bill. So I wish that we could actually agree to follow the same rules for ourself and not to do that.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Squadron.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you, Mr. President. And if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you.
I note that Part E of Public Protection/General Government from the Governor's proposal is omitted in the bill put forward in the Senate, and I wanted to ask what was included in that omitted portion.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The part number again, please?
SENATOR SQUADRON:Sure. Part E of Public Protection and General Government.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Campaign finance.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you.
If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: And I believe it includes the public financing of elections.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:In addition to the portion that the sponsor just talked about, that omitted portion, is the sponsor aware that omitted portion also includes a closing of the so-called LLC or limited liability corporation loophole?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Correct.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Can the sponsor describe the LLC loophole, please.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It's not a loophole.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Can the sponsor describe the practice in the state based on a decision that is commonly referred to as the LLC loophole?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, you may refer to it as that. I don't think it's a loophole. It's a way to raise money in a campaign. I think every party in existence in the State of New York has used that vehicle. And if it's in use by everyone, then it's not a loophole.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Does the sponsor agree that whatever we call it, LLC loophole or anything else, it essentially treats limited liability corporations as individuals rather than as corporations for purposes of campaign contributions?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That is correct. That is correct. And your campaign committee could have clearly explained that to you, because they use it frequently. As does ours.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
Point of fact, my campaign committee doesn't. I don't raise contributions from LLCs.
But it is true that much of the information available on the floor when we debate a budget is available elsewhere as well, but I think it's important to go through critical, fundamental pieces of our democracy that are included or omitted from a budget.
To continue, since under the so-called LLC loophole LLCs are treated as individuals and not corporations, is it true that LLCs have a higher contribution limit than corporations do today?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. Can you repeat it?
SENATOR SQUADRON:Since under the so-called LLC loophole, LLCs are treated as individuals and not corporations, is it true that LLCs have a higher contribution limit than corporations do?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That is correct.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:And is it also the case that individuals do not have their contributions allocated to themselves if they own LLCs that make contributions? Unlike the way partnerships are treated where, through a formula, contributions are allocated to the partners.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. But when you --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: But LLCs are a vehicle that they're treated the same way in all aspects of the law. Their LLC is a separate entity, and they're treated under the campaign finance law as they are treated in any other aspect of being an LLC.
The income, for example, is taxed to the individuals who are part of the LLC.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:As the sponsor points out, LLCs are treated in some ways the way partnerships are, and in some ways the way corporations are. And in very, very limited ways, actually, outside of this issue, the way individuals are. The description of the tax pass-through is also true of partnerships, for example, which are treated very differently under current election practice than LLCs are.
And is the sponsor aware of any way to know who the funding source is -- who the owner is, I should say, behind an LLC that makes a contribution to a New York State party or official?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't think that the Department of State requires the names of the individuals who are the partners to be recorded anywhere, so I don't think so.
But that doesn't prevent this Legislature from providing a law that would require disclosure of members of an LLC.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Is such a law included in the Senate's budget proposal?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, it's -- no.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Might it be?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR SQUADRON:That's disappointing. I love cosponsoring Senator DeFrancisco bills, and I was looking forward to the opportunity. Perhaps Senator DeFrancisco will cosponsor a Senator Squadron bill.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: If I find one, yes.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you.
Is there any limit on the number of LLCs, limited liability corporations, that an individual in New York State can create and have ownership or control over?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't think so. No, I don't think so.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
So in essence, doesn't that create a circumstance where, unlike corporations and owners of corporations, and unlike partnerships and members of a partnership, and unlike individuals, LLC contributions are nearly impossible to track down to the source of their funding, (a); have no practical limit on contribution amount in terms of the source of that funder, because individuals or entities can own an unlimited number, (b); and (c) therefore fall into kind of a nether region where they're not corporations, which are fairly well-regulated under state law, and not partnerships, which are fairly well-regulated, and not individuals, which, while not well-regulated, have a great deal of disclosure requirements?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I lost the question.
But I guess the answer generally is that this budget has certain things in it, certain things out of it. The things that are in and out have been determined by a majority of the Republicans and the Independent Conference. And this is what it is.
You can ask me questions about any topic -- for example, reform of campaign finances dealing with unions, or any other aspect of campaign financing. The fact is it's not in there because the consensus felt that it should not be in here.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Does the sponsor know either the scale, the amount of money contributed by LLCs in any recent election cycle or the percentage of all contributions into state elections made by LLCs?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I have no idea.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you.
I have, well, one other topic to discuss, but on this portion of the bill briefly in the meantime, if I can --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:So you're going to speak on the resolution?
SENATOR SQUADRON:I'll speak on the resolution and then ask the sponsor to yield again in a moment.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Squadron on the resolution.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you very much.
Fourteen percent of all money raised by state-level candidates and party committees is given by LLCs. That is three times the amount given by contributors making contributions of less than a thousand dollars.
In other words, LLCs, as the sponsor and I just discussed, LLCs whose ownership needn't be disclosed, whose ownership can be directed from the same individual infinitely, have a three times greater contribution level into the state than individuals making contributions of under a thousand dollars -- which is a scale that most people couldn't even make, but certainly a generous scale when we think about individuals who just want to be involved in the political process and support candidates they believe in.
The total contribution amount is a total of over $450 million from limited liability companies to candidates and state parties. That's means $40 million coming in from anonymous sources. In fact, that $40 million could potentially, under the law, come in from a single source. We know it's not quite a single source, but we do know that there are sources contributing to individual parties and committees at a million dollars or greater.
The Governor proposed closing the LLC loophole -- and I think we've determined that it is certainly a loophole -- as part of his ethics reform package.
And when we talk about all of the changes needed in Albany -- and I think we all agree they're a great deal -- when we talk about disclosure and transparency, when we talk about accountability, when we talk about empowering individuals, all of the people, actual people that we represent, as opposed to a narrow band of heavily invested interests, the LLC loophole and closing it gets at the heart of all of those.
Look, I'm a supporter of campaign finance reform that vastly lowers contribution limits and creates a matching system like we have in New York City. Not everyone supports that. That is a divide that we see in this house and elsewhere, based on any number of factors, including folks' political and ideological backgrounds.
Closing the LLC loophole is not like that. Closing the LLC loophole is simply about taking a whole system of campaign finance laws that I thought we had unanimity around and applying them to one area, a relatively new corporate form, that is left out of transparency requirements, disclosure requirements, any limits of any sort.
And that shouldn't be a partisan issue. That should be an issue that we can all come behind universally. It's not an issue targeted at local officials or statewide officials, at Democrats or Republicans, at the Executive or the Legislature or local government. It is targeted at creating transparency, accountability, fairness, and some level of limits in government.
And a lot was omitted in Part E that I'm a strong supporter of, to tell you the truth, but the LLC loophole in particular would help get to the core of what's wrong here in the legislative process.
To move on to the next issue, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:I note that the Senate omitted the Executive's criminal justice reform proposals, both the independent monitor for certain grand jury or subsequent to certain grand jury no-bills and summons reporting.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Correct.
SENATOR SQUADRON:I share the Majority's concern about a number of components of the independent monitor. I think there's any number of questions on the independent monitor, including how it would get its information, with whom it would share it.
Does the Senate have a counterproposal or another proposal relative to special prosecutors in these kinds of cases to replace the independent monitor proposal?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: We do not.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Is that because of the sponsor's view that the Governor's current power to appoint a special prosecutor, in the person of the Attorney General, in any instance including these, is a sufficient tool that already exists under the law?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, I think we have a criminal justice system that doesn't need a -- I'm talking from my own experience and my own opinion, that there are -- the criminal justice system doesn't need independent monitors appointed by one person that could add to the political problems that have been experienced from some of these cases.
And I think the system itself can be monitored in many different ways rather than have a monitor come in in a specific type of case all the time.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Might one of those proposals be to have broader access to the information from grand jury proceedings?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't believe that, because grand jury proceedings are transcribed. And when they're transcribed, if something untoward happens in that proceeding, there's already a supervising judge that could receive a motion from the defense counsel that says: I want the indictment dismissed for some type of irregularity in the grand jury process.
So there's already someone that can oversee abuses in the grand jury. And it happens -- the request for dismissal out of the grand jury minutes happens all the time. Whether they get granted or not, that's another story.
As far as a judge sitting in the grand jury proceeding, to me that's the most foolish thing that could be done, because he's going to have the minutes of those meetings or she's going to have the minutes of the grand jury meeting and can review it rather than sit there like a potted plant watching a proceeding that they really have little to do with because the prosecutor runs the grand jury.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:And I note that the court proposal is also not included in the Senate one-house, and now I see why.
On the question of the summons reporting --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That's correct. Judges aren't always right.
SENATOR SQUADRON:On the question of the summons reporting, the Department of criminal justice services today gets a great deal of reporting from local law enforcement. It's a very effective tool for legislators and the public to track much of what's happening. In fact, we saw some of the serious racial disparities around marijuana enforcement in New York City that, again, we've had bipartisan agreement needed to be fixed and is starting to be fixed through that data.
The Governor's proposal to include non-fingerprintable offenses and summonses in that reporting to DCJS is omitted. And I just was trying to kind of get at, since I know an entire sort of portion of policy was omitted here, as to whether that portion is one that the Majority does support and we'll see again. Just that simple reporting piece.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It does not support it as of today in this particular budget. Whether it resurrects itself at another time, I can't tell you.
SENATOR SQUADRON:And if the sponsor would yield, I just wonder why that piece, the simple reporting by local law enforcement of non-fingerprintable offenses, which have been a core of a lot of the major issues we've seen over the last year, and certainly over the last five years, doesn't make sense to DCJS.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, I believe strongly that we should have budgets that have some type of a cap on them, like the 2 percent cap that we have here. And we can do a lot of things, we can report anything and everything.
But you say it's simply a matter of reporting. Every time you create more reporting for law enforcement officials, there's less law enforcement, there's more clerical work, there's bigger budgets. And the question is does the value of the reporting, does the value of the reporting outweigh the cost, additional cost of the reporting?
This budget proposal by the Republican Majority and the IDC basically has balanced that on the side of we don't need the additional expense. We'd rather them being on the street.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Look, as I said, while I think that the independent monitor has some real outstanding concerns and am in agreement that more work needs to be done on that, I do think that both when we talk about grand jury proceedings and when we talk about this kind of data -- which, you know, by any measure, however you feel about the issue of police-community relations that we've seen, whatever side of it you're on, it has been a major issue. More data, more transparency and clarity is of great value and is appropriate for the budget because it's low-cost but does have some cost associated with it, and it's certainly a worthwhile one.
In the same context of criminal justice reform --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Squadron, are you posing a question?
SENATOR SQUADRON:Yes, I am.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Okay. The sponsor will continue to yield. Pose the question.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you.
In the same context of criminal justice reform and reducing the burden on our state and families and the cost of criminal justice, is the sponsor familiar with the Nurse-Family Partnership program?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Not intimately. Maybe if you could explain what it is, it may ring a bell.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield, the Nurse-Family Partnership program --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you.
The Nurse-Family Partnership program, which is on the Aid to Localities budget, page 419, is a home visiting program from a child is born until their second birthday for high-risk first-time moms. It has decades of research behind it showing, among other things, increased behavioral and intellectual performance at age 6, increased test scores in school in sixth grade, more than 50 percent reduced participation in the criminal justice system for kids and their moms 15 years later -- when the kids are 15, 16, 17 years old.
It has been shown by independent studies to save multiples of what it costs the state. And as I pointed out, it has that criminal justice cost.
Three million dollars was proposed by the Governor. The Senate accepted that, which I appreciate greatly. A bipartisan group of Senators is pushing for even more money because today there are 46,000 eligible births a year, first-time Medicaid moms, and only 2800 families are served.
So as we talk about criminal justice reform, the question is doesn't this make sense, even if we can't agree on some of the other criminal justice reforms, as a bipartisan vast expansion so that families aren't left out of this life-saving, life-changing program?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: So you like that.
SENATOR SQUADRON:I was asking if you did.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:What is your question, Senator Squadron?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I like it. I think it's a great idea.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you very much.
On the bill briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:On the resolution briefly.
SENATOR SQUADRON:On the resolution. Thank you for the clarification.
Look, when we talk about criminal justice, it's critical that we do make changes. There are outstanding questions. I think there's a lot of bipartisan room to find here. No question that we need greater transparency. That's true when grand juries return no-bills on high-profile cases where it just doesn't make sense to the public. It's certainly true when we look at what's happening with summonses.
Also the truth is, to get to the core of this, the bipartisan, bicameral group of Senators and Assemblymembers pushing for the Nurse-Family Partnership would fundamentally change the entire picture on criminal justice.
And so I look forward to continuing to work together, every member of the house, on this.
There's a lot else in this budget, some of which is missing. I wish we'd had funding for settlement houses, community services for the elderly. I wish we had the DREAM Act in here. I wish the minimum wage was in here.
I appreciate that NYCHA funding was mentioned, but we have to make sure it's guaranteed and for real.
And whatever happens with education, I think we need to continue to stay together. That funding should not be held hostage to policy disagreements. The education funding is based on the need of our kids.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Rivera.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
Just first, before I start asking questions, I will say for the record that while I agree with the President and certainly our colleagues that we should keep this as a collegial and sensible debate, I would be terribly disappointed if snark did not make its way into this conversation, Senator DeFrancisco, since you are kind of the best at it.
But if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator DeFrancisco yields.
And again, I'm going to caution you, Senator Rivera.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. And I thank you for your comments.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, sir.
So I have a few questions on the health part of the resolution. So certainly if Senator Hannon would like to --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: He's more prepared for that.
SENATOR RIVERA:Certainly. And while Senator Hannon is more --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:So without objection, I will call upon Senator Hannon.
Senator Hannon, do you yield?
SENATOR HANNON:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Hannon yields.
Senator Rivera, pose your question.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few.
First of all, let's start with the Basic Health Plan. If I'm not mistaken, the proposal that -- the resolution that we have in front of us, the one-house, takes that out. The Executive put the extension in there, and the Senate one-house took it out. What was the purpose of taking that money out of the budget?
SENATOR HANNON:Several purposes for taking out the Basic Health Plan. Notwithstanding its appealing-sounding name, it's really very misleading because it does not add any coverage to individuals who don't already have it or are already eligible. So there's nothing that people are denied by not having this.
The second part, you start to look at the analysis of the money that comes and flows from the federal government. In the first year there's over $600 million that comes into the state coffers. But that is not a repeating sum of money, it's a one-shot. And it does not give rise to a sustainable way that the state would be able to carry this in future years.
Senator Krueger was really asking all about future years, Year 3 and Year 4 out. Well, this is a perfect example where the money just won't be there.
The next part of it is it would seek to take people into a Basic Health Plan who are already now covered under the exchange. Notwithstanding some of the big numbers used for the exchange, it has not been a success in getting people into qualified health plans. It's been a great success in getting people into Medicaid. We have now one and a half million more New Yorkers in Medicaid because of the exchange and the system of enrolling, but we only have -- numbers yesterday -- 408,000 new people in qualified health plans. That's the private insurance.
Half of those people in the qualified health plans would be moved into the Basic Health Plan. Now, I know this is a lot of stuff that's going on, but these are the numbers. Half of those people move, how do you sustain the exchange if you adopt the Basic Health Plan? My response is I don't think you can. So I don't think it's a good idea to adopt the Basic Health Plan.
SENATOR RIVERA:Mr. President, if the sponsor -- he's obviously -- since I have limited time, Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for a few other questions.
SENATOR HANNON:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Hannon yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you.
Because I am sure that you could speak about this for a while, and we have spoken about it in the past. But I want to get a couple of things on the record that are on this resolution, and then we can obviously speak at length about it during the Health Committees or what have you.
Regarding the New York State of Health that you admitted, at least in part, was successful in getting people into Medicaid but ultimately getting more people covered, this resolution also takes out an assessment that the Executive had established to be able to fund it in the coming years. Is there -- you took that out.
Is that something that you are going -- where would it be funded? How would it be funded in coming years?
SENATOR HANNON:Well, first of all, we haven't seen a budget for the exchange, the New York State of Health. We have not seen a budget. We don't know where it's getting its money. We don't know where it's spending its money. It's not in their reports.
Second, when the exchange was established by this Governor, in that very Executive Order it said "This exchange will not cost the taxpayers of this state any money." So we are simply taking that proposed tax out of the budget and letting the administration stick to its word.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you.
If the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HANNON:Yes.
SENATOR RIVERA:A very important aspect of the Executive proposal that many of my colleagues that have their districts in Brooklyn are particularly paying attention to is the capital funding part that refers to the healthcare delivery system in Brooklyn but across the state.
There are a lot of changes that the Republican one-house does to that proposal. Among other things, that it takes it and it spreads it over seven years. And ultimately what it does is it lessens the amount on a year-to-year basis that the capital money would be available.
So my question is why -- where does the $3.1 billion come from?
SENATOR HANNON:First of all, it doesn't change the years. And second, when you're doing construction, it always takes quite a long time on a historical basis in this state to let all the money. So the years are not really changed.
Second, the numbers are not really changed, but what we have done is tried to live up to the spirit of the federal waiver that is saying we want to fundamentally change healthcare in this state, we want to have a better delivery system, we want to involve not just hospitals but we want to involve all providers in the community, be they small behavioral health or drug abuse or FQHCs, and we want to make sure that every one of them is prepared to move forward in terms of their service delivery, in terms of their computer hookup to the regional exchanges.
But we also want to make sure of something else. This state has had a terrible record, bipartisanly, under giving grants to hospitals and other places that need capital, because we have not done it in a systematic way. We have not done it geographically systematically, we have not done it programmatically systematically. We've had HEAL grants for -- that started in the Pataki administration; they did not improve measurably the system.
Now, if we're starting to take an $8 billion waiver and add to that $8 billion this $3 billion in construction money -- which we'll call it capital money, because it's not constructing bricks and mortar. Much of it will have to go to IT.
SENATOR RIVERA:Yes.
SENATOR HANNON:We need to have a process that people know how it's going to work, it's open to all, it has standards that are public, it has applications that are public, it has awards that are public.
SENATOR RIVERA:Mr. President, through you --
SENATOR HANNON:So we're not negating anything. And I think we are improving the process and making sure we're not going to repeat mistakes that we've made in the past.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Senator Hannon.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor will yield.
SENATOR RIVERA:On that issue, are you then saying that you did not change the amount that would go -- that is specifically targeted towards Brooklyn? In particular we're talking about, if I'm not mistaken, the Executive proposal, that $700 million specifically for Brooklyn --
SENATOR HANNON:Where certain things make sure that so much goes to New York City -- for instance, a billion dollars -- so much goes to upstate, and the rest can be shared around the state.
So I think in essence, if you look at it, we've increased the pot. We haven't decreased it.
SENATOR RIVERA:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA:I don't necessarily -- I don't agree on the math, but we're not going to have time to go over it on the floor too much, but I will -- because I have a couple of other things I want to make sure that I ask about.
On the End of AIDS Task Force, there is -- even though, as the proposal made clear, that the reason why it was not included was because there is not a report yet, it is obvious to many people that even though the report has not been made public, there are many recommendations that have been made privately, and also just things that we could do, regardless of whether the report has been made public or not. There is -- so you folks took that out.
SENATOR HANNON:No, we didn't take anything out, sir. We left the money requested for AIDS there. And we said that we'll look at the report when it comes out. We do not know where it is. I've been assured -- the people from the AIDS advocates have been in my office almost daily. They've been told that the report is coming out almost daily. It's not here yet.
My thought is if we had a lot of people working all year who were very diligent at this, and coming together, that their recommendations -- which then we need an agreement from the Executive to implement -- we should wait for that report.
So we are not saying anything but we're waiting. We have two weeks. I know it seems like a short time, but in budget years it's a very long time. It's like the last 30 seconds in a pro basketball game.
SENATOR RIVERA:Or like the last minute and a half where I'm going to speak.
I'll speak on the resolution, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Rivera on the resolution.
SENATOR RIVERA:Since I have limited time and many of my colleagues want to make sure that they cover many things, I will just say thank you, Senator Hannon, for answering some of these questions.
I don't necessarily agree with the way that you have -- for what you have laid out. Particularly, I am concerned of the way that the capital money for hospitals has been allocated in this particular resolution. I am concerned for my colleagues in Brooklyn and for all of the folks that live down there. I'm not sure if the way that you folks organized it is the best way to go about doing it.
Although I certainly hope that we can continue to have a conversation to make sure that our colleagues in Brooklyn are part of the process of making sure that the people in Brooklyn receive the best care possible.
Mr. President, I only have very little time, since many of my colleagues are going to speak after me --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Rivera, I'll allow you to finish and then I'll allow Senator Hannon to explain.
SENATOR RIVERA:Of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Go ahead.
SENATOR RIVERA:But as far as the -- on the healthcare exchange, I just want to state for the record that it has been a success and we need to make sure that we fund it. It is $69 million, and we should be very specific about where that money is going to come from. We need to make sure that it continues to exist.
Private equity program, we didn't talk about that much, but the Democratic Conference has recommended that we reject that proposal, even though it's been extended in the Republican one-house. I just want to state that for the record.
I also want to say that as far as -- there's something in the public protection part of the budget that I'll mention briefly, because it is important. It is a family reunion program that has been rejected and has been -- they've tried -- it's been tried to do -- over the last couple of years there's been legislation to try to get rid of the program. It has been eliminated in the budget.
And also in the health part of the budget, the criminal justice health homes, which are $5 million in the Executive proposal, has also been rejected.
And I think that both of those are bad ideas, particularly since we have many individuals that are coming back to our communities with public health issues that might just make things worse in the communities that they're coming back to.
I have a couple of other things, but I will make sure that my colleagues have much time to deal with all of these. Ultimately, Mr. President, unfortunately, I think that there's a lot here that I really wish we had more time. I'll just underline that part. We've talked about it before; we only have a couple of hours to be able to talk about so many complex issues. I don't think it is fair, either for the constituencies that we have back home, and certainly for the colleagues here that do not have time to look at all this stuff and be able to discuss it at length.
So it's unfortunate that I have to give up my time. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON:I just want to reply that the construction process that we put forward opens up the system and makes it much more visible, and people in the community but also people in the Legislature can have a greater input than what's envisioned and what was proposed to us.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Thank you, Senator Hannon.
Senator Peralta.
SENATOR PERALTA:Thank you, Mr. President. I guess would the Finance chair yield for a few questions?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator DeFrancisco yields.
SENATOR PERALTA:Senator, did you know that there was a 1982 landmark decision called Plyler v. Doe, where the United States Supreme Court held that undocumented children and young adults have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as do U.S. citizens and permanent residents?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm not familiar with the case, but I don't know of any mandate on any state to do so.
SENATOR PERALTA:Well, this is across all states. It was a 1982 landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I haven't read it.
SENATOR PERALTA:Okay. Well, in that case it was held that undocumented children and young adults have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as do U.S. citizens. And in fact, Justice Brennan wrote: "Even if the state found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice."
Would you say that the education -- that education, having higher education opens more doors for an individual in terms of a better economic future than not having one?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You know, it's impossible to comment intelligently on one sentence or two sentences out of a court case, because there may be other qualifying language, circumstances may be different. I'd be happy to get a copy -- if someone wants to get a copy now, I'll read it and answer them later before this is over.
SENATOR PERALTA:But beyond the case, would you say that --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Peralta, are you asking Senator DeFrancisco to continue to yield?
SENATOR PERALTA:Yes, if he can continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator DeFrancisco yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:You can pose the question, Senator Peralta.
SENATOR PERALTA:But beyond the case, would you agree that having an education, and in this case a higher education, opens more doors for an individual in terms of having a better economic future?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I agree.
SENATOR PERALTA:Mr. President, would the Senator yield for further questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator DeFrancisco yields.
I'll ask for a little quiet in the chamber, too. It's getting a little noisy. So members will have an opportunity to hear each other.
Senator Peralta, you may continue.
SENATOR PERALTA:Thank you.
Senator, would you also say that a person with a higher education degree is more likely to get a better-paying job and thus will end up paying more in state and local taxes than someone who doesn't?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I would agree with that too.
SENATOR PERALTA:Mr. President, would the Senator continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR PERALTA:Senator, did you know that in August 2002, then-Governor -- Republican Governor George Pataki signed a bill allowing New York to become the fourth state in the nation to extend in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrant students, and some of your colleagues voted for it?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't know the timing, but I know that's the law.
SENATOR PERALTA:In fact, 16 Republican members voted for it, including Senator Hannon and Majority Leader Skelos.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I wasn't aware of who did. But did I vote for it?
SENATOR PERALTA:I'm not sure, but we're looking that up.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Peralta, do you have a question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I wasn't here.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Or are you speaking on the resolution?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, I was here.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Peralta, do you have a question or are you speaking on the resolution?
SENATOR PERALTA:Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR PERALTA:Did you know -- Senator, did you know that although there is in-state tuition for the undocumented students, but the undocumented students still cannot afford to pay full-time tuition?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm sure that's the case, as well as citizens of the United States.
SENATOR PERALTA:Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR PERALTA:Senator, would you say that we are a state that punishes its children for the actions of their parents?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Gee, I don't think so. I don't think so. I hope we're not.
SENATOR PERALTA:So if -- if I can continue to question, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator DeFrancisco yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR PERALTA:So if a parent were to do something or act inappropriately, we wouldn't punish the child for that parent's actions.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: We shouldn't.
SENATOR PERALTA:But do you believe that we do as a state?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, I don't.
SENATOR PERALTA:Then --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Peralta, are you asking him to continue to yield?
SENATOR PERALTA:Yes, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:And Senator Peralta, I'd ask you to keep this germane to the subject at hand here.
SENATOR PERALTA:Yes.
Then I don't understand why, Senator, we are making the children pay for the parent's decision or actions of coming to this country, while being no fault of their own, and yet they can't get a quality higher education because we're not pushing or including the DREAM Act in this one-house budget.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, first of all, I don't believe the comment that children are here in the United States through no fault of their own. It's a privilege to live in the United States, no matter what benefits you get or you don't get. So it's not a fault of anyone, it's a wonderful thing that they have this opportunity.
Number two, the State of New York provides -- and first of all, I understand you're passionate about this, and I'm not trying in any way to belittle it. I'm just giving you my point of view, since you asked it, and many others are here believing it's the case.
However, in the State of New York there are thousands of kids that end up going to college and incurring debt that is unsustainable, and that debt has to be paid either by parents, by relatives, by themselves, and they find themselves way behind the eightball.
At this stage in our history, we don't have enough money to provide what's needed for the citizens of the United States. And there's great burdens for their parents and their relatives who are helping financing.
So that's where I draw the line, that there's got to be standards. And, quite simply, that until there's enough money for kids to go to school and college, there shouldn't be people who are not citizens of this state taking some of -- or using some of that money.
And by the way, that case that you cited talked about primary and secondary. It didn't talk about college.
SENATOR PERALTA:Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PERALTA:I agree with you, Senator, that we should raise income eligibility. Because this program that we're referring to, which is the TAP, the Tuition Assistance Program, you would agree that this is an entitlement program; correct?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR PERALTA:So you have to meet a certain amount of criteria to qualify, one of them being residency, the other one being income eligibility and some others. Correct?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Correct.
SENATOR PERALTA:So if we were to include the Dream Act in this budget, do you know how many students would take away TAP money from documented students?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: "Documented" meaning citizens?
SENATOR PERALTA:How many undocumented -- if we were to include the DREAM Act, which would go towards undocumented, how many of those undocumented students would take away money from the current documented students?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't think anybody can tell you that until they apply.
SENATOR PERALTA:Well, the answer is zero, Senator. The answer is zero. Because no money -- because this program is an entitlement program, no money is taken away from the current documented individuals that are attending college.
In fact, in fact, what we need to do is to increase the income eligibility so that we can cast a wider net so that more individuals can qualify under this program. That's what this program is about, and that's what we're talking about.
We have the power to increase the monies that we dole out for the TAP program. And that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to make sure that individuals who qualify, who meet the same standards, meet the same criteria as everyone else, will then have an opportunity to attend a higher education institution.
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PERALTA:It's estimated that it's going to cost -- the DREAM Act will cost between $20 million to $27 million. And the Executive, the Governor has included $27 million in his Executive Budget.
But let's go back to the taxes point. Did you know that, on average, college graduates pay $60,000 in taxes in New York over the course of a career?
Which would mean that with investment in a DREAM Act, someone who would have a college degree would end up paying $60,000 more in taxes. Which means that if they receive a maximum payout of $5100 and change for a total of four years -- would be about $20,000 and change -- it would end up paying for itself, with an individual paying over $60,000 in taxes. Did you know that?
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO:No, I don't know that. I could probably make some calculations to end up with a result that I would like as well.
I don't think there's any hard information until you know how many students are actually going to benefit from it. And $27 million doesn't mean that's all it is, all the cost is. It means the Governor has put $27 million in this budget.
SENATOR PERALTA:If the sponsor will continue to yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR PERALTA:Senator, did you know that Texas, under the leadership of the Republican governor, Rick Perry, has a DREAM Act that has been in place for more than a decade now, and in 2007 there was an attempt to repeal it and the Budget Board of Texas estimated that the state would lose $3 million a year in tuition revenue? Did you know that?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I knew there was a DREAM Act there, and that sounds wonderful. That's the policy of the State of Texas.
SENATOR PERALTA:Did you also know that Governor Rick Perry was quoted as saying the DREAM Act never had a cost to Texas taxpayers and that in fact Texas institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law was repealed? That was his statement. Did you know he made that statement?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: He's made some statements that have made people laugh, too, during the debate.
SENATOR PERALTA:But this one was very serious.
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PERALTA:So did you know that in Texas in 2011 there were 18,623 undocumented students, nearly double that of New York State?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I assume that would be the case, based on where Texas is located, but I didn't know that number.
SENATOR PERALTA:So if Texas is making this work, then why can't New York make this work?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Because there's not a majority of people that believe the way you believe, although you believe passionately in it. And that's what happens in state legislatures.
SENATOR PERALTA:Even though Texas is a much more conservative state than any one Republican member's district.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Listen, there's a couple of years where you controlled the Senate, and I don't remember that bill passing at that time. That's the time that it would be more likely to be successful.
There's different philosophies. I gave you mine. I understand yours and all those who are in favor of the DREAM Act. I understand former Governor Perry's. But this is a consensus recommendation of the Senate Majority, and that's why it's in this budget -- it's not in it.
SENATOR PERALTA:If the sponsor would continue to yield, Mr. President.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR PERALTA:Would the DREAM Act change any immigration laws, to your knowledge?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Not that I know of.
SENATOR PERALTA:Does the DREAM Act impact on any individual's immigration status, to your knowledge?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Not that I know of. Unless -- I don't know, under the current policy, undocumented residents apparently cannot be deported. So at this point in time, it couldn't possibly have any negative affect.
SENATOR PERALTA:So if we have five other states like California, Texas, New Mexico, Washington, Minnesota, and if we're not a state that punishes its children for the actions of their parents --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Peralta, could you ask the question or speak on the resolution? Because it seems that you're mixing them together here.
SENATOR PERALTA:This is part of the question.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Okay.
SENATOR PERALTA:So if we're not a state that punishes its children for the actions of their parents, and if undocumented individuals have paid millions of dollars in taxes, and if documented individuals don't lose any money by the creation of this program, and if we agree that we need to increase income eligibility for those that are documented, and if a person can get a better-paying job and thus pay more taxes if they have a higher education, and if a Republican governor not only supports the DREAM Act in other states but fights its repeal, and if these children can get great grades and be the cream of the crop -- they're being courted by the Harvards, the Yales, the Columbias, the Princetons of the world -- then tell me why won't this proposal include this DREAM Act under this one-house bill?
And please don't tell me it's just because of politics or because there was a poll that's out there that says that it didn't poll well.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Would you repeat the question?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PERALTA:I can if you want me to.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm just kidding. I gave my rationale before, and I don't think it needs to be repeated. Some people believe the way I do; you don't. The Majority who put this piece of paper together believe that it's not the policy that we should follow.
SENATOR PERALTA:Mr. President, on the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Peralta on the resolution.
SENATOR PERALTA:Thank you.
I firmly and unequivocally believe that the New York State Senate Majority has turned its back on addressing the current injustice in our state's Tuition Assistance Program. They have failed to include the DREAM Act in this year's budget.
Across its centuries of existence, New York has been the promised land for immigrants looking for a better life. We have been a beacon of hope, a singular manifestation of the American dream. We have also been a place that is never afraid to innovate, to take chances, to lead. We are not a place that punishes the children for the acts of their parents. We are a place that offers a chance to succeed to anyone willing to work for it.
Now is the time to show we are worthy of that mantle by including the DREAM Act in our budget and passing it now. And not only is passing the DREAM Act the right thing to do, it is also a smart investment in New York's economic future. For example, the average college graduate pays nearly $4,000 a year more in state taxes, meaning the DREAM Act should begin paying for itself just in a few short years.
Not only does the average college graduate make more money and pay more in taxes, but by overcoming the long odds to put themselves in the position to go to college, these Dreamers have proven that their work ethic and determination are second to none.
In addition, immigrants in general are more than twice as likely to start a new business than individuals born in this country. Moreover, in 2011, in an interview with Right Wing News, Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Texas State's enacted DREAM Act has never had a cost to Texas taxpayers. In fact, Texas institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law were repealed.
Allow me to address some common misconceptions. Let me be clear. This is not the same as the federal DREAM Act. It will not provide a pathway to citizenship. All it would do is put the children of immigrants on the same footing as other New York students when it comes to accessing higher education.
Equal footing is a commonsense next step, considering all 50 states have been required to provide every child in this country with a public K-12 education, regardless of immigration status, since 1982, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in the landmark case Plyler v. Doe.
There is also another fundamental but common misconception of the way New York's Tuition Assistance Program works. The DREAM Act would not mean one single fewer TAP slot for U.S. citizens. TAP is an entitlement program, not some first-come, first-served grant. Prospective college students who meet the income eligibility, residency and other requirements will receive TAP funding no matter what.
The DREAM Act simply allows undocumented high school graduates who meet those same requirements as other students to access TAP. We would be educating and empowering a new generation of potential hardworking taxpayers and job creators who have already demonstrated themselves to be immensely self-sufficient and capable. The more Dreamers we have, the more opportunities we have to make a smart investment.
Moreover, the social benefits are equally persuasive. Increased college access among undocumented youth could likely reduce high school dropout rates, increase college enrollment, decrease crime rates, and minimize reliance on public assistance programs.
In sum, enacting the DREAM Act will not only provide hope and opportunity to thousands of hardworking young New Yorkers, but also create jobs, boost future tax revenue, and give our state the kind of diverse educated multi-talented workforce we all need to compete in tomorrow's economy.
We can help New York remain a destination of opportunity by expanding the TAP program and extending assistance to undocumented students. So I urge my colleagues to demand the DREAM Act be part of our state budget. Because as we all know, if we're all listening to polls, segregation was popular in its time, but it doesn't mean that it was right.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Latimer.
SENATOR LATIMER:Thank you, Mr. President.
I have a couple of questions on the education portion of the budget, if the appropriate Senator will yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I think Senator Flanagan will be happy to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Without objection, the chair will recognize Senator Flanagan.
Senator Flanagan, do you yield?
SENATOR FLANAGAN:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Flanagan yields.
Senator Latimer.
SENATOR LATIMER:Thank you, Senator.
My understanding of the document that we have before us, the resolution, is a summary of the Senate Majority's positions on a variety of issues that will be used in the negotiations to come with the Governor and the Assembly.
Senator, in the area of Aid to Localities, this document raises the Governor's state aid from $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion. You specify in the document elimination of the GEA, which I agree with, and you specify a number of other items.
There is no specification on the amount of money for Foundation Aid. Is there a target number that the Senate Majority has for Foundation Aid as an addition over and above the Governor' budget?
SENATOR FLANAGAN:Senator Latimer, I would agree with you that the $1.9 billion is a fair figure. I'm gratified to know that you -- and we've talked about this before -- support our continued effort to get rid of the GEA.
And I think in a very basic, straightforward fashion, the GEA is about $1.036 billion. We fully fund expense-based aids, which I believe would represent $268 million, and then we basically have another $240 million on the table for general support for public schools. And I believe we would use that as part of our negotiations on a variety of issues, including Foundation Aid.
But is there a specific hard number in here on Foundation Aid? No.
SENATOR LATIMER:Will the Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR FLANAGAN:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The Senator yields.
SENATOR LATIMER:Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator.
Senator, you've been a very strong advocate for additional aid for Special Act schools, 853s and 4201s. Is there any specific allocation in the Senate Majority resolution that would add above the Governor's targets additional aid in these areas?
SENATOR FLANAGAN:In this document, no.
But, Senator Latimer, you know of the work that we've done on this in the past. I believe the Senate Majority has demonstrated a very strong commitment in this area. And I will tell you that I am deeply hopeful that by April 1st we can have a conversation that there will be additional funding for all of these schools.
SENATOR LATIMER:Will the Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR FLANAGAN:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The Senator yields.
SENATOR LATIMER:Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
In this proposal, the Article VII bills, S4010, there's a reference to the Governor's Educational Opportunity Agenda. The Senate majority identifies in the resolution that you've modified a series of the Executive's proposals. So very simply, I'd just like to go through each of them in sequence.
The Senate majority modifies the Executive proposal related to teachers' tenure. Can you identify how it is modified in this document?
SENATOR FLANAGAN:Senator Latimer, I'm going to take a leap of faith and suggest that perhaps I can save both of us a little bit of time.
You know, in this document we certainly -- in the bill copy, those proposals are introduced in terms of bill copy. In our resolution, there are certain things that we speak to directly in terms of rejecting and accepting and in terms of modification.
In the area of modification, I am not trying to be elusive whatsoever, but these are extraordinarily complicated technical issues and we are not at a consensus yet. And I think we -- you know, we have a different position certainly than the Assembly. We are much closer to the Governor in terms of what our advocacy is.
But the modification, I can't point to you right now anything in this document, nor could I speak to it with great clarity right now, because we believe that's going to be an incredibly important part of the budget negotiations both with the Executive and the Assembly.
SENATOR LATIMER:Mr. President, will the Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR FLANAGAN:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The Senator yields.
SENATOR LATIMER:Given that response, Senator, I'll just identify the other areas which represent areas for which specificity would be very helpful. It has a lot to do with those of us who look at a resolution like this and are trying to find that which is good in it that might lead us to support it and that in it which we have trouble supporting without knowing the specifics.
But those other areas, Senator -- and the question is would you look into these areas as well -- would be the specificity on how the Executive proposal might be modified for the takeover and the restructuring of what is called failed schools. The section that relates to the Senate Majority's modification of the 3020a hearings that relate to dismissal and suspension of teachers and/or administrators, and most importantly, the indication of the Senate Majority's desire to modify the Executive proposal for the APPR.
Each of those different areas, Mr. President, are significant, substantial areas. I have great respect for Senator Flanagan. These are the nub of probably the most controversial area of the budget. And I can certainly say that those of us in the Democratic Conference would like to be able to dialogue with you on those things. And if that's not part of a vote today, it should be part of the next couple of weeks, whether we get into that room or don't get into that room, because these will affect all of our districts.
So, Senator, would you take those matters into consideration as well?
SENATOR FLANAGAN:Yes. And I would specifically comment relative to what you just raised. There are a variety of issues, and, Senator Latimer, I think you underscored the gravity of the types of things that we are discussing, not only here today but what we will do prospectively.
We've had an opportunity to conference on these issues. Have we achieved a full consensus? No, because there's a lot of moving parts. And you know, because you're a student of this game, when you look at this budget, there are an extraordinary number of proposals, they are very aggressive, they are very direct, and there's a lot of interrelation.
If you and I had a concise discussion on 3020a, that would be relatively simple. But when you combine that with discussions about APPR, who's effective, who's highly effective, what is a receiver, how do we deal with issues like independent observation, how do you define a failing school -- we've already had a robust discussion, both internally and externally, about issues like that.
Just because the Governor may say a school is failing doesn't mean we would necessarily agree. And yet we would agree conceptually that dealing with struggling schools is something that is paramount for every member of this body. So in terms of our discussions internally, I don't think it would really be any different, in a general sense, than what is going on in your own conference.
But I will say this. We are going to have an opportunity, as you well know; by law, and now by practice as well, we are going to have budget conference committees. And we will be in a public venue, and all the parties will be there -- the Assembly Republicans, the Senate Democrats, the Senate Republicans. And I believe that would be an appropriate time for some of these issues to be discussed in more detail.
SENATOR LATIMER:Thank you. Will the Senator yield for an additional question? I see the hook is coming very close to me, but --
SENATOR FLANAGAN:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The Senator yields.
SENATOR LATIMER:Thank you.
Senator, on the issue of New York City mayoral control, my understanding of the resolution is that you see it as an important enough issue to be dealt with outside of the budget. I think you've spoken very articulately about the need to take certain kinds of issues and take them outside of the normal budget process in order to have a fair and open debate. I think members of our conference would like to have a discussion about what mayoral control would look like going through.
But yet we have other issues that are embedded in the budget which the Majority Coalition is prepared to move forward with, the tax cap being one of them, which has a great impact on schools. We have heard testimony relative to what that might represent, if not in terms of the total tax cap, applicability how it applies to certain particular costs and so forth.
So is it conceivable that we would have a discussion separate and outside of the budget about the tax cap, as we did when it was originally instituted four years ago?
SENATOR FLANAGAN:Senator Latimer, it is not only conceivable, it is an absolute certainty that that will occur, because all of us, no matter what our geographic area, we have people come into us all the time about the tax cap. It's an ongoing issue. I expect that we will have intense discussions not only the next couple of weeks, but thereafter as well.
Now, let me -- I want to speak to the issue of mayoral control. There is -- and here is -- I don't know if it's like dichotomy, but it represents some of the challenges that we face. You have the mayor coming up advocating for permanency in mayoral control. The Governor at three years, the Assembly at seven years, and to an extent, we're essentially agnostic. We haven't advocated a position with particularity.
Now, balance that with the whole concept of failing schools. So on the one hand you have people coming up saying we should grant mayoral control in a permanent capacity, and yet if you look at what the Governor has proposed, you could make a fair argument, if you accept all of what he said, that on the one hand you give permanency and then on the other hand you're advancing legislation that would essentially take the mayor out of that process. And that is problematic just in terms of how do you figure all that out.
Now, having said that, I'm just speaking as one member and as chair of the Senate Education Committee. Yesterday was the first time at the end of the day that I had any discussions with the mayor's office on mayoral control. In my estimation, if you are particularly -- if you are advocating for permanency in that area, then you should make yourself available to this body and not just at the Local Government hearing, because mayoral control is a significant enough issue that it should be dealt with in a hearing capacity. We have endeavored to set up a hearing, and I believe that we should do that. And I believe the mayor of the City of New York should be present at that hearing. Because what we're advocating and what people are talking about is not chancellor control, it's mayoral control. So I believe Chancellor Fariña should be there as well as the mayor, at the appropriate time.
And let me be clear. I don't think anyone has said that we should throw mayoral control out the window. But it's a serious enough issue, particularly in light of what the Governor is advocating in addition to that, that the timeliness of that, I think that's something that we'll be looking at in a much more detailed capacity once we resolve the budget.
SENATOR LATIMER:May I thank the President and the Senator for their time. There will be some other education-related comments from some of my colleagues before the debate is over.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY:Thank you, Mr. President.
If somebody would yield to some questions. Anybody? Any takers?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Stavisky, one second.
SENATOR STAVISKY:Maybe Senator Krueger would like to answer some questions.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Stavisky, one second. Senator DeFrancisco, you want to take these or do you want to yield to the chair of Higher Education?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Okay.
SENATOR STAVISKY:I was going to ask Senator Krueger these questions, but --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Go ahead. Go ahead.
SENATOR STAVISKY:No, no, no --
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Krueger yields.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:Absolutely.
SENATOR STAVISKY:I would appreciate Senator DeFrancisco answering a few questions.
My first questions are on the Aid to Localities part.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator DeFrancisco yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY:My questions are in no particular order.
However, in the budget the Governor eliminates the legislative adds for the CUNY budget. Particularly -- and the one that I'm concerned about -- is ASAP, the program in the community colleges which is really a national model. It's been praised editorially, and it's been praised by independent studies of the success of the ASAP program. And yet the Senate budget bill does not include ASAP money, particularly $1.7 million.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Correct.
SENATOR STAVISKY:Can you --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: All I can say is that there were adds in many, many different areas. And there's only so many dollars to add. And this was the consensus, not to add it in that area.
SENATOR STAVISKY:In the same part of the budget, the Senate rejected the Masters-in-Education scholarship fund to provide money for teachers. Can you explain why that was not included in your budget?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Once again, to get under the 2 percent cap on spending, we wanted to -- we couldn't put everything in there, and this was just a consensus priority.
All these programs are wonderful, but -- I'd like to buy each of my kids a new car. Sometimes you don't have the money to do that. Plus they're adults, and they should buy me one.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAVISKY:Will the Senator continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The Senator yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Oh, yes, I'm sorry.
SENATOR STAVISKY:In the Article VII part of the ELFA budget, the Governor streamlines new educational programs at CUNY and SUNY. And in the Senate version, this bill applies only to the not-for-profit colleges but not for SUNY and CUNY. Can you explain why?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I thought it had all of the schools in there for that. But ...
SENATOR STAVISKY:I withdraw the question, I'm sorry.
In Part H, the uniform prevention response to sexual assault issues on college campuses, the Governor and the Senate have taken an affirmative consent approach. Can you explain why this applies only to CUNY and SUNY and not to the private colleges?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Once again, it does apply to all.
SENATOR STAVISKY:Okay, so it applies to all.
Can you explain the different policing situations on the college campuses -- you have different police forces with different jurisdictions and different levels of experience and training, different requirements to carry a weapon and so on. How do you apply this uneven system of justice to this very serious problem?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't think it's an uneven system of justice. What's been the policing on college campuses is really up to the private universities and up to SUNY. As far as the public schools, SUNY and CUNY.
And what we're doing, if they can't provide the protection to women that our rules require, then I would assume they would have to change the policing in some fashion in order to comply with the rules. But it may be different -- some carry guns, some don't carry guns, and some have greater forces.
I think it's up to the boards of each school to be able to comply. And if they can't comply with their current forces, they've got to adjust.
SENATOR STAVISKY:If the Senator could continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY:If a student has a car on campus that is stolen, they report it to the local police having jurisdiction in that particular area. Why is your position not to report it to the police but to report it to the campus police?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: They can report it either place. But it does call for the local police to get involved as well, I thought. Unless I misread it.
SENATOR STAVISKY:Because I am troubled by that.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, I don't read it that way at all. I think you report it -- you can report it to the local police. They should be involved.
SENATOR STAVISKY:Thank you. I have just a couple more questions if the Senator could continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Okay.
SENATOR STAVISKY:In the -- I never pronounce this correctly -- experiential learning that is in the Governor's Executive Budget and in the Senate version, what would this include? This is for students to graduate from CUNY and SUNY.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I have no idea. I'm sure we've all gotten an education by experiencing the Senate, and I'm sure there's all kinds of experiential education, I guess it would be more hands-on education, where you're actually experiencing the -- see, now I've talked long enough, they found it.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: They're experiencing learning by experience. Increased activities include study abroad, community services or an original research project, publication of an original literary work, student government or a leadership program. So those are the ones that --
SENATOR STAVISKY:Would a paying job be included in this definition? If the student worked, in other words.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY:And one last question on that particular issue. Would this require SUNY and CUNY to develop new programs to meet this requirement?
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO:Could new programs be developed to meet this requirement?
SENATOR STAVISKY:Does this require --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No.
SENATOR STAVISKY:-- CUNY and SUNY to establish new programs --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No.
SENATOR STAVISKY:-- at obviously additional cost?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No.
SENATOR STAVISKY:No. If the Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The Senator yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY:In the state operations part of the budget, there's an appropriation of $18.37 million for CUNY SEEK, and that is a decrease of $1.2 million from previous years. Can you explain why the SEEK program, such an important part of CUNY, has been reduced?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The Governor cut it. You're correct, we did not restore it. And once again, it's an issue of priorities and available money. And that was the consensus.
SENATOR STAVISKY:In that same part of the budget, the Governor cut the ATTAIN program by almost a million dollars for SUNY, and this money was not restored.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Same answer.
SENATOR STAVISKY:Same answer? Thank you very much.
Very quickly, let me just add I'm not asking questions about the DREAM Act because Senator Peralta did such a good job. But I must express my concern also for inclusion of the DREAM Act in the budget.
Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Hoylman.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Thank you, Mr. President.
Would the appropriate sponsor yield for some questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator DeFrancisco will yield. Go ahead with your questioning.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Thank you, Mr. President. Through you.
I had a few questions about the sponsor's positions on RGGI. That's not Reggie Terry, the Syracuse linebacker, just for the record, but it's the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Is the sponsor familiar with RGGI?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I know what RGGI is and I know what it does. I don't know what issue you're going to ask about.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Well, I am interested to know, Mr. President, why the Majority Coalition proposes to sweep $36 million of the funds from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and move them instead to the Environmental Protection Fund.
Does the sponsor -- could the sponsor describe what RGGI actually does, for the record?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, let me answer the questions you're going to get at first.
The question is, Do we get rid of that funding? No. We put it on budget in order for us to have -- the Legislature to have more control over how that funding is used, rather than it being solely in the discretion of the administration, who could use it for whatever projects they wanted to use it for.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: And we tried to do that with getting rid of some of the pots as well. It's the same concept.
Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Thank you, Mr. President.
In fact, the Executive proposed $36 million moved from RGGI to the Environmental Protection Fund. The Majority Coalition is proposing even a greater sweep of $64 million. Now, why -- what are the RGGI funds being used for, Mr. President? Could the sponsor please answer that question, what are RGGI funds being currently used for?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm not sure --
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor is yielding and going to ask --
SENATOR HOYLMAN:My question is could the sponsor tell the chamber what RGGI funds are currently used for.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Currently used for. They're currently used to make the environment better.
But the problem is with the future use of that money, we don't know what it's going to be used for. So we want to be in a position to get some kind of standards as to what it is used for, rather than at the discretion of one person.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Why are we moving funds from RGGI to another environmental fund, the Environmental Protection Fund?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, we have to appropriate funds to be used for specific things. And if it's on budget, we can have more control of those funds and make sure it's being used for what it's supposed to be used for. If it's not transferred as we're doing, we're in a better position to appropriate money for appropriate uses.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Would the sponsor continue to yield, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Is the sponsor concerned that by sweeping $64 million out of one environmental fund and moving them to another that we are in fact violating, possibly, the terms of the RGGI compact between the states Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont?
All of these states have joined together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur innovation and investment in clean energy. By removing funds to the tune of $64 million, we may be violating the terms of that compact. Is the sponsor concerned?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No. Because we're not.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Does the sponsor support the goals of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm not so sure it's relevant, but I do.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:I would say it's extremely relevant, Mr. President, because we are effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul, or Mother Nature to pay the Jolly Green Giant or however you want to say it --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Hoylman, are you on the resolution now or are you still asking questions?
SENATOR HOYLMAN:I am asking questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Okay. Pose a question, please.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:And in doing so, we're dropping off $15 million into the General Fund.
Could the sponsor please explain what is the justification for the sweep increase?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, it's not being brought into the General Fund, it's brought into a specific pot of money for the environment.
And as far as the previous question, the states that you mentioned use these RGGI funds for business energy efficiency, residential energy efficiency, solar incentive program, et cetera, et cetera. And we use it for those same purposes.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Why doesn't the Majority support a bill to put the entire RGGI fund on budget so, as the sponsor suggests, this body can have control over it? Senator Gianaris, I understand, carried such a bill.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, we would, for the same reasons part of it was transferred.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Moving to another topic also in the Article VII -- this is TED Part KK -- could the sponsor explain why the Majority Coalition proposes yet another delay in the full implementation of the 2006 Diesel Emissions Reduction Act? We're not in any kind of fiscal crisis, and the Executive didn't propose it.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, it's an unfunded mandate on local governments, which none of us like.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:So would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:The sponsor, Mr. President, seems to be unconcerned that the state is in violation of federal law, which seems to be apparent by a willingness to address this issue and omit the Executive's proposal to increase air and water operating permit fees, as required by the EPA.
We should be making every stride to be compliant with the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. Is there any -- there's no concern on the sponsor's part that the state-imposed deadline is lapsing?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You know, there's several ways to get compliance. And it seems to me, at least the position of the Majority here, is that it makes more sense, as new vehicles are purchased, that -- we're having an accident, a near-accident here. I've got to give her my card.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No.
As vehicles go out of service and they're replaced, then the standards, the new standards will be complied with. Rather than requiring full fleets to be purchased when there's still useful life in some.
So over time, it's going to be all taken care of, rather than spending a lot of money, especially local governments, on vehicles that are still usable.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Would the sponsor continue to yield, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Thank you.
Is there an appropriation in the Majority Coalition proposal that would help state agencies and their contractors purchase air filters to reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No. No.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:According to the Comptroller, we spent about $532 million in the last year to treat Medicaid recipients with asthma.
The rates of asthma for this population are not, as you might believe, the highest in New York City. In fact, Senator Amedore's district is number-one for asthma prevalence among Medicaid recipients. Only the Bronx -- the Bronx is only in the top ten. All the rest are found upstate.
So how does -- through you, Mr. President, how does the diesel delay help the families of New York dealing with asthma lower their healthcare costs? How does it make their future better?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, number one, I don't think there's a direct proof that everybody who has asthma got it because they were near a diesel truck. That's number one. So I don't think the cause and effect is really that direct.
And secondly, once again, you try to make the environment better and better and better, and it just seems impractical to change whole fleets at once rather than have the requirements kick in as new vehicles are purchased.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:On the resolution, Senator Hoylman.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Mr. President, the Environmental Protection Fund enjoys broad public support. Every dollar that we invest in it, we get $7 back.
And the Senate Democratic Conference, I'm happy to say, supports a fully funded EPF. This year it should be $200 million. A fully funded EPF shouldn't come at the expense of other environmental or clean energy programs. A raid of RGGI for EPF is really a classic rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul. And that's not the way to fund the EPF.
RGGI has funded more than 2500 clean energy and energy efficient projects all across all of our districts. And let's face it, this is really about combating climate change. And I don't think there are any climate-change deniers in this chamber. I hope not. But based on this resolution, Mr. President, I question that assertion.
After Sandy hit -- $20 billion in damage, 43 deaths -- I think we all know the power of extreme weather events. And experts are saying stay tuned, words that should send a collective chill down all of our spines. Mike Bloomberg himself commissioned a report on climate change, and he's not an overly emotional or dramatic individual, I think we know. And the scenarios he identified, the big three, are truly frightening.
Heat waves. In the past, we had 18 days a year with temperatures at 90 degrees or more. In the future, and we're just talking about five years from now, we're going to have 26 to 31 days at 90 degrees or more.
Number two, intense precipitation. Instead of an average two days per year with rainfall exceeding 2 inches, in just five years we can expect five days of over 2 inches of rainfall.
And then finally, coastal flooding, which is going to have a huge impact on many of our districts. By 2020 the chances of a hundred-year flood at the Battery in downtown Manhattan will almost double, and by 2050 the chances will increase fivefold.
Mr. President, I'm opposing this resolution because I believe that we should be supporting RGGI with every public dollar at our disposal rather than robbing one environmental fund to pay for another.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Thank you, Senator Hoylman.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Thank you, Mr. President.
I just want to take a moment to remind my colleagues who are still to speak or ask questions on this bill that we are on a limited time frame because my understanding is the conference committees are scheduled to begin later this afternoon now, and we have several more to speak.
So if they could just keep that in mind and be as concise as possible in their comments, that would be appreciated.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Thank you, Senator Gianaris.
Senator Hamilton.
SENATOR HAMILTON:Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
My question is for health and hospitals. As you know, Kings County is the most populous county in New York State, and my district represents Kingsborough Jewish Medical Center, Kings County Hospital, Brookdale Hospital, Lutheran Hospital, Methodist Hospital, Downstate Medical Center -- which includes the only teaching medical center in Brooklyn, which graduates more doctors of color than anywhere else in the state.
The question is to the resolution as far as I'm trying to ask the question that the Governor allocated $700 million for capital improvements in the Borough of Brooklyn, and the Senate resolution deviates from that, and I'd like to know why.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Hannon, do you yield?
Senator Hannon yields.
SENATOR HANNON:The change is to benefit not only Brooklyn but the entire state. We thought that just detailing that there be money for a hospital in Brooklyn failed to address the situation of healthcare in Brooklyn, which I think is we have some parts where there is an isolation of care -- in other words, only one hospital for a vast amount of people -- and other places where there are hospitals crowded together.
There are hospitals in bankruptcy, there are hospitals on the verge of bankruptcy. There needs to be an acceptable plan so that you don't have something ad hoc, so you have something that looks ahead down the road, what are we going to do in Year 1, Year 2, Year 3.
And what we've tried to provide is a process so that this will be opened up, this will be available for all members of the community and all members of this Legislature to opine on it and to set priorities and to take a look at what changes are going on.
You know, there is a vast waiver that's taking place in this state that's going to turn all healthcare inside out and upside down. And the very interesting proposition the waiver has, the proposition that this government has agreed with the federal government, is that when we take that $8 billion, we will decrease hospital admissions in this state by 25 percent.
Now, I didn't sign that. This administration signed that. So you can imagine, if that's started, what impact that will have. Think of the impact that Brooklyn already went through when it went through the discussions of whether Long Island College Hospital should stay open or not, or should it be diminished or not.
So the need is for a process that's open and available. And that's why we made the changes. And we actually put minimum guarantees for what will be construction money available for New York City.
SENATOR HAMILTON:Will the sponsor yield to a question?
SENATOR HANNON:Yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HAMILTON:Let me ask the question again. The Governor allocated $700 million for capital improvements in Kings County. How much, under the Senate resolution, will be allocated towards Kings County?
SENATOR HANNON:It could be available, all of that could be available. And frankly I think more should be available. And we went along with the Governor's private equity proposal because we don't believe the sum total of construction money that's been made available through the budget or any other way that we could do it, such as the Dormitory Authority, is sufficient for the needs of the state, both in terms of bricks and mortar and in terms of computer -- electronic medical records.
SENATOR HAMILTON:Will the sponsor yield to a question, please?
SENATOR HANNON:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HAMILTON:In the Senate resolution you allocate $1 billion to New York City --
SENATOR HANNON:As a minimum.
SENATOR HAMILTON:-- as a minimum, and $400 million to Oneeda {sic} County. What's the population of Oneeda County?
SENATOR HANNON:Of which county?
SENATOR HAMILTON:Oneeda? Oneida, sorry, Mr. President. Oneida County.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR HANNON:I might just appeal for information to the chair, who represents Oneida County.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The chair is not allowed to engage in such discussion --
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:-- in order to obey the rules of the house. So I would just continue with a direct question --
SENATOR HANNON:Senator, let me -- I don't know the specifics. But here's the point. It's not just the minimum to Oneida, it's to the other upstate counties, all of whom feel that there needs to be some addressing of their needs. And that's another reason for having an open process.
SENATOR HAMILTON:Will the sponsor yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HAMILTON:You are correct, Senator, there's $400 million for upstate rural counties and $300 million for Oneida County -- excuse me, Oneeda County.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Oneida.
SENATOR HAMILTON:Oneida County, excuse me. I apologize, Mr. President.
But when you compare Oneida County's population to that of New York City, New York City has 30 times the population of Oneida County. And Brooklyn alone is 10 times the population of Oneida County. So I'm just trying to get clarification why would -- no disrespect to you, Mr. Chair -- Oneida County get $300 million and New York City get only a billion. And Brooklyn, we still haven't defined what Brooklyn would get, which is 10 times the size of Oneida County.
SENATOR HANNON:Well, it's a good question. It's a good question why the Executive is the one who proposed it. It was a good question that the Finance Committee chair posed to the Medicaid director during the course of the budget hearing. And it was their choice.
It was our choice that we said we want to put all this money together in a unified system, in a unified pool, meet goals that are attainable, and make sure that we do this in a way that when we're finished with these monies, that we can look back and say that was money wisely spent.
SENATOR HAMILTON:Thank you, Senator Hannon.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Thank you, Senator Hamilton.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Thank you, Mr. President.
I would just like to make some comments on the budget resolution, starting with --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Hassell-Thompson on the resolution.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Thank you.
Starting with Article VII proposal Part R. The Senate Majority advances language citing that the presumption of the possession of 50 or more individual packets of heroin and/or the amount of heroin with an aggregate value of at least $300 is possession with intent to sell, making this a B felony.
Currently when we speak of what makes a drug charge a felony or a misdemeanor, we usually look at the Penal Law, where historically the Legislature has made this distinction based on weight. The Penal Law spells out the kinds of drugs and the weight necessary to make possession a felony.
This budget resolution proposal changes this time-tested standard from weight to packaging and the presumed value of the drugs possessed.
I reject this proposal because the value of street drugs changes from street to street, city to suburb, making the concept that you're proposing subjective.
Using the number of packets, although valuable at first glance, fails to objectively tell us who is really selling and who is really using, thus making a misdemeanor conduct a felony.
And while I appreciate the well-intended need to respond to the high rise in heroin use and overdoses, this knee-jerk response is inconsistent with the well-thought-out public policy that we have established and enacted under Rockefeller Drug Law.
The other piece I would like to comment on, so that I don't have to jump up and down ten times, is to comment on the rejection of Part J, Raising the Age.
Let me say, Mr. President, for the benefit of those of you who have deep concerns -- and I saw the language of your Article VII that says that there's concern about the specifics and the detail of the proposal -- and say that it would be irresponsible of me not to have some of the same concerns that you have.
Except your failure to enact some opportunity for research and study and for preparation for this plan, by rejecting all phases throughout this budget -- as I looked through, and it was like doing a jigsaw, trying to find all the different pieces under all the different agencies, but I think I was quite successful in being able to find all of your rejections. And all of them are not consistent with how we usually get to the heart of a problem.
Particularly because if we need the opportunity to study a program, we at least usually put in planning and study money. And under study, you've rejected the Executive's plan. Under capital improvement, you've rejected the Executive's plan. Under all of the reforms, you have rejected the Executive's plan.
And so I'm not sure how you think that in a vacuum we can ever get to resolve some of the concerns that you have about how we get to Raise the Age.
Let me explain something with Raise the Age to you, as I've had to do to my own conference. And that is as someone who's come from the field of early childhood education, was a pediatric nurse and also worked for 25 years in the substance abusing community, that all of these are factors that speak to the concerns of Raise the Age.
There seems to be a belief somewhere that Raise the Age will do away with penalties or responsibility that we hold our young people for their behavior. That's far from the truth. What is true, however, is that there is empirical data that is available that tells us clearly that our children have several developmental stages of their lives. Their first developmental stage is zero to 5. The next big developmental stage is between 13 and 18. And that final true developing stage is between 20 and 25, before they are physiologically and emotionally developed as adults.
And while at no phase do we not proclaim to hold children responsible for their behavior, how you deal with that behavior varies from stage to stage.
We have in this chamber put heavy penalties on people who slap children between zero to 5, and yet that used to be the methodology that was used and employed until we learned better.
Part of what we're trying to help you discover is that between the ages of 13 and 25, we shouldn't be slapping kids either. And we should not be incarcerating them into the general population. Because everything in the studies show that not only are their bodies and their emotions totally abused, but it makes them worse, not better. And so their chances for having a successful life is totally diminished just by virtue of the fact that they are incarcerated under these conditions.
What Raise the Age does -- and granted, this is a conceptual concept based upon study -- what Raise the Age does is take each age group, and it does not change the fact that the law is the law and that children should be held responsible for their behavior. But the need for them to have supportive services and treatment at different phases is what is missing from what we currently do in terms of incarceration of this population.
So my suggestion to you in a very contextual way is that this budget needs to restore at least the planning and development money. We need to continue to explore those facilities that are available. There's certainly a lot of questions about what agency ought to be the lead agency. But the important thing is that every agency who has any contact at all with this population should be at the table as a part of this planning. And that would include not only OCFS, OCA, but Mental Health as well as the facilities management of this state. Every agency has a stake. And so when they all come to the table and are properly represented, we will come up with the best plan possible.
But one of the things that New York tries to do too often is it tries to reinvent the wheel. And the wheel is the wheel, and no matter how we reinvent it, it's still going to go around. And there are states like our neighboring state, Connecticut, that is already doing this and has been doing it long enough to be able to help us look at a structure that exists, look at the agencies that have come together to the table to help us to decide how best to formulate.
But to throw out the baby with the bathwater, pardon my pun, is irresponsible on our part, particularly when the numbers of young people who are being devastated every day by going to Rikers Island even as they wait for trial, makes the worst type of headlines for the State of New York.
If we are going to be the Empire State, we really need to lead better. And we don't lead by sticking our heads in the sand and saying, well, that's not a problem that we need to deal with.
The last thing that I'd like to make a comment on, Mr. President, is the attempt again to do away with the Family Reunion Program that we have in our prison. And one of my colleagues is always very fond of saying it's for conjugal rights. Well, I don't know what goes on, and he shouldn't either, because it's supposed to be private between the parties that have these rights.
But I am suggesting to you that because we continue to try to keep families together even after they go to prison, by removing these programs it limits the ability for the connection between families' children to be able to remain intact.
So I think that we have rejected this proposal in the past, and I think that we need to reject it again. Because we know that it works, we know that it is an incentive for people who are in prison. And there are so many restrictions, when I look at who's eligible -- there must be, out of the thousands of people who are in prison, there must be less than 1 percent who are eligible.
So to deny that 1 percent the opportunity seems to be somewhat irresponsible on our parts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Espaillat.
SENATOR ESPAILLAT:Thank you, Mr. President.
In the interests of time, I will speak on the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Espaillat on the resolution.
SENATOR ESPAILLAT:Mr. President, we all know, many of us here in the Capitol have touted and expressed a great deal of success and accomplishment at having a $5 billion surplus in the budget. That money has come to us not because we have implemented an austerity plan within our budgeting process, nor have we cut spending dramatically or even tried to capture additional revenues by increasing taxes or doing all types of revenue-creating measures.
It has come as a result, Mr. President, of litigation. Litigation between the New York State Attorney General's office and some of the banking institutions that engaged in very risky business, leading to a foreclosure crisis that shook this state, perhaps even the country.
As a result, we have a $5 billion surplus in the budget. And I am dismayed that very little of this surplus money is being spent or proposed for what I think should be its intended course, which is to aid those folks that have been victimized with the foreclosure crisis or to create new housing possibilities for New Yorkers.
Now New York City, as the mayor has expressed continuously, faces a major affordable housing crisis, one that could perhaps lead to a a serious crisis in the future that may see the exodus of hundreds and thousands of New Yorkers to other parts of the country or the state.
And yet with the $5 billion surplus that we acquired through litigation between the New York State Attorney General's office and JPMorgan Chase, we see very little spending for this purpose. In fact, the Governor's budget allocates the $25 million for NYCHA, the New York City Housing Authority. Now, the New York City Housing Authority is the largest public housing authority in North America. It has 178,000 dwelling units in 334 developments, housing over 400,000 people. About 80 percent of those are people with low household incomes of less than $42,000 per year. More than 25 percent of them are seniors, 65 years of age or older. And about 250,000 families still are on the waiting list for NYCHA.
NYCHA currently has a $77 million deficit in its operating budget and a $16.5 billion deficit in its capital budget. And yet very little money has been allocated. The Governor's proposed budget allocates $25 million. This house's budget proposes zero.
The Senate Minority's memo sent to the Majority proposes a $400 million allocation. Now, the City of New York is willing to match that by $300 million, giving NYCHA potentially $700 million from which they can begin to address some of their very needed repairs. Some of them are very critical -- roof work, pointing, fixing the envelope of the building that leads to very adverse conditions within the apartments, mold, in many cases leaky roofs, chipping paint.
So even though we capture $5 billion through the litigation between the New York State Attorney General's office and JPMorgan Chase, we're investing almost nothing in the housing arena.
Now, another area is affordable housing. The mayor has said that we must create affordable housing in New York City. And yet only $160 million have been allocated in the Governor's budget and in this chamber's budget for the creation of 5,000 new units.
Now, our proposal, the Senate Democrats' proposal, calls for $500 million to reach the creation of 30,000 units of affordable housing in New York State.
The Tenant Protection Unit, a unit within the state's housing agency which protects tenants who are often victimized by unscrupulous landlords, originally $8 million was allocated to that agency, hopefully for that use. This budget here has zero dollars. And we, the Senate Democrats, propose a $15 million increase, $5 million of which will go to the Tenant Protection Unit and $10 million of which will go to the Office of Rent Administration Unit within HCR.
Civil legal services. Folks that go to court every year, to landlord-tenant court with their hands tied behind their backs because they don't have an attorney, facing a well-financed and highly expensive legal services on behalf of the landlords, civil legal services is a very important initiative that should also be included. And again, zero dollars in the Governor's budget, and this chamber proposes a $1 million pilot project only for the Borough of the Bronx.
So again, our conference proposes $100 million to address the thousands and thousands of tenants that go to court without an attorney.
So again, we have this $5 billion surplus of settlement money, and very little is allocated for housing purposes. I think that's a travesty. I know there is a need for roads and bridges across the state. I know there is a need to improve the infrastructure of our state. But that money was captured because we faced a housing crisis and the Attorney General went to the court and demanded from the banking institutions that engaged in very risky business, putting in many cases families' whole savings, life savings in danger, he requested from them some type of compensation for the people that were hurt.
This budget does not reflect that. The money is being used somewhere else. I'm not saying that it is not meritorious to build new bridges and fix roads, I'm saying that we captured this money because there was a housing crisis and a good percentage of this money should be invested in that particular area.
Let me go, Mr. President, now to the DREAM Act. I won't extend myself because my colleague Senator Peralta was very eloquent in presenting his views, which I share, on the exclusion of the DREAM Act in this house's budget.
Now, the Governor connected the DREAM Act to the tuition tax credit. The majority in this house wants the tuition tax credit; the majority in the Assembly wants the DREAM Act. We must reach a consensus. Because at the end of the day, the children are the ones that are being hurt -- the children who are undocumented students that want access to higher education, and some children whose families choose to send them to parochial schools or private schools are also not going to be able to afford tuition there. So again, there must be some level of consensus with this.
Finally, let me just share with you what the agriculture -- and before I go on to the agricultural part of the budget, let me just say that in addition to not having significant investment in housing with the foreclosure money that we got, this particular budget in its revenue bill proposes to implement policies that will make residents -- income tax returns by a tenant required.
And that DHCR and the courts will be able to penalize tenants that live in rent-stabilized apartments, they will be able to penalize them if they don't submit their tax returns with their respective addresses. This as now we are approaching what will prove to be a major debate, a post-budget debate on rent stabilization.
And so as we brace ourselves for what will be probably the most important debate post-budget, rent stabilization, you know, this majority is already poking at some of the rights and benefits of tenants by trying to impose, in their language of the revenue bill, such measures.
So going back to the agricultural and markets part of the budget, let me go through some of the benefits that that industry will get.
They will get a million dollars for childcare. Now, certainly that's worthy. They will also get $500,000 for the New York State Veterinarian Diagnostics Laboratory at Cornell University. That's certainly a good investment. Two hundred thousand dollars again for a similar unit for the rabies program at Cornell University. We don't want animals with rabies. That's a worthy project.
Cornell University's program for farm family assistance, $100,000. We must assist those families that are engaged in agriculture. That's a good project.
Five hundred forty-four thousand dollars for apple growers. The apple has become a symbol of New York State. The Big Apple, New York City. Now, that's a very worthy project. I love apples.
New York Wine and Grape Foundation. We know and we've heard of all the great wines coming from the Finger Lakes. I'm sure everybody in this house enjoys a good bottle of wine. That is a good project in itself.
The New York Farm Viability Institute, $1.1 million. Agricultural and domestic arts, $160,000. Maple producers, 125. I like some maple syrup on my pancakes; that's a worthy project. And all of these projects, adding up to $6 million.
But guess what? That industry continues to exploit farmworkers in an ugly and reprehensible way, not allowing them to have a day off from work, not allowing them to be paid overtime, very often making them work under very adverse conditions, unhuman conditions. It is New York's dirty little secret the way we treat thousands and thousands of our farmworkers that are carved out from the rights and privileges extended to most if not all workers in this state.
So, Mr. President, thank you for allowing me to explain my vote on this resolution. Because of these reasons, I will be voting in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The chair wants to note that I have been very flexible in exercising latitude in exceeding the allowable time in accordance with the rules of this house. So I would urge all the members that remain on the list to speak to heed Senator Gianaris's counsel.
I will now recognize Senator Comrie.
SENATOR COMRIE:Thank you, Mr. President.
This is my first opportunity to speak before the body on the budget. I am honored to be here representing the 14th Senate District. And I do have a couple of questions for the sponsor, if he would yield for a question, dealing with the issues around --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator DeFrancisco, do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I do.
SENATOR COMRIE:-- dealing with the issues around the JPMorgan settlement money.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Okay.
SENATOR COMRIE:And I would just like to get an idea -- if you can't give it to us now, a detailed breakdown on how the Majority intends to spend those funds from the settlement money, given the fact that that settlement money was delineated from the Attorney General primarily because of --- we have so many homeowners, and unfortunately I represent part of the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis, where many homeowners were ripped off not only by the banks, but by real estate agents and other people, to wind up being in homes that they could not afford and could not maintain.
So I would hope that I could get a detailed distribution of how those funds are being disbursed in this budget, because I have to agree with Senator Espaillat that many of the monies were not given back to the communities where the foreclosure crisis has hit them the hardest.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: All right, JPMorgan, these are the categories of funding. I'll read them off.
We're concurring with the Executive's recommendation of $524.8 million, with the following modifications. The Senate provides a million dollars for the Bronx Civil Legal Services pilot program.
The Senate allocates $439.5 million in JPMorgan settlement funds for the following: Moderate-income loan program to support new construction and rehabilitation of housing for households earning up to 130 percent of the area median income.
Access to Home and Access to Home for Heroes, that's another category. RESTORE Seniors Program, Rural and Neighborhood Preservation Programs, Adirondack Community Housing Trust, Homes for Working Families, the Affordable Housing Corporation, Main Street Program, Rural and Urban Community Investment Fund, and the Public Housing Preservation. That's where that settlement went.
SENATOR COMRIE:Okay. Well, I look forward over the next three weeks to get the -- I'm sorry, I'm doing this wrong, Mr. President. Can I make a statement on the resolution?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Comrie to speak on the resolution.
SENATOR COMRIE:Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just going to speak on the resolution.
I look forward over the next three weeks before we resolve this budget to increase the funding, especially for New York City-based programs that are dealing with the foreclosure crisis. Because unfortunately in Southeast Queens that I represent, along with two of my other members that are here, the foreclosure crisis is still real and prevalent.
To make sure that we have people that are protecting our homeowners or potential homeowners from dealing with the bad loans and bad advice, we need to have agencies that will make sure that they are given the proper instruction and being led away from the bad loans that people are still experiencing now.
I believe that the money that has been allocated by the Senate Majority is nowhere near enough from the money -- I'll wait for quiet. I kind of was quiet.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Order in the house, please.
SENATOR COMRIE:But is nowhere near enough to deal with the fact that we still have a major foreclosure crisis in this city and especially within Queens.
I would just like to make some statements on the resolution to try to be brief, since my time has been cut from the original time allotted. Mr. President, if I may.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:You may. On the resolution.
SENATOR COMRIE:On the resolution itself.
I have to -- unfortunately, I have to strongly vote against this resolution because there are many things in there that are still hurtful to our communities, many things that have not been addressed to make sure that we provide enough funding for everything from NYCHA, which is an opportunity to protect affordable housing, to making sure that we do more to increase the healthcare budget.
Queens is also underbedded, severely underbedded, where many residents in Queens still have to go to Manhattan or to Long Island to get medical services. My district borders Nassau County. Many of my residents have to go to Long Island Jewish for emergency care, Franklin Hospital for emergency care, because Queens is a borough that is severely underbedded. And to not have any of the healthcare capital dollars directed to Queens is a travesty.
Queens Hospital has capital projects ready to go. Jamaica Hospital, Elmhurst Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital in Queens. We have most of the residents in western Queens that wind up traveling to Manhattan -- sometimes twice a day -- because that they can't see those specialists at that quality level in the borough that they live.
So we need to make sure that that is taken care of and that there are opportunities for hospital capital money, that it's not just given to one area but it's spread among areas, especially in Queens that is severely underbedded and has been proven so by commission reports that were done earlier.
We need to make sure that other opportunities for budget support are really considered fairly within this budget, and I hope to work within the next few weeks before we can hopefully have an on-time budget, to make sure that these things are adopted.
To not fully fund CUNY for their opportunities when CUNY is a school system -- and SUNY, for that matter -- that is educating more children and ever more adults than ever as well, not giving them the full opportunity to continue to expand and grow, is a travesty and will hurt our communities in the city and state for years to come if we don't continue to fund CUNY at the full services possible.
Not funding the Campaign for Fiscal Equity. No matter what you say about charter or public schools, if we don't fund our school system at the proper money that they deserve to have, then no school will do better because we'll constantly slip into this fight, which I think is shameful, where you're pitting parent against parent, type of school system or type of educational system against each other.
And we need to make sure that schools are funded, fully funded. Because my parents came here as immigrants, and as many parents are, they put their kids in the local school. They don't know about charter schools, they don't know about choice, they don't know about advanced programming. They're trying to put their children in a school environment so that their child can do better in life, that their child can get a good education.
It's imperative upon us as legislators to make sure that each school is funded at the proper rate that they can have so that they have every resource necessary to be a proper educational environment, where they can have music programs, after-school programs, full-day programming where a child can stay in school from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., back as it was when I was a child.
Unfortunately, I see Eric's looking at me already.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR COMRIE:And this is my first time speaking, but I'm going to try to be brief and be respectful.
And I hope to work with my colleagues over the next three weeks to do everything we can to put the monies into the budget that can really help all our neighborhoods in this state, and not some.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Thank you, Senator Comrie.
Senator Panepinto.
SENATOR PANEPINTO:Thank you, Senator. I want to speak on the resolution, if I may.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:On the resolution.
SENATOR PANEPINTO:And I'll try and be brief.
I'm really upset that the Senate budget did not include anything on the minimum wage. Income inequality is the number-one problem that faces our democracy in this country. In the last 30 years, the top 1 percent in this state and this country controlled 95 percent of the wealth.
In my home county, in Erie County, the living wage is $11.40 an hour. You know, we're raising it to $8.25 and $9 an hour -- and that's nice, but it's not enough. I support the Governor's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.50 in upstate and $11.50 in New York City, but the right thing to do is to support the Assembly proposal, which purports to get the minimum wage to $15 by 2018.
You know, New York should lead in the fight for $15. We should be fighting for working families and to reduce income inequality across the country and across the state. Workers need our help, and it's incumbent upon us to deal with the minimum wage in this budget.
Now, I am proud of the Senate budget resolution that it puts forward paid family medical leave for the first time. And I want to applaud my colleagues on the Republican side and in the IDC for supporting paid family medical leave.
Unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough. Six weeks is not enough to address the needs of new mothers and fathers and to take care of sick children. We should go with 12 weeks, and that is the right way to take care of working families.
Now, I'm a new legislator. I represent a suburban and an urban district. I've got six suburban towns, I've five suburban villages. And in talking with those constituencies, they are hamstrung by the property tax cap.
We need to have exemptions to the property tax cap so that town supervisors and village mayors across this state can get some relief. They want to engage in capital projects to address crumbling infrastructure in their towns and villages, and they cannot deal with those issues with the 2 percent property tax cap.
And I'm disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the house who represent hundreds of suburban towns and hundreds of suburban villages aren't addressing the needs of those towns and villages by exemptions to the property tax cap. It needs to happen.
Brownfield programs. Both business and environmental groups support extension of the Brownfield Program, which is about to expire this year. And I'm disappointed that this budget proposal does not address that. When you have environmentalists and businesspeople agreeing on a program, that's something that we should embrace and extend. It's a needed economic development tool for upstate communities, particularly in my community where we have 42 miles of waterfront that was industrial for over a hundred years and is now transforming into recreational area. We need an extension of the brownfield.
I was going to end with those comments today, but I did want to comment on something Senator Espaillat said. And, you know, we need to address a farmworkers bill of rights. And as a former union organizer, you know, it's a shame that this country exempted domestic workers and farmworkers when they passed the Wagner Act in 1936. And I think that this body and the Governor should take up the farmworkers bill of rights and give those people the right to organize.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Sanders.
SENATOR SANDERS:Thank you, Mr. President, on the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Sanders on the resolution.
SENATOR SANDERS:Mr. President, this is a grand hall that we find ourselves in, and it has many grand traditions. And I look at it and I say to myself if there ever was an Olympus, I'm sure they would have a hall similar to this one.
One of the failures of Olympus is that it got too disconnected from people, too far away from the common person. So I'm going to speak of two different things that I believe would have us get a little closer -- in fact, much closer to the person on the ground that we seem to somehow forget that we're representing.
There are many worthy issues, and my colleagues have spoken of many of them. And any of them are deserving of people hearing and speaking, but I'm just going to speak of two.
I'm going to speak of the MWBE. I'm going to speak of how we have inadvertently, the Senate Majority plan has inadvertently created a real danger for the MWBE program. We have not funded an extension of this program, and therefore this program may sunset before the new study takes place.
If that is the case, we will not have a program that will ensure not simply that the minority- and women-owned businesses are able to compete, but that competition, the American way, would take place. The more companies compete, the more it is better for the people of this great state. And we are actually going to be taking many of them off the playing field, and that is a danger that -- my colleagues, I urge you, you have three weeks left. You need to look in on this matter.
I would be remiss if I did not speak of how we have not done anything about the minimum wage. The dangers that we are doing to real people on the ground who are struggling with this antiquated wage system that we have come up with, and that's not addressing the needs -- and let's not even speak of big cities like New York, where people are struggling to try to make sure that they can cope with the world around them.
We are making a society a Tale of Two Cities if there ever was one. We have the power right in this body to do something about the rising inequality that America has, that New York has. We have the power if we would only use it. Or we can stay in such a beautiful environment and think that we are doing something when we're becoming further and further away from the people.
Having said that, I'm going to stop because you don't have to speak long to speak thoughtful.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Thank you, Senator Sanders.
Senator Díaz will be the final speaker.
SENATOR DIAZ:Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:I know he'll be succinct.
SENATOR DIAZ:I'm going to take my time -- not that I'm going to speak long, I just want to take this time to put my two cents in this exercise in futility.
And why did I say an exercise in futility? We are dealing, ladies and gentlemen, and those of you that are watching through the cameras, we are dealing today with a resolution. A resolution put together, put together by the Republican Conference together with the Independent Democratic Conference.
You should know, Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen, that we have three conferences in this chamber. We have the Republican Conference, led by Senator Skelos, with 32 Senators. We have the regular Democratic Conference, composed of 25 Senators, led by the Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins. And we have the Independent Democratic Conference with five Senators.
This resolution -- I'm going to repeat myself, with gusto -- this resolution was put together by the joining forces of the Republican Conference of 32 Senators and the Independent Democratic Conference with five Senators.
The 25 Senators that compose the regular Democratic Conference, led by Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, has no part in it. We had no say, we have nothing about it, this conference. Allocating money in our communities and other things in our communities, we have nothing to do with it.
And, Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen, you should know why we have nothing to do with it. Because the leader of our conference has not been invited, has not been part of the three men in the room, now four men in the room, to deal with and to put the input that -- representing 25 Senators -- especially, especially, Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen, especially Senators that represent minority communities, black and Hispanic communities. Because we are, this conference, the regular Democratic Conference led by Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, is the one that represents the majority of the City of New York housing developments.
This resolution that we are dealing with, according to the report, the resolution put together by the Republican Conference and the Independent Democratic Conference, is -- according to Senator Espaillat, the Governor is asking in his part to put $25 million for NYCHA. And NYCHA is the New York City Housing Authority that we represent, that we, the 25 members of the regular Democratic Conference, represent. Nobody represents NYCHA here as we do.
The Governor is asking $25 million to help NYCHA. The Assembly is asking for $100 million -- or $125 million for NYCHA. And this resolution, put together with the Republican conference and the Independent Democratic Conference, is asking zero for NYCHA.
If Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins would have been part of this dealing, representing us, we would have asked for $400 million. The mayor of the City of New York is requesting $300 million for the New York City Housing Authority.
So in this resolution that we're dealing today, there is zero money from the Senate to New York City Housing Authority.
This resolution, ladies and gentlemen and Mr. President, you should know that this resolution has nothing, is taking out the DREAM Act. This resolution put together by the Republican Conference and the Independent Democratic Conference says no to the DREAM Act. We had no input on it. We're just doing this as an exercise in futility.
This resolution, put together by the Republican conference of 32 Senators and five Senators from the Independent Democratic Conference, they are putting no increase on something called the Tenant Protection Unit to fight and to represent and to protect those poor people in our community. There's no money in this, no increase in that.
This resolution that we're dealing with today, put together by the Republican Conference and the five members of the Independent Democratic Conference without our input -- according to Senator Jesse Hamilton, Onaida County -- Oneida County, who has 233,000 people, is getting $300 million for hospitals, health. And New York City, New York City, who has 8 million people, is only getting $1 billion in this resolution put together by the Republican Conference and the five members of the Independent Democratic Conference.
We have no say. We have been here since 11 o'clock talking about it, and I have seen every member of the regular Democratic Conference talking about this and that. Now, why am I saying this, and why am I making sometimes enemies when I speak? Because I cannot tolerate things, I cannot let things go just by -- it's too much for me to let things go.
Let me tell you what I don't like now and what's my problem today. That at the time to vote, when we are going to vote, we are going to vote something called voice vote. We are not voting roll call. Ladies and gentlemen, you should know that roll call means that the names of every single member has to be called and then in the record it states how every single member votes.
But no, we're not going to vote, we are not going to vote in a roll call. We're going to vote voice call. Meaning that nobody knows, even those members of the regular Democratic Conference that have stood here all this time talking against this resolution, nobody knows how they're going to vote. No one will know how you vote. So you want to vote against, you could vote against the DREAM Act and no one knows that. You could vote against the -- not putting money for NYCHA, for New York City Housing Authority, and nobody knows that, because it's a voice vote.
So talk is cheap. So we could be here all day talking about what we don't like -- and I'm talking now to my conference, to the members of my conference. We could be here all day talking about what we don't like about this resolution that we have nothing to do with it, that we didn't have input on it. So we could be here all day talking about the things that we don't like.
But we are not asking for a roll call. So why, if we don't like something, why don't we afford a roll call to put here publicly who is against and who is in favor? So that's why I'm saying this is an exercise in futility.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what you should know, and I am State Senator Ruben Díaz. Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The question is before the house.
The question is on the resolution. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Opposed?
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Savino to explain her vote.
SENATOR SAVINO:Thank you, Mr. President.
I will be brief, because we have been at this for quite some time.
I heard some of my colleagues here today talk about how this is their first experience in the budget process. And I can only remember what mine was like the first year. I've been here 10 years now, and I can remember how nervous I was the first time I had to come in and vote on a budget resolution, because it was kind of like being in the middle of a movie where everybody else knows what's happening but you, and you're trying to play catch-up.
And the first year or two, I was very nervous about what we were doing in the budget resolution process, when in reality what we're doing is just the real first opening gambit in our budget negotiations.
A budget resolution, as we all know, there are good things and there are bad things. There are things in here that I don't like, and there are things in here that I'm very happy to see in there. And I know that I'm going have to fight twice as hard to get out the things that I don't like and three times as hard to keep the things in that I do like.
But I want to focus on one thing that I think is very important, and it's an issue many of us in this chamber have been committed to accomplishing here in New York State for a very long time. And this is the second year in a row that in the Senate one-house budget resolution we state clearly and unequivocally that it is time for New York State to create a paid family leave program.
We are saying it very loudly, putting forward a program that not only creates a paid family leave program so that families can take time off with a wage replacement mechanism that does not get charged to their employers, but allowing women to take time off to deal with a newborn or a sick parent or a spouse. Something that we are behind the eightball, way behind California and even behind New Jersey, if you can imagine that.
But we're not only creating a paid family leave program with a wage replacement mechanism that doesn't place a burden on businesses, we're also addressing a terrible disparity that has existed in New York State for a very long time, and that is our rate of temporary disability. If a worker in New York is injured -- not on the job, but off the job -- and is required to take time off, the wage replacement under the state's TDI is so low it almost impossible for them to take advantage of that and deal with their own illness.
So we're staking that claim again in this budget that the New York State Senate, Republicans, Democrats and Independent Democrats, believe that New York State should cross that threshold and become the next state to develop a paid family leave program. And I know each and every one of you is going to fight for it alongside with us in the real budget negotiations.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Thank you, Senator Savino, to be recorded in the affirmative.
Having called the ayes and nays, the ayes have it. The resolution is adopted.
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Can we return to motions and resolutions.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:We will return to motions and resolutions.
SENATOR LaVALLE: On behalf of Senator Nozzolio, on page number 15 I offer the following amendments to Calendar Number 156, Senate Print Number 2217, and ask that said bill retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:The amendments are received, and the bill shall retain its place on third reading.
Can I have some order in the house. We still have business before the house.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Is there any other business at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:Senator Latimer, why do you rise?
SENATOR LATIMER:Mr. President, I rise to advise Senator LaValle that today is Senator Lanza's birthday, and perhaps he wants to recognize that in the house.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LaVALLE: Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Senator Lanza, happy birthday.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:We extend a very happy birthday to Senator Andy Lanza.
Thank you, Senator Latimer. Thank you, Senator LaValle.
There is no further business that appears before the desk.
SENATOR LaVALLE: There being no further business, I move we adjourn until Monday, March 16th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening days being legislative days.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO:On motion, the Senate will stand adjourned until Monday, March 16th, at 3:00 p.m., with intervening days being legislative days.
The Senate stands adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 2:39 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)
Highest impact first.