NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 1, 2012
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR JOSEPH A. GRIFFO, Acting President FRANCIS W. PATIENCE, Secretary
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING 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 that we all bow our heads in a moment of silent reflection.
(Whereupon, the assemblage respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The reading of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate, Monday, April 30th, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Saturday, April 28th, 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 from state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, at this time could you please call on Senator Kennedy for the purposes of a statement.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Kennedy.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
First of all, let me thank Senator Libous for giving me the opportunity to address this honorable body.
New York State needs to do a better job of protecting our children. And there's a little boy from Western New York who can tell that story better than anyone else, who's joined us here today: a little boy by the name of Jay J. Bolvin, one of the bravest little boys I've ever met.
Along with Jay J. are his grandparents, Joseph and Tabitha Retzer. If you could stand up, please. Also, Jay J.'s Uncle Kevin and Aunt Chris Retzer are here with us today.
Jay J. is with us here today for one reason, to prevent other children from ever having to suffer the pain that he has endured. As an infant, Jay J. suffered severe abuse at the hands of his own father. In the violent attacks, 11 of his bones were fractured. And Jay J. was left with a severe seizure disorder after being violently shaken.
To make matters worse, his abuser had previously assaulted another one of his sons and broken his arm. However, the state's Penal Law failed Jay J., and a gap in the state law led to his abuser being handed a light sentence of one and a third to four years in prison because his previous conviction had happened four years earlier.
Today, Jay J., his family -- his grandparents, his aunt and his uncle -- are advocating for families across New York State and will help us to deliver justice and protect victims just like Jay J.
Many of us are parents and want nothing more than to protect children all across New York State. That's exactly what Jay J. and his family, the Retzers, want.
Today we welcome Jay J. as well as Joseph and Tabitha, Kevin and Chris Retzer. Thank you for all of your advocacy on behalf of Jay J. and on behalf of families across all of New York State.
I'd also like, again, to extend my appreciation to all of the Western New York delegation who have stepped up with the Retzer family in advocating for Jay J. all across the State of New York.
Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Kennedy, thank you. You were recognized without objection.
Senator Grisanti, without objection. Senator Grisanti.
SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to thank Senator Kennedy and also the Western New York delegation.
But most importantly, I too have gotten to meet Jay J. this afternoon. What a lovely boy.
And I want to again recognize his grandparents and his aunt and uncle who are in the gallery, and just briefly say for advocating on behalf of Jay J. -- but not only that, it's your courage and your love for Jay J. and your commitment to Jay J. that has led you here in your grassroots efforts.
So I appreciate it. I'm there for you, whatever you need, and so is the Western New York delegation. So again, thank you for coming here today, and thank you for what you stand for. I appreciate it. And thank you up there.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Grisanti.
At the request of Senator Libous, and without objection, Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I just want to briefly add my support and welcome and thank Jay J.'s family. They have really adopted this cause. And I know that they've spent a long day here.
And on behalf of the entire Western New York delegation -- I speak of all the members of the Senate delegation and of the Assembly delegation -- that we very much appreciate the family's advocacy and we appreciate the fact that you have advocated not just here in Albany but across Western New York, and you're doing great work. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Gallivan, without objection.
SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. President.
I too would like to thank my colleagues, and more importantly thank and welcome the Retzer family to Albany, to the chamber. I was thrilled to be able to meet the family in person today for the first time.
But we know the story, and I simply would like to thank you for standing up and trying to make a difference. And certainly you know that you have our support.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Gallivan.
Without objection, Senator Ranzenhofer.
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Thank you. Just to add a couple of comments.
Again, welcome to the chambers. Good to see you this morning. And we're going to do all that we can to be helpful.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
And certainly to Jay J. and his family, the advocates -- to Jay J., God bless him, and this body will do what it can to help Senator Kennedy and Senator Grisanti and the Western New York delegation move forward.
Mr. President, at this time would you call on Senator Carlucci.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Carlucci.
SENATOR CARLUCCI: Mr. President, on page number 15 I offer the following amendments to Calendar Number 291, Senate Print Number 653, and ask that the 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.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, on behalf of you, sir, I move that the following bill be discharged from its respective committee and be recommitted with instructions to strike the enacting clause: Senate Print 3460.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: So ordered.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, at this time may we please adopt the Resolution Calendar, with the exception of Resolution Numbers 4281, 4308, and 4330.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: We will now undertake the Resolution Calendar with the exception of Resolutions 4281, 4308, and 4330. All in favor of adopting the Resolution Calendar signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Resolution Calendar is adopted.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
I believe there's a resolution at the desk by Senator McDonald. It's Resolution 4330. I would like you to have it please read in its entirety and then, at the completion of reading it, please call on Senator Saland.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Legislative Resolution Number 4330, honoring Rylyn Swierzewski and Benjamin Grant upon the occasion of being selected as the Upstate New York Chapter of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's 2012 Girl and Boy of the Year.
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this Legislative Body to recognize and pay tribute to those outstanding individuals whose personal triumphs and extraordinary spirit and determination are an inspiration to others; and
"WHEREAS, Attendant to such concern, and in full accord with its long-standing traditions, this Legislative Body is justly proud to honor Rylyn Swierzewski and Benjamin Grant upon the occasion of being selected as the Upstate New York Chapter of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's 2012 Girl and Boy of the Year; and
"WHEREAS, The individuals selected as the Girl and Boy of the Year are chosen by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society for their strength and courage while battling leukemia. They serve as examples for thousands of children across the United States who are winning the war against blood cancer; and
"WHEREAS, Rylyn Swierzewski and Benjamin Grant, in their role as 2012 Girl and Boy of the Year, serve as inspirations for local Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Man and Woman of the Year candidates to raise awareness and monetary contributions with the hope to find a cure for all blood cancers; and
"WHEREAS, Because of their strength and the sacrifices of their families, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society is one step closer to achieving its goal to find a cure for blood cancer so that children like Rylyn Swierzewski and Benjamin Grant do not suffer the injustice of blood cancer in years to come; and
"WHEREAS, It is the custom of this Legislative Body that when individuals of such enduring courage and bravery are brought to our attention, they should be celebrated and recognized by all the citizens of this great Empire State; now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative Body pause in its deliberations to honor Rylyn Swierzewski and Benjamin Grant upon the occasion of being selected as the Upstate New York Chapter of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's 2012 Girl and Boy of the Year; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted to Rylyn Swierzewski and Benjamin Grant."
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr. President.
I certainly am honored to stand before you this afternoon and share with you the road, the long and arduous road traveled by this young 7-year-old girl that brings us here today, despite the enormous obstacles that she has had to contend with during the course of her tender years and very young life.
Rylyn was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukoma, ALL, in 2009 at the age of seven. She had intense chemotherapy over the course of the next six months, during which time she needed several blood transfusions, bone marrow aspirations, and the placement of a port, a challenge for anybody at any stage of their life, but certainly I'm sure even that much more challenging for one of such tender years.
Rylyn was initially placed in a clinical trial where she went through four extremely difficult treatments before they decided that they had to stop because of allergic reactions that she was experiencing that were in fact worsening her condition.
She's currently in the maintenance phase of her treatment. She takes chemotherapy medications daily at home and has chemotherapy treatments intravenously once a month at the Melodies Center at Albany Medical Center. In addition, Rylyn receives a spinal tap every three months.
She especially enjoys the Beads of Courage Program. Through the program, children tell their stories in colorful beads as a meaningful symbol of courage that commemorates milestones they've achieved along their very unique treatment path. She has received a new and different bead for everything from hospital stays, clinical visits, chemotherapy treatments, spinal taps, blood transfusions, x-rays and hair loss.
Quite an assortment of travails and quite an assortment of hurdles that she's been enduring over the course of her young life. She's proud to tell her story through the beads she has earned each step of the way.
Today Rylyn is 9 years old and loves art and animals. She has three brothers who she's very proud to say have been most supportive of her. I'm happy to report that Rylyn completed her chemotherapy treatments on February 1st of this year. She and her family certainly have been through a lot. She's fortunate to have a family support system that perhaps others are not so fortunate to have.
She has served as an inspiration to everyone who knows her. And I'm honored that she could be here and grace our chamber today. And she's in the gallery above us right in the center.
If you would please recognize her, Mr. President. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you.
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr. President.
I equally have a compelling story, as Senator Saland did.
Ben Grant, who's in our gallery, loved to play. Growing up through his toddler years, Ben displayed the typical boundless energy of a boy of his age. So it was slowly but surely telling when in the fall of 2008, Mom and Dad, Jean and Bill, began to notice a decline in his energy level, along with unexplainable spiking headaches.
This all seemed very unusual for Ben, so his parents began to seek answers from his pediatrician. It turned into a series of appointments as the doctor saw these symptoms as little more than a viral issue that in time should fix itself. As Ben's symptoms progressed, his mom insisted on blood work, as the diagnosis being given was just not ringing true in her heart.
After weeks of watching their once-energy-filled boy change before their eyes, the pediatrician called and stated that Ben needed to go to Albany Medical Center Children's Hospital, as there were concerns with his most recent blood work. This began a series of tests -- a bone marrow biopsy, a spinal tap, and more blood draws, confirming the diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukoma, ALL.
On October 6, 2008, Ben went into surgery to have a port placed in his chest and his first dose of chemotherapy in his spine as well as the first chemo medicine in his port. This began a whirlwind of procedures, as Ben had a protocol that needed to be followed.
On December 9, 2011, Ben finished his ALL protocol. December 29th marks the day that he had his port removed.
His parents are so grateful for the treatment Ben received. With each new day, they see a little bit more of Ben's fun-loving, energy-filled personality shining through once again.
Ben will continue to have monthly checkups and will continue to have hope, and we all pray that it will blaze a path to a healthy and productive life.
And Ben is with us. And as I said, he's with his mom and dad, Jean and Bill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Breslin.
To Rylyn and Benjamin, we welcome you to the Senate chamber. We admire your courage, and we ask God's blessings upon both of you.
(Standing ovation.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The question is on the resolution. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The resolution is adopted.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
At this time I believe that Senator Little has a resolution at the desk, Number 4281. Could we please have the title read and call on Senator Little.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Legislative Resolution Number 4281, by Senator Little, recognizing Saturday, May 5, 2012, as I Love My Park Day in the State of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Little.
SENATOR LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. President.
As we know, New York State has many great state parks and historic sites -- as a matter of fact, 178 state parks, 35 state historic sites. And this Saturday, May 5th, will be the first I Love My New York Park Day.
And what that means is that the Parks & Trails New York association, which was formed in 1985, has begun an effort in all of our parks and historic sites for volunteers to come in and to work on those parks for cleanup, for improvement, for beautification.
It wasn't so long ago we were here in the chamber talking about having our parks closed and seeing many cuts take place. Fortunately, this year in our New York State budget the Governor has allocated $89 million in the New York Works project for improving our parks.
But this is an effort on behalf of those who enjoy and use the parks and who truly love New York State parks to work on their behalf for cleanup and for programs. There will be celebrations at many of our parks, from Niagara Falls to northern New York to Long Island.
And I really thank everyone and encourage you in your districts to enjoy your parks. And as always, we support the parks and certainly support the Parks & Trails New York for this initiative, because it will be very beneficial to our state. So I'm sure you all join me in loving our New York State parks.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Little.
Senator Serrano.
SENATOR SERRANO: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
And I also would like to thank Senator Little for bringing this resolution. And it's a pleasure to work with her as chair of the committee that oversees parks. And her leadership has meant a great deal to parks during some very difficult fiscal times.
And this program that will be happening this Saturday really gives a great opportunity for people who love state parks to get involved in their local parks, to help beautify them, to help make them look as good as they should.
And I think it's important to remember that a couple of years ago, when there was a threat because of budget cuts that we were going to lose a number, I think it was about 91 state parks across the State of New York, the outpouring of outrage from people everywhere across the state about potentially losing their beloved parks.
And it was really, I think, a great time here in the Senate because we saw a bipartisan effort -- Democrats, Republicans, it didn't matter from what political ideology you were, there was a common language, and that was to save our state parks. And it was a successful campaign, and the parks were saved.
And if you still love your park and if you still want to make sure that it has a future and that it stays beautiful, get involved this Saturday. Parks & Trails on their website has a lot of different options for you to get involved in parks in your area.
But once again, my sincere thanks to Senator Little for her leadership on this issue as they pertain to parks.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Serrano.
The question is on the resolution. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The resolution is adopted.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
I believe Senator Little would like to open the resolution up to all the members of the Senate. If there's someone who wishes not to be on the resolution, please let the desk know.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: So noted.
SENATOR LIBOUS: And if I could just go backwards a little bit on the McDonald resolution, he too would like to open that up to every member of the Senate. If anyone chooses not to be on, please let the desk on.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The resolutions are open. Anyone who chooses not to cosponsor please notify the desk.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
There's a resolution at the desk by Senator Bonacic, it's Number 4136. Now, it had been previously adopted by the house on April 26th. Could we please have it read in its entirety, and then if you would call on Senator Bonacic.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will read Resolution 4136.
THE SECRETARY: Legislative Resolution Number 4136, by Senator Bonacic, honoring New York State Court Officer Sergeant Robert Kowal, New York State Court Officer Scott Truex, New York State Court Officer Michael Mathisen, and New York State Court Officer Michele Lynch for their heroic actions on February 8, 2012.
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this Legislative Body to recognize and honor those distinguished officers who devote themselves to public service, demonstrating great courage and diligence in providing for the care and welfare of the citizens of their communities and this great Empire State, expressing its highest regard and admiration for the great skill and courageous dedication exhibited by those who take prompt and heroic action in an emergency situation; and
"WHEREAS, Attendant to such concern, and in full accord with its long-standing traditions, this Legislative Body is justly proud to honor New York State Court Officer Sergeant Robert Kowal, New York State Court Officer Scott Truex, New York State Court Officer Michael Mathisen, and New York State Court Officer Michele Lynch for their heroic actions on Wednesday, February 8, 2012; and
"WHEREAS, At approximately 9 a.m. on Wednesday, February 8, 2012, a gunman from Middletown, New York, ran up the steps of Middletown City Hall holding a shotgun and attempted to gain entry into the Middletown City Court; and
"WHEREAS, One of the New York State court officers saw the gunman in the hallway and instantly alerted the others; and
"WHEREAS, Working swiftly and calmly, Court Officer Lynch took immediate action to clear all the individuals from the crowded courtroom in remarkable time, directing the public, court staff and lawyers to get out through the emergency exit; and
"WHEREAS, The gunman then began to fire the shotgun toward three New York State court officers near the entrance, hitting Court Officer Truex in the arm; and
"WHEREAS, Court Officer Kowal and Court Officer Mathisen returned fire on the gunman and with Court Officer Truex were able to successfully suppress and disarm the gunman; and
"WHEREAS, The quick and astute actions of these officers undoubtedly saved the lives of countless citizens on the morning of February 8, 2012; and
"WHEREAS, Through their heroic actions, Robert Kowal, Scott Truex, Michael Mathisen, and Michele Lynch have demonstrated their character and compassion for the welfare of others, personifying the collective concern of public servants and ordinary citizens across the community of the State of New York who respond when others are in need of help; and
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this Legislative Body that those dedicated public servants who unselfishly devote their lives to the preservation of order and the protection of others are worthy and due full praise for their commitment and noble endeavors; now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative Body pause in its deliberations to honor New York State Court Officer Sergeant Robert Kowal, New York State Court Officer Scott Truex, New York State Court Officer Michael Mathisen, and New York State Court Officer Michele Lynch for their heroic actions on February 8, 2012; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted to New York State Court Officer Sergeant Robert Kowal, New York State Court Officer Scott Truex, New York State Court Officer Michael Mathisen, and New York State Court Officer Michele Lynch."
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: May we have some order in the chamber, please.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
I'm honored to stand here today to thank four heroes from the Supreme Court Officers Association. Accompanying them today are parents, wives, children who are sharing this moment with our four heroes.
Many of you may not realize, but today is Law Day. And at 12 o'clock there was a ceremony in the Court of Appeals where these four officers were given a medal of valor by the judiciary for their actions. And I did have an opportunity to speak briefly.
And what struck me about Law Day is when we think of Law Day, the common person, they probably think of Judge Judy, on television, watching two people fighting it out. Or you may have a justice giving elegant words or a court decision or referring to laws that we pass in this distinguished Legislature.
But it's all meaningless unless you have the physical presence to enforce the law. We have our Army that has a physical presence. It enforces the laws of our land. We have a police SWAT team that enforces the law and the safety of our residents.
On February 8, 2012, we had the physical presence of four individuals who got in harm's way of a deranged man who came to the courthouse with a shotgun, intent on a killing spree. And one of these officers was wounded.
And they killed that perpetrator and they saved the lives of many people in that courtroom and, I'm sure, a couple of those judicial employees that are sitting up in the chambers today.
It's for their courage, their valor, their training that we are indebted to these four heroes.
On Friday I gave them the Liberty Medal, which is the highest medal that we can give civilians at the Senate level. And today, as I indicated, they were honored by the judiciary.
So I'm proud to thank them for keeping the courtroom safe. And we are forever indebted for your courage.
Before I ask the four to stand up, I'm also joined by four other distinguished officers. Number one, Jon Strandberg, president of the Supreme Court Officers Association -- Jon, why don't you stand up -- Richard Poidevin, who's also the recording secretary of the Supreme Court Offiers Association; Chief Mary Ellen Murray, of the 9th Judicial District; and Major Brian Negron of the 9th Judicial District.
I'd ask you all four to sit and ask my four heroes to stand up. I ask you all to congratulate them and recognize them.
(Standing ovation.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: To the court officers in attendance today, we welcome you. We thank you for your service to our state, and we honor your courage.
This resolution, as previously mentioned, was adopted on April 26th.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
At this time there's a resolution by Senator Peralta at the desk. It's Number 4308. I'll ask that the title be read, and could you call on Senator Peralta.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will read the resolution.
THE SECRETARY: Legislative Resolution Number 4308, by Senator Peralta, commemorating the celebration of Cinco de Mayo, May 5, 2012.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Peralta.
SENATOR PERALTA: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for allowing me to say a few words on this Cinco de Mayo resolution.
The Cinco de Mayo commemoration of the Battle of Puebla transcends the victory of the greatly outnumbered Mexican army over the French armed forces. Cinco de Mayo has evolved into an American celebration of Mexican and Hispanic culture and heritage in this country.
Cinco de Mayo is about the spirit and determination of our Mexican and Chicano brethren, about unity and patriotism, about strength of will and perseverance. It is a celebration of liberty and freedom and of the long-standing friendship between the United States of America and Mexico.
From the arts and culture to politics and the economy, Mexico and Mexican-Americans have indelible contributions. Mexican heritage and folklore are intertwined in the American fabric and Mexican-American experience. In every borough, in every county of our great state, Mexican-Americans enrich our communities. In celebrating Cinco de Mayo we recognize their myriad contributions and strengthen the innumerable ties that bind us.
Today let us remember that the United States of America and Mexico are not simply neighbors bound by geography and history, we're two societies that are woven together by millions of family and friends, by common interests and a shared future.
And although today's the Primero de Mayo, the first of May, I'd like to say "Happy Cinco de Mayo" to all of you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Peralta.
The question is on the resolution. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The resolution is adopted.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, Senator Peralta would like to open this up for cosponsorship. So if there's any member who chooses not to go on the resolution, to please let the desk know.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: So noted.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, there's a resolution at the desk by Senator Sampson, Number 3947. It was previously adopted by this house on the 19th of April. Could we please have the title read, and I believe Senator Montgomery would like to speak on it.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Legislative Resolution Number 3947, by Senator Sampson, mourning the death of Gil Noble, distinguished citizen and devoted member of his community.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
I would like to say a few things about this absolutely wonderful historical figure, Gil Noble, who passed away on April 5th of this year, 2012.
There are so many things and so many ways that we could honor him and say about him. But I would like to read from the tribute that was given to us by Our Time Press in Brooklyn. He was a Brooklynite, after all.
"Legendary television journalist Gil Noble passed to the other side on April 5, 2012. And as producer and host of the beloved 'Like It Is' television program, he took with him an awareness and love of the African Diaspora that I do not expect to see on mainstream television again.
"Gil Noble was not in pursuit of the big network gig, nor did he have a public relations firm paid to tout his every utterance. What he had was a love of African people. And he had decided that his job was bringing to the forefront information about the African-American experience that could not be found anyplace else.
"Watching 'Like It Is' was an educational experience, and shows were talked about the next day, the next year, and many years after. The interview with Sammy Davis, Jr., comes to mind as one that could not have been done with a white sensibility.
"Mr. Noble�s 'Like It Is' demonstrated that diversity in media is not simply about having a non-white news reader or host, or covering stories with black people in them. It is the freedom to bring an African and African-American perspective. Many of us are afraid of freedom, but Gil Noble was not one of them. And he proved it every Sunday at 12 noon on 'Like It Is.'
"When he was threatened, it was the people who rose up and stood around him in protection. They did it because Gil Noble was not just respected and admired as a journalist, he was revered as a living institution. And that�s a level that is only achieved when the people know you love them.
"Gil Noble was a media warrior -- referred to often as an electronic griot -- on our behalf, and we will miss his courtliness, generosity, intelligence and his bravery and his courage to tell the news, as he said, 'like it is.'
"As Ossie Davis said of Malcolm X, �He was our Black shining prince,� and we will always hold Gil Noble as the standard to be measured against in media."
On behalf of all the people that I represent and all of the people Gil Noble shared so much with and represented so much for, I thank you for allowing us an opportunity to pay a tribute to this great and wonderful media personality.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Montgomery.
Senator Adams.
SENATOR ADAMS: Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to thank Senator Sampson and Senator Montgomery for her comments on Gil Noble.
And one of the great moments that we have by doing resolutions is that it allows us to learn about those who are part of our universe and share it not only with the state but also share it with our members and colleagues here.
The name Gil Noble may not resonate to many of you, but he does resonate in many of the communities that watched his show every week and for the long number of years that he has really brought a level of history and America's history. Because although we may split up and divide the various ethnic groups we have in this country as well as this state, it is part of the rich part of American history. And Gil Noble added to that history every week, every Sunday. And I watched him often.
And not only that, he was not only a great reporter, he was not only a great commentator and a great historian, but he was a great friend. I'd known him for over 25 years. And often I was on his program and I would sit down and speak with him about various issues that impact the cities and the State of New York.
We're going to miss him. He had a short period of ailment after he suffered a stroke. But he was a great human being, he was a great American, he was a great member of the greatest race alive, and that's the human race. And I don't want to confine him to just one ethnic group; he was a great human being.
And I'm glad that he was my friend, and I'm glad to have known him during these days.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Parker.
SENATOR PARKER: On the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Parker.
SENATOR PARKER: Thank you, Mr. President.
Let me add my voice to those congratulating Senator Sampson and Senator Montgomery for bringing this resolution to the floor memorializing Gil Noble, who was, you know, as you've heard the other speakers indicate, you know, just a really significant journalist, somebody who did so much, particularly for the African-American community.
I think in this time it's fairly common to see African-American newscasters and African-American commentators and African-American journalists on television and hear them on the radio. At the time that he started 'Like It Is' almost 40 years ago, it wasn't. He really was the voice out there and really was somebody who stuck out, speaking about issues that no one else would speak about, of having and providing a forum for both issues and people who were not being covered by the mainstream media.
And so we thank him for his years of service. He toiled long, and we hope that he rests well.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Stewart-Cousins.
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Thank you, Mr. President.
I too wanted to just thank Senator Sampson for bringing forward this resolution honoring Gil Noble.
And all of what my colleagues have said is just really what I wanted to echo. I think Senator Parker, when he was talking about journalists and African-American journalists -- many years ago, I wanted to be a journalist. And frankly it wasn't until I saw Gil Noble that I realized I could be. And actually I did become a reporter for a newspaper.
But again, what we see in terms of the cultural diversity on television now was not that way in the '60s. And so what people of color looked at as their range of opportunity very often did not include a place in television. But Gil Noble broke that barrier in many ways.
They called on Gil Noble because they needed someone during the Civil Rights Era who could actually talk to people who were involved in the civil rights struggle. And they realized that, finally, having an African-American report on what was happening in terms of civil rights, it could not only illuminate the issue but be more authentic and people would be more willing and open.
So Gil Noble had his opportunity. And when that door was opened, he made sure that voices were let in and that other people who aspired to be journalists could indeed become that.
So we honor Gil Noble for what he has meant to certainly the African-American community, to all those people like me who only knew I could be that once I saw someone like him doing it. And certainly we do hope he rests in peace, because his memory will be kept alive by all of us.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Stewart-Cousins.
Senator Espaillat.
SENATOR ESPAILLAT: Yes, Mr. President, I too would like to stand in support of this resolution honoring the lifelong contributions of Gil Noble, who in addition to being an extraordinary journalist was also someone that educated all of us about the African Diaspora in its many forms -- not just about civil rights, the issue of race in the United States, but also culture, music, history, and a host of things that are so much a part of the African Diaspora both in the United States, in the Caribbean, and in the hemisphere.
So I would like to stand here to recognize not only his work as a journalist -- and every one of us that saw him on Sunday will surely miss him -- but also as an educator of many people beyond the African-American community.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Espaillat.
As previously indicated, the resolution was adopted on April 19th.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
There's a resolution at the desk by Senator Stewart-Cousins, Number 3943. It was previously adopted by this house on April 19th. May we please have the title read, and I would have you call on Senator Stewart-Cousins.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Legislative Resolution Number 3943, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, memorializing Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to proclaim April 15 through 21, 2012, as Abusive Head Trauma/Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week in the State of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Stewart-Cousins.
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Thank you, Mr. President.
As was noted by Senator Libous, we did pass this resolution, but I thought it would be -- as part of what we do is to educate the public, it was worth taking some time to remind people about Shaken Baby Syndrome.
This legislative body passed a law several years ago which requires maternity wards to offer a video on Shaken Baby Syndrome. And the reason that happened is not only because it's happened to many children, but certainly it happened to Cynthia Gibbs in the year 2000, November 17th.
And she was a young child in my district, eight months old. She was with a babysitter who was apparently tired of her crying. And so she took Cynthia and she shook her, and Cynthia later died because of head trauma. It only took a few seconds and Cynthia was gone.
And now we have to tell people that yes, babies cry, that it's okay, if you're frustrated, to let a baby cry in a safe place. It's fine, because they can cry maybe three hours a day. But by shaking them even for a little bit, it can cause trauma and actually death.
Just so you know some statistics, in New York State there's an average of 33 children under the age of 4 years old who are hospitalized for Shaken Baby Syndrome. Also, the immediate symptoms are tiredness, not eating, no smiling, talking, laughing, difficulty swallowing, sucking, breathing. It can lead to cerebral palsy, blindness, hearing loss, learning and behavior problems, seizures and paralysis.
And just so you know, there's an estimate of 1,000 to 3,000 children in the United States who suffer from Shaken Baby Syndrome each year.
So we talked about the young heroes who are fighting leukemia and lymphoma, and Jay J., who had experienced breakages due to a parent. This Shaken Baby Syndrome could happen just because you think it's okay just to give the baby a little jolt.
And so it's up to us to remind everyone that babies are very, very delicate. And if you shake them even for a few seconds, it could lead to a life of disability or even, ultimately, death.
So thank you so much for letting me speak on that issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Stewart-Cousins.
As indicated, that resolution also was adopted on April 19th.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
At this time could you please call on Senator Young for the purposes of a statement.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Young.
SENATOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. President.
We've heard about resolutions passed today and resolutions that we've passed before and people talking about them. And I have the privilege today of talking about a resolution that will be passed this coming week.
And the reason that I'm talking about it today is because we have a very important group of individuals up in the Senate gallery, and those are Girl Scouts who have come from around the state, their parents, their leaders. And so we will be recognizing them, and I want to thank them for coming.
You know, it was a hundred years ago when Girl Scouts was started in the United States, and it actually started in Savannah, Georgia, in 1912, when 18 girls went to a meeting that was hosted by Juliette Gordon Low. And since that time, Girl Scouting has touched the lives of 50 million American women. Think about that fact. And you girls are a part of that movement.
You know, I had the privilege when I was a little girl to be a Brownie and a Girl Scout. Today is May 1st. At the end of this month, as you know, we will be commemorating Memorial Day, and many of the Senators here will be taking part in ceremonies, parades, in order to honor our fallen heroes who have died in the military while protecting our freedom and our country.
And when I was a little girl, that was the first parade that I ever marched in. And we would march down the street and we would be with the veterans and we would go to the village park in the middle of the town, and many of the town members would be there. And we would take part in the ceremonies, but also we would listen to a recitation of the Gettysburg Address.
Now, you don't have to do what I did. I had to wear a uniform, but we also had to wear little white gloves when we did that -- this was a long time ago. But I remember feeling at that time that I was part of something that was really important, very profound, not only for my community but also for my state and my country.
And the reason I was able to be a part of those things is because we had caring adults who took the time, gave of their time and their talents to help these young girls learn and grow. And that's what happens with you now.
I remember that we did arts and crafts, camping, those types of things. I know you do that. But we also took part in community service projects. And I know that you do that too. In fact, I remember going to a nursing home, we were singing Christmas carols, and one of the residents said "Shut the heck up" to me. And I knew at that point that a career as a professional singer was out.
But what I learned from those experiences were things that I have carried with me throughout my entire life. And that's what you're doing through Girl Scouting.
So we will be celebrating Girl Scouts this coming week. But I do want to thank you for coming. And I want to point out we had Girl Scouts here from all over the state, we had the Girl Scouts of Greater New York, Girl Scouts Heart of the Hudson, Girl Scouts of Nassau County, Girl Scouts of NYPENN Pathway, Girl Scouts of Suffolk County, and Girl Scouts of Western New York.
And I do want to point out that we had a Scout from my district, Khadijah Bagais.
But all of the girls, if you could stand up and be recognized, we want to say to you "Congratulations." These girls are special because they've earned Silver and Gold Awards. Those are the highest awards you can earn as Girl Scouts. That means that they've worked hard, they've put a lot of effort into that.
But congratulations and keep up the great work.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: To the Girl Scouts on both sides, we extend a warm welcome.
(Standing ovation.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Again, to the Scouts on both sides, we appreciate you coming here today and we welcome you to the Senate chambers.
Thank you, Senator Young.
Senator Carlucci.
SENATOR CARLUCCI: Mr. President, I also rise to honor the Girl Scouts of America and to echo what Senator Young spoke about so eloquently in the history of the Girl Scouts of America.
Since that cold day in March in 1912 in Savannah, Georgia, when the first Girl Scouts troop was formed, since that hundred years, now we have, today, over 3.2 million active Girl Scouts serving thousands of communities across this nation.
And I'm so honored because I have three wonderful young women who have all earned the Silver Award which Senator Young had spoke about. And these Girl Scout cadets, that that's the highest honor you can receive as a Girl Scout cadet. And they all come from Rockland County. And we have Victoria Gomes, Julia Mintz, and Beth McKiever, who all received that award.
And we're so proud and honored to have you in the chamber today. And because of your commitment to our community, it's people like you that make Rockland County a wonderful place to live. So I thank you and commend you for your service and your dedication to our community.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I just want to offer my congratulations to these great girls, these very talented young ladies. I visited them this morning in the Albany Room, saw their Gold and Silver projects, their effort to give back to the community, be it through the food pantry, a reading program, or a shelter for abused animals. They do a great job.
And after 100 years of Girl Scouting, this country and Western New York is a better place. So thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
I rise to thank, first of all, Senator Young for recognizing these wonderful young women who are obviously the future leaders of America and the world.
But I also want to especially recognize someone from my own district who has received the highest award, and that is the Gold Award. That is Lesego Pearl Nkosi. She is from the County of Kings. That's Brooklyn. And I believe that Senator Young did not call Kings because she didn't realize that that was actually the County of Kings.
So congratulations, Lesego Nkosi. And I'm waiting and hoping that many of these young women are going to be sitting down here someday and not too far in the future.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Montgomery.
Senator Parker.
SENATOR PARKER: Mr. President, on the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: On the resolution.
SENATOR PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I'm joining my colleagues in congratulating Senator Young on bringing this important resolution to the floor congratulating the Girl Scouts. You don't look a day over 30, 40 -- certainly not a hundred, right?
But just think, you young ladies who belong to the Girl Scouts, out of 10 million girls worldwide, you are in an exceptional position to make a difference not just in your community, but to change the world.
And so I want to say congratulations to all of you, particularly to, as Senator Montgomery indicated, the Gold Award recipients, which again for the Girl Scouts is the highest achievement. And so I commend you all for that honor.
I particularly want to commend Alexia Codington, a young lady from my district, also in Kings County in Brooklyn. And not just congratulate you, but to pledge myself to partner with you as we join forces in changing the world to make this a place where all girls are Girl Scouts.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Parker.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
At this time we would like to go to the noncontroversial reading of the calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 38, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 1998A, an act to amend the Judiciary Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 242, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1208, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays, 1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 242, those recorded in the negative are Senators Duane and Parker.
Ayes, 56. Nays, 2.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 277, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 6481A, an act to amend Chapter 704 of the Laws of 1991.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 305, by Senator Lanza --
SENATOR BRESLIN: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Lay the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 310, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 5012C, an act to amend the Limited Liability Company Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays, 1. Senator Ball recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 431, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 512A, an act to amend the Correction Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 431, those recorded in the negative are Senators Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, Parker, and Perkins.
Ayes, 54. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 497, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 6672, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays, 2. Senators Duane and Parker recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 498, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 6673, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 499, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 6674, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays, 2. Senators Montgomery and Parker recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 511, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 528A, an act to amend the Civil Rights Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays, 3. Senators Montgomery, Parker, and Perkins recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 514, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 597A, an act to amend the Executive Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Rivera to explain his vote.
SENATOR RIVERA: Thank you, Mr. President, to explain my vote.
This is one of a few bills, my colleagues, that we're going to be voting on today related to sex offenders.
As I've made the case many times in committee that I'm a ranker member on, Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections, as well as on the floor, there are many laws that we vote on that are way too broad when they make the determination about sex offenders.
We have a set of levels that we establish when someone is release from their -- after they serve their time. This bill, for example, does not contain that determination, does not make a distinction between Level 1, 2, and 3 sex offenders.
I believe that if it had that determination, it would be a better law and it would address the concern that all of us are trying to address, which is making sure that we protect our citizens from those folks that are predators. Level 1 sex offenders are not. This bill does not make that distinction, and therefore I will be voting in the negative for this bill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Rivera to be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 514, those recorded in the negative are Senators Duane, Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, Parker, Perkins and Rivera.
Ayes, 52. Nays, 6.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
The Secretary will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 520, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 1538A, an act to amend the Family Court Act.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 10. This act shall take effect on the 60th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays, 3. Senators Duane, Parker and Perkins recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 521, by Senator Klein, Senate Print 1677A, an act to amend the Executive Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays, 1. Senator Parker recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 523, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2942, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 60th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays, 2. Senators Parker and Perkins recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 525, by Senator Ranzenhofer, Senate Print 3336, an act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Lay the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 538, by Senator Robach, Senate Print 356, an act to amend the Correction Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 538, those recorded in the negative are Senators Montgomery, Parker and Perkins.
Ayes, 55. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 540, by Senator Klein, Senate Print 1522, an act to amend the Correction Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Rivera to explain his vote.
SENATOR RIVERA: Thank you, Mr. President.
This is the second of the bills that I was referring to.
While I certainly applaud the purpose of the bill, it does two things that I think set up too high a standard. Number one, it does not make the distinction between levels, which again I think makes a big difference in whether the law would apply in the ways that we want it to apply and protect us from the individuals that we want to be protected from.
And second, it establishes that the person, the offender himself or herself, has to actually physically travel around their -- wherever they are residing to determine whether there are schools or other educational facilities in a particular area of a half a mile from where they reside.
If they make a good-faith effort to establish which are the schools in the area but they miss some of them, then all of a sudden they are in violation, which means they go right back to prison when they have already served out their term.
But I would make a distinction again. This is another bill that would be made better if it was changed a little bit, particularly as it relates to establishing the different levels and how we take certain laws that should apply to some offenders and not all.
So on this one I will also be voting in the negative.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Rivera to be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 540, those recorded in the negative are Senators Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, Parker, Perkins, and Rivera.
Ayes, 53. Nays, 5.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 541, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 1542, an act to amend the Correction Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 541, those recorded in the negative are Senators Montgomery, Parker, Perkins and Rivera.
Ayes, 54. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Also Senator Dilan. Ayes, 53. Nays, 5.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is still passed.
(Laughter.)
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 542, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 1544, an act to amend the Correction Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 542, those recorded in the negative are Senators Montgomery, Parker, Perkins and Rivera.
Ayes, 54. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 572, by Senator Robach, Senate Print 487, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 572, those recorded in the negative are Senators Duane, Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, Parker and Perkins.
Ayes, 53. Nays, 5.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 573, by Senator Young, Senate Print 754, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 574, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 816, an act to amend the Social Services Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 579, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 3349A, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 579, those recorded in the negative are Senators Duane, Espaillat, Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, Parker, and Perkins.
Ayes, 52. Nays, 6.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
Senator Libous, that completes the noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, at this time could we go to the controversial reading of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will ring the bell.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 305, by Senator Lanza, Senate Print 3871, an act to prohibit.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield for some questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Lanza, do you yield?
SENATOR LANZA: Yes, I would.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Thank you.
This is a bill we've debated in the past, so I'll try not to be repetitive of previous conversations. But I guess my first question to the sponsor is whether or not it concerns him that if there is a federal antiterrorism trial in New York that this bill, if enacted, would create a safety hazard for the people of New York in that it would not allow local law enforcement to participate in providing security at that trial.
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, the idea behind this bill is to thwart efforts to provide enemy combatants of the United States with a civil trial in New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS: If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Lanza yields.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Is the sponsor aware that it is not a decision of state government whether or not a federal antiterrorism trial is held in New York or not?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, I believe it is within the right of the people of New York to determine how their tax dollars are spent.
And I firmly believe that providing enemy combatants of the United States -- like those who during a declared war attacked this nation, committed mass murder, killed close to 3,000 American citizens, most of whom were our neighbors here in New York -- I believe that to provide them with a civil trial would not only be wrong but would be dangerous to our security both here in New York and throughout our nation.
We learned that when the bombers in 1993 of the World Trade Center were provided such a trial. We learned that they exploited our civil discovery laws and procedures in a way that allowed them to come back some years later on September 11th, sadly with more success.
And so I believe that it is completely within the right of New York State residents to craft a law and to enact a law that would speak to whether or not our tax dollars generated at the state and local level should be utilized to provide those types of procedures for enemy combatants.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Would the sponsor continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR GIANARIS: I agree with almost everything that the sponsor just said. But being that it did not answer my question in any way, I'll restate it again and hope for an answer.
Is the sponsor aware that New York State government has no decision-making power over whether a federal antiterrorism trial is held in New York or not?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, my colleague may not like my answer, but it was an answer.
And I'll give him an answer again, which is to say that the focus of this legislation is to determine how New York State-generated tax dollars at both the state and local level ought to be expended. I firmly believe that we should not expend our tax dollars to provide enemy combatants of the United States with the same privileges that are afforded under the United States Constitution to citizens here.
Moreover, we should certainly not use those tax dollars to provide enemy combatants who continue to seek to do us harm and to destroy our way of life with even greater rights than are provided a United States soldier who has put himself or herself in harm's way in order to protect our liberties.
And that's what a civil trial will do. That's what funding a civil trial with taxpayer dollars here in New York would do.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR LANZA: Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Why did the sponsor not simply introduce a bill that would prohibit those types of trial from taking place in New York outright?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, because I believe that this is one of the powers that we possess here in New York that would allow us to thwart those federal efforts, as you've implied are federal efforts. I believe that within the State of New York this is probably the most effective way for us to thwart those efforts.
SENATOR GIANARIS: But if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR GIANARIS: But would it not be more direct and more effective to simply draft a bill doing exactly what you purport to do, which is to prohibit these trials from taking place in New York? Why was that not the approach that was taken?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, if my colleague Senator Gianaris has more direct and effective means to prevent civil trials for enemy combatants in the State of New York, I'd be happy to look at any legislation that he might propose.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Additional questions, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR GIANARIS: What would the sponsor tell either the mayor or the police commissioner of the City of New York if there was such a trial taking place and they wanted to provide NYPD coverage to that trial to make sure that the people of New York are safe beyond whatever security the federal government might be providing?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, perhaps my colleague is not understanding the intent of this legislation. The intent of this legislation is to prevent such a trial in New York.
And speaking of Mayor Bloomberg and our police commissioner, Ray Kelly, they have both come out very strongly in opposition to such a trial being conducted and had in New York City. In fact, Mayor Bloomberg estimates that the cost in dollar terms to the City of New York would be over $1 billion.
That's not to even mention the havoc that would be created in New York City if we were to afford these mass-murderer enemy combatants a civil trial in New York. That does not even speak to the fact that we would also be providing a new platform for the determined enemies of America to launch another and successive terrorist attacks right here in New York City once again.
So both the mayor and the police commissioner believe, as I do, that these terrorists, these enemy combatants -- who are not citizens, they are foreign combatants -- they agree with me that they should never be provided that trial that you speak of.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Do either the mayor or the police commissioner support this legislation?
SENATOR LANZA: Well, inasmuch as this legislation would thwart federal efforts to provide civil trials for enemy combatants of the United States of America, and that they have very strongly and publicly opposed providing those trials, it would seem to me that they would support this legislation.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Again, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR GIANARIS: We all know in this chamber we receive formal support and opposition memoranda from a whole variety of groups, including the City of New York and the mayor of the City of New York, on a regular basis.
Is it the sponsor's contention that he has information that the mayor is supportive of this legislation? Or is he just intuiting that that's the case?
SENATOR LANZA: Always trying to be intuitive, I am just connecting the very obvious points here that the mayor has very publicly opposed a civil trial for enemy combatants, as did the police commissioner. And inasmuch as this legislation would thwart those efforts, it would seem to me that they would be supportive.
I can tell you that I am not aware of any memorandum in opposition of this legislation from New York City or anyone else.
SENATOR GIANARIS: So if the sponsor would yield to additional questions.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR GIANARIS: So am I correct in understanding that the city has no official position on this legislation?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, not necessarily. I don't know of any expressed position of the city specific to this piece of legislation.
I can only tell you, and I will repeat, that Mayor Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Kelly have strongly and publicly opposed providing a civil trial in New York City -- a few blocks away from the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 -- for these enemy combatants. And so that is what I know about their opinion and their position.
And as I've said, the mayor has never been shy with respect to providing members of this body with memoranda in opposition on legislation or any legislation that the mayor of the City of New York believes is something that he could not support. And in the absence of that memorandum in opposition, I would just presume that the mayor is supportive until I hear otherwise.
I will say this, Mr. President. Regardless of who disagrees with this legislation, I will never stop asserting it. I will never stop supporting it. And I will never stop promoting it. Because I think that this country needs to be serious about not only the message that it sends to the rest of world with respect to how we will treat terrorist attacks against our nation, but that we've got to bring all the resources we have together in order to make sure it does not happen.
A civil trial afforded to enemy combatants is not only wrong, it's not only offensive to an American soldier, who is fighting and putting their life on the line for us every day, who would be given the same military commission tribunal that I believe these enemy combatants should be provided.
In fact, sadly, in March of this year a U.S. sergeant was accused of killing 16 civilians in Afghanistan. That U.S. soldier is going to be tried in a military commission tribunal. I have not heard anyone here or anyone else believe that that system of justice is not good enough for that American soldier, that that system of justice is incapable of securing justice for that soldier.
And somehow there are those who believe that the system that's good enough for an American soldier is not good enough for an enemy combatant.
And so I understand and I'm listening to my colleague, and I have talked about and spoken to what I know about the mayor's position on this legislation, but I must say, with all due respect, for me this is something that I strongly believe in and I think is quite necessarily needed for our security here in New York State.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Would the sponsor continue to yield, Mr. President.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR GIANARIS: I certainly appreciate, having had this conversation over a couple of years now with the sponsor, that this is a very heartfelt position of his. And his intent is one I actually agree with.
It is the method that's being used here, and the dangerous consequences that I believe can result, that I'm interested in discussing.
And just to go back for one second to the question about the City of New York and the mayor, because I was startled to hear one of the previous answers, is it the sponsor's contention that if the mayor of the City of New York does not formally oppose a bill that we can presume he is supportive of any bill this body has before it? Because that seems to be what I heard.
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, I did not say that.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Well, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS: Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. But it seemed to me that the sponsor was indicating that the mayor frequently issues his formal oppositions, and in the absence of that he was presuming that he would be supportive of this. So I'm glad we were able to correct that that's not the case.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Is that a question, Senator Gianaris?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, what I said was, in response to a number of questions on the same subject, was that I was not aware of the mayor being opposed to this legislation. And I cited the fact circumstantially that in most cases that I know of, when the mayor of the City of New York opposes legislation, we quite often have a memorandum in opposition.
I did not state that in any way that was definitive with respect to the subject of whether or not Mayor Bloomberg opposes or supports this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS: Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding.
SENATOR LANZA: You're welcome.
SENATOR GIANARIS: On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Gianaris on the bill.
SENATOR GIANARIS: This legislation, while well-intentioned, is incredibly, incredibly dangerous. It puts the State of New York in a position of denying its people protection during a potentially very volatile antiterrorism trial in its midst.
I understand that the sponsor is attempting to force the federal government's hand and somehow, because the locality will not be providing any support for such a trial, they will somehow decide as a matter of national policy not to move in a direction they may or may not have decided to move.
I said it last year, I'll say it again. It's the equivalent approach of putting a gun to our own heads and telling the federal government not to do what we don't want them to or we might shoot.
A potential federal antiterrorism trial in the middle of Manhattan that would be denied NYPD coverage, would be denied any state or local assistance for security, is mind-boggling in the danger it would pose to the people of this state.
Now, we've had a lot of bills that have come through this body, many this year, that have dealt with potential unintended consequences of bills that have been drafted for a worthy goal but drafted in a way that doesn't achieve that goal. Usually we're talking about things like dog control officers and whether people would be subject to felonies for touching such law enforcement officers.
But this is something on a whole different level and something that is much more serious. It's dealing with not having adequate security in our own cities and in our own state when terrorists are being tried in our streets.
Now, whether they're tried there or not is not a decision we get to make. What we get to decide is making sure that the people who live and work around where these trials are happening are safe. This bill would deny us that ability and would deny our localities that ability.
I understand that the mayor opposes civil trials for such terrorists. I do as well. Some of my colleagues may or may not disagree, but I happen to agree.
But to say that we would not provide security, I'd be very hard-pressed to believe, in the absence of a support or opposition memo, that those who control the New York Police Department would say that that's a good idea. To tie their hands and say they are not able to provide the security they deem necessary because we're trying to make a point to the federal government is foolhardy.
I will be voting in the negative. I think this is one of the more dangerous proposals we've seen come through this chamber. And I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you, Mr. President. If the sponsor could yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you. And to follow up on Senator Gianaris's very illuminating line of questioning, is the sponsor aware of the fact that on July 5th of last year the Obama administration announced that it was going to prosecute in Federal District Court in Manhattan, in the Southern District, Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, who is a Somali accused of ties to Islamic militant groups?
SENATOR LANZA: Yes, Mr. President, I am aware of that.
SENATOR SQUADRON: If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Is it the sponsor's contention that the New York Police Department should not be protecting Lower Manhattan as the pretrial actions occur and the trial happens?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, I thank my colleague for bringing up the situation dealing with that Somali terrorist, which speaks to the reason for this bill.
The administration, despite what some people think, is still intent upon providing civil trials. This bill takes the President and the U.S. Attorney {sic} at their word. I believe they're being honest in what they are saying.
With respect to when -- and the reason why that civil trial is occurring is because Congress passed certain initiatives which prevent the federal government from expending funds -- a very similar piece of legislation to this, only at the federal level. They passed a resolution -- passed legislation to prohibit the expenditure of funding to be used to transport detainees at Gitmo to the United States of America.
At that time U.S. Attorney {sic} Eric Holder made a statement. He said that "In November of 2009 I announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other individuals would stand trial in federal court for their roles in the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, since I made that decision members of Congress have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the administration from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States regardless of the venue. As the President has said, those unwise and unwarranted restrictions undermine our counterterrorism efforts and could harm our national security. We will continue to seek to repeal those restrictions. Our national security demands that we continue to prosecute terrorists in federal court, and we will do so."
So what the administration did was that they detained this Somali terrorist on a naval ship, having never brought him to Guantanamo, so that they can circumvent the will of the legislation and the executive order that the President himself signed. And that's how they brought him to New York City.
Now, the question you asked was do I believe that New York City police officers should cease to do their jobs because that trial is occurring. And of course the answer is no.
But here's the difference. The federal government found a way to bring this individual -- not a central figure in that cast of evil characters -- but to bring him to civil trial with this strategy of avoiding Gitmo.
I think it would have been different -- and I understand where Senator Gianaris is coming from, and I appreciate his concern. But I hear all the time from colleagues here that if we pull funding from our schools, we'll not have education. If we pull funding from our healthcare system, we won't have the delivery of healthcare services. In fact, eliminating funding to something that government provides is akin to killing it.
And so the reason why my colleague Senator Squadron's premise here is incorrect is because this bill is not the law of New York State. And I believe that if it were, the administration would not have gone through these strained measures to circumvent the Congressional rule if they knew, if they knew that there would be no funding in support of these civil trials.
In fact, that's precisely what they did in the case that you mentioned. Congress cut off funding to do what many people believe we should do, bring those Guantanamo Bay terrorists to New York for a civil trial.
As soon as Congress passed this, as soon as Congress passed this -- is there a time limit on my response, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: No.
SENATOR LANZA: There isn't, thank you. I appreciate that. I see Senator Squadron is shaking his head.
They did precisely what I would like to see happen if this were a law here. They decided not to give those four terrorists, which they had previously announced would be given civil trials in 2009 -- because the Congress pulled funding, they didn't do it. They had to reverse their decision. And now those four terrorists are being tried in a military commission tribunal.
So if we were to follow the federal model here and pull funding in support of these trials, it is my contention that we would never have a scenario as hypothesized by Senator Gianaris where we would have a trial without protection. We would never have that trial. We would do -- the Obama administration would do exactly what it did in the face of similar legislation from Congress, which is decided not to have a civil trial.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron.
SENATOR LANZA: I'm finished.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you. If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor continues to yield.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you. And I do appreciate the broad context.
I do appreciate the fact that the temptation here, as with so many issues relating to security and to the fight against terrorism, is to get involved in these big national political fights and the back and forth between the parties at the national level.
My concern here is keeping New York City, the city I represent, the city I love, secure and safe and not allowing any political fight to stand in the way of that. So I want to really stay very focused on that question, can we keep New York safe.
In fact, in my case both the Southern District Federal Court in Manhattan and the Eastern District Federal Court in Brooklyn are in my district. I have residents, people whose homes, the security of their homes is personally affected by this bill.
So frankly, the back and forth at the federal level about broader issues that I know are incredibly tempting is not of interest to me, nor to my constituents, nor should it be, in my view, to New Yorkers.
So I want to ask the question which I don't feel is exactly answered, just so that I understand, again. The suspect Warsame appeared in Federal District Court on September 8th in my district in Lower Manhattan, just a few blocks from the site of the September 11th attacks. Is the sponsor aware, without getting into details, of the way in which the NYPD deploys forces around events like that happening, what are called sort of high-target events or high-target locations?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Lanza.
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, first let me speak to the first part of my colleague's comments. I agree with him. My goal here is his goal, which is to keep the people of New York State safe.
I submit that the best way to do that in this instance is to ensure that there is not a civil trial being provided to enemy combatants of the United States of America, sworn enemies. I submit that one of the ways we can prevent that from happening is to prevent or prohibit funding of such a trial.
And I think the proof, and why I discuss what is happening at the federal level in response to your question about what the federal government has done vis-a-vis this Somali terrorist, is to show that that proves the theory here of this legislation.
Congress pulled funding, Congress pulled funding from transporting enemy combatants from Gitmo to New York to be provided a civil trial. The administration, in response to that, decided not to afford those combatants a civil trial, because the funding stream was not there.
They circumvented that measure with this strategy to have the Somali accused terrorist detained on a naval ship, not at Gitmo. That's how they were able to circumvent that. And in their minds, they are doing the right thing. They have never hidden their belief that these folks should be provided a civil trial. That is their position.
And so I think that logically following that, if funding was not available from New York for that civil trial, then I have every belief that the administration would not seek to provide that civil trial. In fact, they would do exactly what they did in the face of the lack of funding from the federal government and would not provide those civil trials.
The second part of your question was, Mr. President?
SENATOR SQUADRON: I'm sorry, I was waiting. To ask the question again, if the sponsor would yield for a clarification of the question previously asked.
SENATOR LANZA: Of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Is the sponsor aware of the fact, in generalities, that the police department increases force strength around what are deemed high-value, so-called high-value targets or high-value events, such as, for example, the appearance in court of a Somali citizen accused of international terrorism?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Lanza.
SENATOR LANZA: I would hope that's the case.
SENATOR SQUADRON: If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: And the sponsor of course would concede that such an increase in resources costs an expenditure from the locality, from the New York City Police Department.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes, Mr. President, I would.
SENATOR SQUADRON: So if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Senator yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: So does the sponsor contend -- well, if the sponsor's bill were to pass, do those who vote for the bill contend that the police department on September 8 of 2011, when this suspect appeared in Federal District Court in Manhattan, in my district, should not have deployed extra resources in whatever way they deemed appropriate to protect the neighborhood and the city?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, absolutely not. My colleague is making the mistake of not following the logic here.
If this legislation were the law of the land on September 8th, that trial wouldn't happen. I know that that's the case because of what I just described to you in the scenario that occurred with this Somali terrorist. When faced with the fact that there would be no federal funding for the removal of a detainee from Gitmo to be brought here for a civil trial in New York, for a civil trial which is what the stated intention of this administration was, they changed their mind. They didn't say, Well, you're not going to fund it, but we're going to do it anyway.
And I contend that this administration would not do that in the face of this law here in New York either. I don't think -- and maybe you do, but I don't -- I don't believe that President Obama and Attorney General Holder would say, Well, there isn't going to be funding for this civil trial, but we're going to do it anyway. I don't believe they would do that. So your hypothesis fails, in that this legislation was not law at the time on September 8th that you describe. Were it, I believe that that civil trial would not occur in New York City.
And just as an aside, that trial involves a completely different circumstance from most of the cases that were to be brought here. This was a small player in that evil regime who was detained on a naval ship, interrogated in a way that we don't precisely know. This was not at Guantanamo Bay, it was on a ship. Which was done to circumvent this law, as I've said. And this person came here and copped a plea. So that's what happened there.
SENATOR SQUADRON: If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: So dipping my toe into the sponsor's logic, the Congress passed a law to prevent detainees from being transferred from Guantanamo. So the administration circumvented that law, and there is now a potential enemy combatant being tried in New York City, in my district. And if we pass this law that handcuffs the NYPD and the City of New York and prevents them from protecting us, therefore the administration will no longer do what they did in this case.
So it's a little bit difficult for me to reach fully, but my question is really just this. So at core, the logic behind this bill is to take the ability to protect New York and New Yorkers away from the NYPD and the mayor and give it to President Obama and Attorney General Holder?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, as many times that is question is asked, I will answer it the same way. That is a complete mischaracterization of what this legislation does. That is a complete mischaracterization of what this legislation's author intends -- that's me.
I'll speak to it again. This legislation does not handcuff the New York City Police Department in any way, shape or form. This legislation would seek to thwart -- to use your terminology, handcuff -- the federal administration's ability to provide a civil trial to enemy combatants of the United States of America. Because I think that would be a very dangerous move to make. I think that as we've learned in the wake of the '93 bombing, that to do so would imperil the future of this country.
This does not handcuff the New York City Police Department. This sends the same message that was sent by Congress and in fact signed by the President that says if you don't have funding for something, you can't do it.
This is really simple. It really is. As legislators, we all understand the theory that involves funding or not funding something. If you don't fund it, it will not be. And this seeks to pull funding from the provision of a civil trial for enemy combatants.
So you can say as many times as you like that somehow this legislation would hurt New York City, would prevent the New York City Police Department from doing their jobs, would handcuff the New York City Police Department, would prevent the mayor from protecting us. That's nonsense. That's nonsense. In this case, with respect to these enemy combatants, the best way to ensure the safety of New York State and its people and this country is to make sure that we never provide a civil trial for enemy combatants.
That's something -- trying enemy combatants in a military commission tribunal is something this country has been doing successfully since the days of George Washington, and it is the right way to approach this.
SENATOR SQUADRON: If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: And again, I would request both in the interests of time and also, frankly, in the interests of my constituents and New Yorkers, not to get into the conversation, the broader national very political conversation about --
SENATOR LANZA: I'm in no rush, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Gentlemen --
SENATOR SQUADRON: -- about enemy combatants.
SENATOR LANZA: I'm in no rush.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: -- just direct your questions through the chair, please.
Do you have a question, Senator Squadron?
SENATOR SQUADRON: I do. And I believe the sponsor yielded to the question, and I believe I am asking it, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Direct your question.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you.
To begin my question again, in the interest of the security of those in my district and of New Yorkers, I would request that the sponsor in our conversation not focus on a large national political question that's very heightened, very political, very tempting, and is not focused on the concern of the bill before the house and the concern of all of our constituents across the state. To change --
SENATOR LANZA: I'm afraid I can't accommodate my colleague in that way.
SENATOR SQUADRON: To change the topic a little bit, the sponsor was quoted saying -- and forgive me if it's a misquote; please correct it. But it was reported that the sponsor said last summer that "The President and Attorney General seem hell-bent on forcing trials upon the people of New York based on a misguided and dangerous political agenda. We the people must act to protect ourselves. Each trial brings a renewed threat to New York citizens and open us up to another horrific terror attack."
I wanted to just know what the sponsor, assuming that is an accurate quote, what --
SENATOR LANZA: I believe, Mr. President, that is the first time in my political career that I have been accurately quoted.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Fair enough. Which moves us right along to exactly what --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Are you asking the sponsor to continue to yield, Senator Squadron?
SENATOR SQUADRON: I'm actually still finishing the same question, Mr. President.
Which is, what does the sponsor mean by "opens us up to another" -- or, excuse me, by "each trial brings a renewed threat to New York citizens and opens us up to another horrific terror attack"? I just want to sort of -- I tend to agree in a number of different ways, but I just wanted to know the sponsor's thinking on that.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Lanza.
SENATOR LANZA: Well, first let me say that the sponsor in the Assembly, Assemblyman Hikind, has said pretty much the same thing. We agree that providing a civil trial to enemy combatants would present that risk to our security in this nation and in this state.
And that is for a number of reasons. A civil trial would afford enemy combatants with the civil procedures that are not available in discovery, that is not available at a military commission tribunal.
We learned in the wake of the attack in 1993 that the civil trial -- and back then, this country did not understand and appreciate and comprehend the nature of that attack. They were treated in the same way that an ordinary criminal would be treated, someone perhaps who would spray graffiti on a federal mailbox. A person that would do that would be given the same civil trial in federal court in your district, someone who sprayed paint on one of those blue mailboxes across New York City.
And so that's how they were treated in 1993, like ordinary street criminals. This country did not understand and appreciate yet the nature of the threat. This country perhaps did not believe the very perpetrators who had publicly declared war on this country. So they were afforded a civil trial.
And what happened? What have we learned? That during that civil trial they afforded themselves of civil procedure, federal civil procedure. And through discovery and through the ability to call witnesses, that perhaps you can't call in a military commission tribunal, they learned a lot about this nation's intelligence system and our methods.
And we've learned since then that they used the information they gained at that trial to bring another attack against our country, only this time it was September 11th. Only this time it was successful, more successful. And this time 3,000 American citizens were murdered in cold blood.
And so that's what I mean and that's what Assemblyman Hikind means when we say a civil trial will allow for our enemies to better prepare ourselves to more successfully do what they have vowed to do, which is to attack us and destroy our way of life.
And there's another danger presented in civil trial in New York City, and this is just common sense. It would provide a platform, it would provide a stage for the enemy combatants that they yearn for. It would allow them a greater stage and a greater opportunity to commit further acts of terrorism against our nation, I believe.
That's what I meant by that statement. That's what -- without speaking too far afield from my colleague in the Assembly, that's what he means when he says substantially the same thing.
SENATOR SQUADRON: And if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Just a point of clarification before my question. Which is in fact I believe that was the Assembly sponsor who gave that quote. It was a similar quote to one that the Senate sponsor has given, so consistent, and I just wanted to clarify the record on that.
Just moving on, very briefly, is the sponsor familiar with the case of Adis Medunjanin?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Lanza.
SENATOR LANZA: I'm sorry, Mr. President, could you repeat that?
SENATOR SQUADRON: Is the sponsor familiar with the case of Adis Medunjanin?
SENATOR LANZA: Why don't you help me out with it.
SENATOR SQUADRON: If the sponsor would continue to yield, I'll explain and ask a question.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
SENATOR SQUADRON: He is a Queens man who has been tried in the Eastern District in Brooklyn over the last few weeks for plotting to stage suicide attacks in York subways. In fact, just this afternoon, an hour before session started, he was convicted by the jury of plotting these attacks. He's a naturalized citizen born in Bosnia and trained in Pakistan at an al-Qaida-related camp.
Let me ask the sponsor, should that trial -- was it okay for that trial to occur in the Eastern District in the way that it did, concluding or at least with a conviction just a couple of hours ago?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, I'm glad that my colleague had brought that example up. I wish I had it. It proves my point. I think it proves the case here.
And perhaps it demonstrates that some of my colleagues on that side of the aisle either don't understand the intent of this legislation or are ignoring it for some unknown reason.
You mention that he is a naturalized citizen of this country. Naturalized or not, you're a citizen. He's a citizen. And of course, under our Constitution, a United States citizen should be afforded the rights and privileges that come with being a citizen.
This legislation speaks to those enemy combatants, foreign enemy combatants, those who have both declared war on America and have engaged in acts of war against America who are not United States citizens.
Throughout our entire history, as I said, since the days of George Washington, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, World War I, World War II, we have tried enemy combatants of this nation in military commission tribunals.
This legislation is my way -- and there may be better ways. And if there are any that are brought to my attention, I would embrace those as well. This is my way of ensuring that that continues to happen in our great land.
SENATOR SQUADRON: If the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: So I appreciate very much the clarification on whether this person just convicted today is an enemy combatant or not.
I notice that the sponsor in answering the question used the word "foreign," used the word "noncitizen." I'm looking at the bill itself here, and it simply says "safety of such enemy combatants." The phrase "enemy combatants" is used twice: Civilian criminal trial of enemy combatants and, later, the custody and safety of such enemy combatants.
Just to be clear, based on the definition in the bill, one could have claimed that Mr. Medunjanin was an enemy combatant and could have claimed that the NYPD cannot protect my district in downtown Brooklyn at the time of the trial.
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, that's not true. "Enemy combatant" is a term that is defined by federal law. It does not include citizens of the United States of America.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Through you, Mr. President, is "enemy combatant" defined in state law?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, that is irrelevant. It is a defined term. It would have the same meaning unless expressed otherwise by state law, perhaps, even -- which I would doubt -- unless it is otherwise described by state law.
So it would have the precise meaning that it does in definition and that it does in the federal law.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Are you asking the sponsor to continue to yield?
SENATOR SQUADRON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Lanza, do you yield?
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: So that would be the definition in federal law or in an executive order signed by the President?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, it is in federal law, statute. An enemy combatant is someone who is not a United States citizen, someone who has engaged in an act of war against this nation.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Through you, Mr. President.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON: If the federal government were to change the definition of "enemy combatant" based on the logic of this bill and this were to become law, then that would change the circumstances in which NYPD could protect neighborhoods and courthouses across the state?
SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, if -- as they say, the biggest word in the English language -- if after 200 years the United States of America was going to start redefining what an enemy combatant is, if that happens, I think we would probably come back as a state legislature, assuming we vote for this legislation and it becomes the law of the State of New York, and I would imagine -- I wouldn't imagine, I would tell you that I would be the first, in the face of that incomprehensible hypothetical, would be the first to define it here in New York State for the folks at the federal level.
SENATOR SQUADRON: On the bill.
SENATOR LANZA: But could I just say this, Mr. President?
SENATOR SQUADRON: On the bill.
SENATOR LANZA: Through you, Mr. President, I'm not finished. I'm not finished.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Lanza -- Senator Lanza --
SENATOR LANZA: Excuse me, Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Lanza --
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron has the floor. He's on the bill.
SENATOR LANZA: I'll come back, okay.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, there's a number of concerning parts of this bill, and I want to be very clear: Not one of them has to do with the national political debate over where different people are tried. That is not the question before the house today. It's simply not.
And let's be very clear. What's concerning about this bill is that it makes it more difficult for local law enforcement across the state, from Manhattan and Brooklyn up to Erie County, to protect their communities in cases of certain kinds of terror trials that have existed and, however we feel about it, as we see even today, will continue to exist.
The logic -- the sponsor's logic that by preventing the dollars we will somehow prevent the trials has a major flaw. Which is we are preventing the dollars from our local law enforcement without doing anything to the federal government that makes this decision.
And in fact, by the sponsor's own explanation behind the thinking on the bill, the federal government has circumvented attempts to prevent these sorts of trials in the past when they were the ones affected by the law.
Now, somehow, because NYPD is going to be prevented from protecting New Yorkers because of a state law targeted at the current federal administration, they're going to roll over and say no more of these trials? I've got to tell you, that's Russian roulette with our security. It doesn't make any sense. That logic doesn't hold.
Second, to the extent that logic did hold at all, it would by definition take the power to protect New Yorkers against terror trials away from local law enforcement, away from the NYPD -- in the case of two situations within my own district -- who are the best in the world at this, literally, and give it to a United States Attorney General and a President who did in fact want to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- at a cost of a billion dollars to New York City -- in Lower Manhattan, which was completely inappropriate.
On that we absolutely agree. The idea of a billion dollars and shutting down a neighborhood made no sense.
Unfortunately, this bill would shut down a neighborhood in a different way, because it would make it impossible to secure that neighborhood. That doesn't make any sense, taking the power away from the New York City Police Department and giving it to federal authorities who frankly are more interested in the national political issue that the sponsor also, as he said, is not willing to not discuss in his answers.
The final concern is when we talk about what the definition of an enemy combatant is, whether this bill is even tightly and narrowly crafted, the sponsor says that we'll probably come back, says to his credit that he will stand up and try to change this bill.
But I've got to tell you, being in a situation where we have trials of terrorists in New York City -- already one of the highest target locations in the world -- that we need to come back to Albany to fix a law to allow the NYPD to protect the city against is not an acceptable situation.
If there is one moment that NYPD cannot protect New Yorkers against terrorism in the way that they have done so effectively for the last 11 years, that's unacceptable. That risk isn't worth sending a message on the national political stage. That risk is not worth hoping that, by tying our own hands, the federal government will act differently.
You know, I said this last year on this bill, and I say this to the sponsor -- who I know has the goal and the interest of protecting New Yorkers and cares a great deal about that -- and I say this to my colleagues: When we talk about terrorism trials, when we talk about the proposal, the wrong-headed proposal to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Lower Manhattan, when we talk about the trials that are ongoing, we are not talking about national politics. We are not talking only about the nation, though of course we are. We are talking about local communities.
And in the case of the Southern District courthouse in Manhattan and the Eastern District courthouse in Brooklyn, we are talking about tens and tens of thousands of people who live within a very close proximity to these courthouses. Those people are my constituents.
And frankly, when the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed question was raised, they were not interested in whether he was an enemy combatant or what happened in the War of 1812 -- they were interested in the question as to whether they could live their lives where they have made their homes in a way that is secure and reasonable. That's their interest.
And to raise these broader issues and in any way, shape or form take away our ability to say to my constituents and the constituents across the state "You are not going to be able to live your lives securely and reasonably because we don't like the idea of civil criminal trials versus tribunals or 1812 versus the Korean War" is simply not acceptable.
We have communities that we represent whose interests we must consider. This bill would be terrible for my communities in Lower Manhattan, which has already suffered so much, and in downstate Brooklyn, which should not be put in this situation.
So I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill for all the reasons that Senator Gianaris so eloquently talked about, because of what I view as the flaws in logic behind the argument that I know is sincere and is based on a sincere belief of the sponsor's, because that belief is not what we should be dealing with here on the floor of the State Senate. We must first be dealing with the security and basic quality of life of constituents across the state, and this bill simply undermines them. That's why I vote no and I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Rivera.
SENATOR RIVERA: Thank you, Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield for a question?
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA: Thank you, Mr. President.
Through you, Mr. President. Have you ever heard the name Jose Padilla?
SENATOR LANZA: No.
SENATOR RIVERA: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LANZA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR RIVERA: And how about Muhajir Abdullah?
SENATOR LANZA: Sounds familiar.
SENATOR RIVERA: On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Rivera on the bill.
SENATOR RIVERA: Thank you, Mr. President.
Jose Padilla, also known as Muhajir Abdullah, was actually a United States citizen that was held for eight years as an enemy combatant by the Bush administration.
So there's actually -- I just wanted to state that for the record and as a point of clarification for a statement that the sponsor of the bill made a little bit earlier when he stated that the United States had never held a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. And in this case there is that one case that I think is very important to point out.
Thank you, Mr. President.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Last section.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Lanza, did you want to speak?
SENATOR LANZA: I'm permitted?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Yes. Senator Lanza to close debate.
SENATOR LANZA: Oh, sure.
Listen, this is a good debate. It's a healthy debate. It's one we should have.
War has been declared on our nation. War has been declared on our very way of life, the American way of life. It's a different kind of war. The combatants don't wear the same uniform or pledge allegiance to one country. Yet they are as or more determined than any enemy of this country we have ever had.
They are funded, they have vast infrastructures, vast intelligence, they are determined, they have an army. Nevertheless, they have an army that stretches sadly across the globe. And while they may not hail from one nation, they subscribe to one notion, to one mission, and that is to destroy the greatest country the world has ever known.
We've got to be smart in our defense. We've got to fight today's war, not yesterday's war. We've got to understand and appreciate not only the determination of our enemy but the nature of the threat and our enemy.
These terrorists wage war in a different way. They exploit, they seek to exploit our very system to gain advantage. They seek to exploit every weakness they perceive in our national defense. Tragically, they've done so successfully not once but a number of times -- attacks on U.S. embassies in the '90s, an attack on USS Cole in the '90s, an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, car bombings against our interests and our allies around the world repeatedly, numerous attempted and planned attacks against this nation which have been thwarted over the last several years, over the last decade, and of course the September 11th attacks where 3,000 Americans were killed, the majority of whom were our neighbors, my friends, your friends, here in New York. And why? Because they were American.
Make no mistake. These are not common criminals. These are enemy combatants, foreign attackers, folks who are not United States citizens, people who have declared war on this country.
They want a civil trial. That's what they want. They learned a lot in 1993. And with the information they had, they came back.
Ramzi Yousef, you remember him? He was the guy that perpetrated that '93 attack, that first attack. He had that civil trial. When he was brought to court, the marshal said, "Look at the World Trade Center. It's still standing." You know what he said? "For now." "For now."
And then he exploited our civil system, a system that is provided to American citizens under our Constitution. That's why we have that system. It is not a right or privilege that you're afforded if you're from another land, a noncitizen, an enemy combatant.
Well, because we made that mistake, and for other reasons, September 11th happened. We've got to be smarter than that. This legislation is smart, and it is logical.
I listened to my colleague talk about the fact that prohibiting funding from something does not prevent it from happening. I'll remember that next year in the budget negotiations and discussions we have. When one of my colleagues comes to me and says, "We need new funding for a new social program that I'd like to see enacted in New York State," I'll say, "You don't need funding, it will happen anyway."
If you don't fund government conduct, government conduct does not happen. And I want to say it again, this is not a theory. This has been proven by recent events. The administration declared that those four detainees, the masterminds of the September 11th attacks, would be afforded civil trials. They were determined, the Attorney General said so and gave all the reasons. And I respect their point of view. I really do.
There is an area of healthy debate in this issue. And Senator Squadron said that we should not be talking about this at that level, at the federal level. That's all this has to do with. Of course we need to discuss it at that level. It's a federal attempt. It is the federal government that is seeking to give these civil trials to these combatants here in New York. If we don't talk about it at that level, then we're missing the entire point.
There's another point to why we should talk about it at that level. We're a republic. We have a system of states that have been brought together in a republic, as a United States. And so here in this legislative body we talk about the things we can do as a state, the laws we can enact as a state.
And that's why I talk about it at that level. Because from my perspective, and perhaps these words are too strong, but I feel that the intent from the federal government is in some way an attack on our safety. I believe that. I truly do.
And we may talk about whether or not there's a more perfect way to accomplish this, but my position is clear. I think it would be wrong, offensive and dangerous to provide a civil trial for enemy combatants here. And I'm going to do anything I can to prevent that from happening. That's how I was raised. That's how I was brought up. That's what I believe.
If someone is coming for you, if you are threatened or your family is threatened or your neighbors are threatened, you do whatever it takes to fend off the threat. This is my way of fending off this threat, this legislation. This is what we can do in the New York State Senate.
There are things we cannot do to protect ourselves against this threat. But those methods that we have the jurisdiction over and that we have the power to employ, we should employ. Let's talk about the safety of Senator Squadron's neighbors, our neighbors, my neighbors. I want that safety secured. This legislation does not in any way threaten their security.
Some of you have said you don't like this legislation but you don't like civil trials either. What is your response? What is your solution? I've seen nothing else proposed that would prevent these civil trials from occurring in New York City. If you believe that they should not occur, what is your answer? What do you have? What can you do as a New York State Senator?
This is what I can do. This is what we can do.
And of course it's logical. Of course it will work. You can't ignore what happened when Congress prevented or prohibited funding for the transport of detainees from Gitmo to New York City. You can't ignore it. We know what will happen if this is enacted. What happened there? Funding was pulled, the administration changed its mind, I think responsibly, prudently. They said, Well, if we can't have funding, we're not going to do it.
They did not respond, the administration didn't respond in the way that I think you're suggesting that they would here. And we're going to disagree on that. They didn't say the hell with it, I'm doing it anyway. They didn't. They said, We can't, we don't have the funding, we're not going to do it. And there they are being tried where they should be tried, in a military commission tribunal.
Now, you say then why do we need this legislation if we've got this new law. Well, the law is limited. The law says you can't fund the transport from Gitmo to New York. So the administration has been creative. They put a detainee from Somalia on a boat that never docked at Gitmo, and that's how they brought that detainee to New York City.
So they are determined as well, an I respect them for it. I take them at their word. This legislation does just that, it takes them at their word.
But speaking of the safety of the people in downtown Manhattan and across New York State, in my mind the best way to accomplish that is to ensure that we never provide an enemy combatant of the United States of America with greater privileges than we do to our own citizens, our own neighbors. And certainly not provide them with greater rights and privileges, greater rights and privileges than we do to United States soldiers. If a military commission tribunal is good enough for a United States soldier, it's good enough for a mass-murdering enemy combatant terrorist.
And this would certainly not handcuff the Police Department in the City of New York. To suggest that ignores the very logic of this legislation. Which is that if this becomes the law of the State of New York, there will be no civil trial for an enemy combatant. It wouldn't happen. I believe in my heart and I believe that recent events have proven that the administration would never do that.
And if they did, and if they did, they would provide the federal funding for that security. That's what would happen. You know that, and I know that.
But let's do whatever we can. If we agree on the proposition that they should not be afforded civil trials -- and I respect those who disagree. But if we agree on that proposition, then let's try our best to prevent it from happening. Let's not give and come up with excuses as to why this bill is not perfect.
You know, this is not the first piece of legislation that has ever been proposed in the State of New York or anywhere else that is not perfect. But it is, I believe, all we can do besides advocacy by way of preventing these civil trials from being provided here in New York City.
So, Mr. President, I believe this is very important legislation. I believe that this legislation will help ensure the safety and the security of our nation today and tomorrow and in our future. And I encourage my colleagues, those of you who believe that providing a civil trial to enemy combatants is a dangerous thing to do, I encourage all of you to look past the perceived imperfections and vote together, Democrat and Republican, to send a message to those enemy combatants that we're serious about defending our nation.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Seeing and hearing no other Senator wishing to be heard, debate is closed and the Secretary will ring the bell.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron to explain his vote.
You're under the two-minute rule, Senator Squadron.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you, Mr. President. In under two minutes.
I appreciate the sponsor's sincere conviction and interest in the question of civil criminal trials versus military tribunals. I worry that that debate is overwhelming the question of basic security in our districts.
When I asked the sponsor during the debate what the concern about civil trials is, there was a real conversation, an interesting, thoughtful one, about the risks of an open trial. There was no commentary about the risks of a terrorist event targeted to the trial itself specifically.
That latter concern is the concern that our constituents have all day, every day, and need to be protected against.
I urge the sponsor to have a debate; we have some disagreements about civil trials. I'd be happy to debate that in any setting, environment. What we can't do is support a bill --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Can we have some order in the chamber, please.
Senator Squadron, continue.
SENATOR SQUADRON: What we can't do is support a bill that, because of inadvertent flaws or because of a question of whether the federal government will follow the same logic followed by some members of this house, puts people at risk in New York City and New York State.
That's what this bill does, as inadvertent as it may be. Therefore, we must all vote no on the bill.
I vote no, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron to be recorded in the negative.
Again, I would ask the house to please come to order.
Senator Krueger to explain her vote.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
I was intrigued by the whole debate here today. And I appreciate the sponsor's passion and his pointedly stating that we should be having national debates on this. I don't disagree. I think this debate on the floor of Congress would have been very interesting. You might be ready and practicing for that.
But I am left with the fact that I need to make sure that our local citizens are protected by New York State and their local police as needed, as necessary.
So I understand, through this debate, we aren't going to control what trials do or don't take place in federal courthouses in the State of New York. That's not within our control. Those are federal determinations.
But what is within our control is making sure that we do everything possible at the local and state level to protect people who live in these neighborhoods and communities that happen to have federal courthouses located in them.
So I respect the sponsor's passion. I respect the argument he's making about the role of the federal government in certain decisions involving courts and where and who and why and how. But I'm a state legislator, and my duty is to try to make sure that we are doing everything possible to keep our options open and to ensure that our police, state and local, can do the jobs we may ask of them.
I am voting no.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Krueger to be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 305, those recorded in the negative are Senators Adams, Avella, Breslin, Duane, Gianaris, Hassell-Thompson, Krueger, Montgomery, Parker, Peralta, Perkins, Rivera, Sampson, Serrano, Squadron, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousins. Also Senator Espaillat.
Absent from voting: Senator Huntley.
Ayes, 39. Nays, 18.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
The Secretary will return to Calendar 525 and read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 525, by Senator Ranzenhofer, Senate Print 3336, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Read the last section.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Explanation, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: An explanation has been requested by Senator Breslin.
Senator Ranzenhofer.
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Yes, this is a bill that amends Penal Law Section 221.05 and a section of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, Section 65C. It relates to underage possession of alcohol and also the simple possession of marijuana.
What's happening is that -- this doesn't change the existing penalties that are in the law right now for these charges, but it does provide that a person who doesn't appear before the court and complete their sentence, it gives the court additional power of how to deal with somebody that just doesn't do what they are supposed to do.
The problem has been that there have been a significant number of persons that are charged with these offenses. And they either just don't show up when they're given an appearance ticket, they don't pay their fine when a judge fines them, they don't get an alcohol evaluation or a complete treatment if that's the recommended sentence, or they don't perform their community service if that's the sanction that's imposed by the court.
And the way the state of the law exists right now is there's absolutely nothing that a judge can do to enforce a person's appearance or to make sure that they complete the sentence if they do appear.
This bill would provide for an additional fine of up to $250 for failure to appear or complete the sentence, whether it's paying a fine, getting the treatment that's been recommended and ordered by the court, or performing your community service.
This is both a problem at the treatment level and also just a lack of respect for the courts. Throughout the state, this is a bill that has come to the attention of a lot of the magistrates, not only from my area of Western New York but Long Island, the rest of upstate, New York City. And also not only from the magistrates, but from the drug treatment providers where these people are sent to go and they don't go.
So basically what this does is just provides some additional enforcement to those few people that are not either showing up in court or abiding by the sentence, whether it be community service, drug evaluation or treatment, or a fine.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. Through you, if the sponsor would please yield.
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: I'm going to ask to have some order in the house, please, so we can hear the members discuss the bill.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
So under this proposed statute, if the individual who could not afford to pay the original fine as set by the court, after 120 days, pursuant to this bill, asks for more time to pay, would the court be able to give the individual additional time to pay rather than increasing the fine or penalty?
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: I'm sorry, I -- Mr. President, through you, I didn't hear the entire question.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, I'd be happy to repeat the question.
So under this bill, individuals who fail to pay the original fines within 120 days can be fined additional money or other penalties. If they go to the court to say "I can't afford the fine, may I have more time?" would the court be allowed to give them more time?
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Under the existing law right now, judges often do do that. They often work with persons that appear in front of them and very often are very considerate and very understanding. If somebody needs additional time, very frequently they do provide additional time for someone who needs more time to pay the fine.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, I heard the --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Are you asking the sponsor to yield?
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Yes, thank you.
To clarify, I heard the sponsor answer that under current law that does happen. Under this law that he would like to go into effect, would the court also still have that flexibility?
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Through you, Mr. President, there's nothing in this law which takes away that flexibility.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Could the collateral consequences of this bill be to disproportionately more harshly punish those defendants who have little money or often are termed indigent, as opposed to more moneyed defendants? Because again, this is a question of whether somebody has paid the 250 -- or, excuse me, the original fine.
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Through you, Mr. President, I don't believe it does. I mean, this is no different than any other section of law. You know, whether it be a criminal offense or a felony offense, I mean this is a discretionary judgment that a judge or justice makes all the time.
There are alternative sentences under this provision, such as community service for someone that does not have the means to pay the fine. So that's something that exists right now where judges have discretion for people that are not as able to pay a fine as others. And I don't believe it would be any different under this legislation.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
Under current law, does the court have the authority to suspend a driver's license rather than apply an additional fine?
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Under current law, it does not. Although this body did, on January 23rd of this year, pass legislation which would give a judge or magistrate that power.
They would have the power to suspend a driver's license if someone did not appear. Or if they did appear and didn't complete their sentence, whether it would be to pay a fine, complete community service, or get an evaluation and any treatment if necessary, under the legislation that we passed earlier this year in January, that bill did give a judge or magistrate the power to do that.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
And under this law, can you see a scenario where in fact a court can order a bench warrant or actually order jail time?
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Yes. Under this law, as is the existing law for other Penal Law violations, if somebody does not comply with the appearance ticket -- in other words, showing up for court when they've been given an appearance ticket -- or if they do not pay their fine or do their community service or get an evaluation, the court would have the power to issue a warrant to make them comply.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Krueger on the bill.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
So here's my dilemma with this bill. It seems to reestablish criminal penalties for low-level use of marijuana and move us backwards in time to a time in New York State history where we did criminalize minor use, personal use of marijuana. And it also applies to open bottles.
If we were to pass this law and it became the law of the state, unlawful possession of marijuana, which is currently a violation level offense with a penalty for conviction unique among other Penal Law violations, it would result in marijuana having a unique conviction standard.
Under the current law, a first- or second-time offender of unlawful possession of marijuana does not face incarceration and loss of his or her freedom. Under the current statute, a defendant may only be sentenced to incarceration if he has two prior convictions under the section within the past three years.
But if we amend the statute as proposed by the sponsor, this would essentially allow for those defendants convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana to be incarcerated for up to 15 days and subjected to an increased fine.
The current maximum penalty for this offense is $100 plus a mandatory surcharge of $95 to 100, in addition to a crime victim assistance fee of $25. So as such, an individual with no prior convictions under the statute can already owe up to $225 to the court following a conviction.
Although these fines and surcharges alone seem relatively small, when added together and added to the fine, the number grows quite large. This bill would allow for an additional fine of $250 for nonpayment within 120 days and could raise the amount owed by a defendant -- again, currently of a violation-level offense -- a defendant could owe $475 for a first-time offender. And the penalty of nearly $500 is quite excessive for such a miner offense under our law.
And so I feel that we would be increasing the penalties on people who can't pay the existing fines, increasing the likelihood of the poorest people who committed these violations end up owing more money they can't pay or even end up going to jail.
Now, in addition to the potential incarceration as a result of the nonpayment, defendants would also face the possibility of liens on their property and civil judgments, the implications of which are very far-reaching. Civil judgments have a significant impact on an individual's credit score, can lead to higher interest rates or application denials for credit card loans, higher insurance premiums, difficulty obtaining housing or a job.
And if in fact the problem started with having an inability to pay a fine of $225, then potentially growing to $475 with civil judgments, you could actually argue that what is currently a violation or even a first-time violation for small uses of private use of marijuana could result in someone not finding themselves employable, almost guaranteeing they're not going to be able to pay the fine to the court.
And so I find this proposal counterintuitive to what we want to accomplish here.
Now, let's add in -- let's say we do end up putting them in jail for up to 15 days on a first-time violation with failure to pay the fine within 120 days. The assumption is that they failed to pay approximately $225 to the court.
But if we end up determining that we need to incarcerate them, we have the costs associated with executing the arrest warrant, serving the court summons, the cost of a hearing which we would need to have if we were incarcerating them to determine the defendant's ability to pay, including court costs, prosecutorial costs, and of course potential costs of an assigned attorney -- because, again, the argument is these people are disproportionately likely to be indigent, so we'll pay for their lawyers because we have gone into the court process with them -- the potential loss of tax revenue created by a defendant's loss of employment as a result of being incarcerated or from the inability to find employment once the court files a civil judgment against them.
So the cost of incarcerating a defendant for up to 15 days can average $95 a day. So on top of the court costs and the arrest costs, we conceivably are going to add in state and local costs of $1425. So the cost of these enforcement efforts could exceed $2,000.
I think we should seriously consider whether the solution of some people not paying their fines within 120 days is really worth the re-creation of criminal statutes for violations under the law. That we have to ask ourselves whether taking first-time offenders, low-level, personal use of marijuana and open containers of alcohol users and putting them in jail because they couldn't pay their fines is really the direction the State of New York wants to go in criminal justice.
And some have argued that it would be re-creation of the model of debtors prison. Because, again, I suspect that facing a civil proceeding, going to jail, becoming at risk of losing one's job or being able to get another job, ruining one's credit rating, et cetera, et cetera, the likely punch line for many people will be they simply didn't have the money to pay the original fine.
And so I respect the sponsor's concern that in some cases -- and he gives some statistics in his memo to his bill -- in some cases a number of the total number of people facing these violations failed to pay within 120 days. I just don't think the right answer is to recriminalize the use of marijuana, put people in jail for it, and rack up significant costs to our police system, our court system, and our local jail system.
So I'm recommending a no vote. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Is there any other Senator wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, hearing none, I call on Senator Ranzenhofer to close debate.
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Just to respond to a couple of the points that were made, this was a problem that was brought to my attention by the courts and the treatment providers. We're dealing for the most part with young kids, because we're dealing with underage drinking, and basically we're dealing with a -- not a lot of kids, but a small percentage that simply don't follow the directives of the court.
What we have here is we're not criminalizing the underage of possession of alcohol, we're not criminalizing the possession of marijuana. What we're saying is that for those people and only those people who have had an opportunity to follow the directive of the court, whether it be pay a fine, whether it be complete your alcohol evaluation treatment, whether it be complete your community service, all we are saying is that for those few there needs to be another remedy.
Because it's very important and we ail know here that early intervention of the problem, whether it be for alcohol or whether it be for drugs, will save us much money. I have heard numerous times over and over again that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that's what we're trying to do here.
We're trying to intervene early, we're trying to get to the root of the problem, rather than have somebody feel that they can just ignore the dictates of the court, ignore treatment evaluations. Because what we do know, what we do find is that these people who find that there are no consequences for their actions will then be back in the criminal justice system and then, under Senator Krueger's theory, then it would cost us more money.
This is actually a cost-savings method, not something that will cost more money, because it does provide for early intervention to get to the root of the problem.
So at the request of the treatment providers, at the request of the magistrates throughout the state, on behalf of our youth and our young people throughout the state, this is an effort to help them -- not to be more punitive, but to get to those that are not taking the court seriously, who are not addressing their problems. And in the end I think that this will be good for our youth, good for our state, not harmful.
I would encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this, and I do vote yes. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The debate is closed, and the Secretary will ring the bell.
The Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to Calendar Number 525, those recorded in the negative are Senators Adams, Avella, Breslin, Diaz, Dilan, Duane, Espaillat, Gianaris, Hassell-Thompson, Krueger, Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Parker, Perkins, Rivera, Sampson, Serrano, Smith, Squadron, Stavisky, and Stewart-Cousins. Also Senator Peralta.
Absent from voting: Senator Huntley.
Ayes, 35. Nays, 22.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill is passed.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
Is there any further business at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: There is no further business.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, at this time could we go to motions.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: We will return to motions and resolutions.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I have a motion by Senator Martins. On page 26, I offer the following amendments to Calendar Number 530, Senate Print 6299A, 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.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, there's a privileged resolution at the desk. Can we have the title read and move for its immediate adoption, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The resolution is before the house, and the Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate resolution by Senator Skelos, establishing a plan --
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President. Mr. President, point of order. Point of order --
THE SECRETARY: -- setting forth an itemized list of grantees for certain appropriations in the 2012-2013 state fiscal --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Breslin, why do you rise?
SENATOR BRESLIN: Because I would like to know what we're voting on. We have no knowledge of --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: There's a privileged resolution that was brought before the desk and the Secretary is reading right now.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President, we request time to look at the resolution before we vote on it.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will continue to read. The resolution is before the house, Senator Breslin.
THE SECRETARY: Senate resolution by Senator Skelos, establishing a plan setting forth an itemized list of grantees --
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President --
(Multiple voices.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Let the Secretary read the resolution, please.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, the resolution is before the house. I have the floor. I don't believe the other members have the floor.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Correct. Senator Libous still has the floor.
You had a point of order, Senator Breslin. I am allowing -- I had said that the resolution was brought before the house and the Secretary must read the title. Let the Secretary continue to read.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will read.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President, I would request that you --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: (Gaveling.) Read this resolution, Secretary.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes, read the entire resolution.
THE SECRETARY: Senate resolution establishing a plan setting forth an itemized list of grantees for certain appropriations in the 2012-2013 state fiscal year.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Breslin, as to your point of order, under Rule 6, Section 9, privileged resolutions are allowed to be handed directly from the floor, as this has been done.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous has the floor.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President -- Mr. President, you are suggesting that we are to vote on something we have not seen and not read and not -- have just gotten. And this is a democracy. Please.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Breslin, I have --
SENATOR BRESLIN: We are only requesting time to review the resolution.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, the resolution -- if I could make a statement, I have the floor. The resolution is before the house.
Read the resolution in its entirety. It is before the house. It will be voted on.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Very good. And, Senator Breslin, you're requesting for a full reading of the resolution?
SENATOR BRESLIN: That's correct.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous, without objection, the Secretary will read the entire resolution.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Point of order, Mr. President. It's not without objection. The ability -- any member can ask for the entire resolution to be read. It is not without objection.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron (gaveling).
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: "RESOLVED, That funds originally appropriated in 2011 pursuant to Chapter 53 of the Laws of 2011 and reappropriated pursuant to Chapter 53 of the Laws of 2012, which enacts the Aid to Localities budget to the Education Department under the pre-kindergarten through Grade 12 education program from the General Fund, Local Assistance Account, for additional grants in aid to school districts, libraries, not-for-profit educational institutions for the 2011-12 school year, shall be allocated only pursuant to a plan setting forth in an itemized list of grantees with the amount to be received by each.
"Such plan shall be subject to the approval of the Temporary President of the Senate and the Director of the Budget and thereafter shall be included in a resolution calling for the expenditure of such monies, which resolution must be approved by a majority vote of all members elected to the Senate upon a roll call vote, in accordance with the following schedule:
"Addion Central School District, 50,000;
"Catskill School District, 50,000;
"Alexandria Central School District, 15,000;
"Altmar-Parish-Williamstown School District, 10,000;
"Amityville Public Schools, 40,000;
"Arkport Central School, 40,000;
"Attica Central School, 75,000;
"Ausable Valley School District, 80,000;
"Averill Park Central School District, 25,000;
"Babylon Union Free School District, 40,000;
"Baldwin School District, 50,000;
"Baldwinsville Central Schools, 125,000;
"Ballston Spa School District, 25,000;
"BayShore Union Free School District, 40,000;
"Beaver River Central School District, 150,000;
"Belleville-Henderson Central School District, 10,000;
"Bellmore Merrick Central High School, 40,000;
"Bellmore Public Schools, 40,000;
"Berlin Central School District, 30,000;
"Bethpage School District, 25,000;
"Brasher Falls Central School District, 50,000;
"Brewster School District, 100,000;
"Brighton Central School District, 75,000;
"Brittonkill School District, 15,000;
"Broadalbin-Perth Central School District, 100,000;
"Brocton Central School District, 100,000;
"Canajoharie School District, 30,000;
"Canisteo-Greenwood Central School District, 40,000;
"Canton Central School District, 30,000;
"Carthage Central School District, 15,000;
"Central Square Central School District, 25,000;
"Cold Spring Harbor Central School District, 55,000;
"Commack Central School District, 75,000;
"Connetquot School District, 40,000;
"Copiague School District, 40,000;
"Coxsackie Athens School District, 50,000;
"Dansville Central School District, 100,000;
"Deer Park Union Free School District, 40,000;
"Downsville Central School District, 25,000;
"Duanesburg School District, 30,000;
"East Bloomfield School District, 30,000;
"East Greenbush School District, 20,000;
"East Rockaway School District, 50,000;
"East Williston Union Free School District, 20,000;
"Edwards-Knox Central School District, 15,000;
"Ellenville Central School District, 25,000;
"Elmira Heights Central School District, 50,000;
"Himont School District, 50,000;
"Elmont Union Free School District, 25,000;
"Elwood Union Free School District, 55,000;
"Fabius Pompey Central Schools, 25,000;
"Fallsburg Central School District, 50,000;
"Fonda-Fultonville School District, 40,000;
"Frankfort-Schuyler School District, 50,000;
"Franklin Square Union Free School District, 5,000;
"Fredonia Central School District, 100,000;
"Freeport Public Schools, 40,000;
"Fulton City School District, 30,000;
"Galway School District, 30,000;
"Gananda School District, 30,000;
"General Brown Central School District, 15,000;
"Genesee Valley Central School District, 50,000;
"Glen Cove City School District, 55,000;
"Gorham-Middlesex Central School District, 40,000;
"Goshen Central School District, 50,000;
"Gouverneur Central School District, 15,000;
"Great Neck Public Schools, 25,000;
"Greece Central School District, 175,000;
"Greenville School District, 50,000;
"Haldane School District, 35,000;
"Half Hollow Hills School District, 55,000;
"Hammond Central School District, 15,000;
"Hammondsoort Central School District, 25,000;
"Hannibal Central School District, 30,000;
"Happauge School District, 65,000;
"Harborfields Central School District, 55,000;
"Harrisville Central School District, 50,000;
"Hartford School District, 50,000;
"Hermon-DeKalb Central School District, 15,000;
"Herricks Union Free School District, 25,000;
"Heuvelton Central School District, 15,000;
"Hewlett-Woodmere School District, 50,000;
"Hicksville Union Free School District, 50,000;
"Hilton Central School District, 100,000;
"Homer Central School District, 50,000;
"Hoosic Valley School District, 30,000;
"Hoosick Falls School District, 30,000;
"Hunter Tannersville School District, 50,000;
"Huntington Union Free School District, 55,000;
"Hyde Park School District, 30,000;
"Indian Lake School District, 30,000;
"Island Park School District, 25,000;
"Islip School District, 40,000;
"Kings Park Central School District, 75,000;
"LaFargeville Central School District, 15,000;
"LaFayette Central Schools, 45,000;
"Lake Pleasant School District, 30,000;
"Lansingburgh School District, 30,000;
"Lawrence School District, 50,000;
"Liberty Central School District, 25,000;
"Lindenhurst Public Schools, 40,000;
"Lisbon Central School District, 15,000;
"Livonia Central School, 25,000;
"Lockport City School District, 425,000;
"Locust Valley Central School District, 55,000;
"Long Beach School District, 50,000;
"Lyme Central School District, 15,000;
"Lynbrook School District, 50,000;
"Madrid-Waddington Central School District, 15,000;
"Mahopac School District, 90,000;
"Malverne School District, 50,000;
"Manhasset Union Free School District, 25,000;
"Marcellus Central Schools, 85,000;
"Marion School District, 30,000;
"Massapequa Public Schools, 40,000;
"Mayfield School District, 100,000;
"Mechanicville School District, 30,000;
"Merrick Public Schools, 40,000;
"Mexico Academy & Central School District, 15,000;
"Milford Central School, 50,000;
"Millbrook School District, 20,000;
"Mineola Union Free School District, 50,000;
"Minerva School District, 30,000;
"Minisink Valley Central School District, 50,000;
"Mohonasen School District, 30,000;
"Monticello Central School District, 25,000;
"Moravia School District, 30,000;
"Morristown Central School District, 15,000;
"New Hyde Park-Garden City Park Union Free School District, 20,000;
"Newark School District, 30,000;
"Newfane Central School District, 75,000;
"Niagara Falls School District, 275,000;
"North Babylon School District, 40,000;
"North Bellmore Schools, 40,000;
"North Greenbush School District, 5,000;
"North Rose Wolcott School District, 30,000;
"North Shore School District, 55,000;
"North Syracuse Central Schools, 150,000;
"Northport-East Northport Union Free, 100,000;
"Northville School District, 150,000;
"Oceanside School District, 50,000;
"Odessa-Mountour Central School District, 50,000;
"Ogdenburg City School District, 30,000;
"Onondaga Central Schools, 25,000;
"Oswego City School District, 30,000;
"Oyster Bay East Norwich School District, 55,000;
"Palmyra-Macedon School District, 30,000;
"Pawling High School, 100,000;
"Peekskill School District, 50,000;
"Penn Yan Central School District, 90,000;
"Perry Central School, 70,000;
"Peru School District, 80,000;
"Phelps Clifton Springs School District, 30,000;
"Phoenix Central School District, 30,000;
"Poland Central School, 50,000;
"Port Byron School District, 40,000;
"Port Jervis City School District, 50,000;
"Port Washington Union Free School District, 25,000;
"Portville Central School District, 50,000;
"Pulaski Academy & Central School District, 15,000;
"Putnam Valley School District, 125,000;
"Red Creek School District, 30,000;
"Rensselaer School District, 25,000;
"Rockville Centre School District, 75,000;
"Romulus School District, 10,000;
"Rondout Valley Central School District, 25,000;
"Roslyn Union Free School District, 25,000;
"Sachem Central School District, 250,000;
"Salem School District, 50,000;
"Sandy Creek Central School District, 10,000;
"Saranac School District, 50,000;
"Saratoga Springs School District, 20,000;
"Saugerties Central School District, 50,000;
"Sauquoit Valley Central School District, 175,000;
"Schodack School District, 30,000;
"Schroon Lake School District, 50,000;
"Schuylerville School District, 25,000;
"Seaford Public Schools, 40,000;
"Seneca Falls School District, 35,000;
"Shenendehowa School District, 20,000;
"Smithtown Central School District, 80,000;
"South Huntington Union Free School District, 55,000;
"Sodus School District, 30,000;
"Solvay Union Free School District, 40,000;
"Somers Central School District, 50,000;
"South Glens Falls School District, 35,000;
"South Lewis Central School District, 50,000;
"South Seneca School District, 30,000;
"Southern Cayuga School District, 25,000;
"Stillwater School District, 25,000;
"Sullivan West Central School District, 25,000;
"Ticonderoga School District, 50,000;
"Troy School District, 35,000;
"Trumansburg Central School District, 25,000;
"Valley Stream Central High School District, 25,000;
"Valley Stream Union Free School District #13, 25,000;
"Valley Stream Union Free School District #24, 25,000;
"Valley Stream Union Free School District #30, 25,000;
"Waterford-Halfmoon School District, 25,000;
"Watertown City School District, 30,000;
"Watkins Glen Central School Districts, 100,000;
"Windham-Ashland-Jewett, 50,000;
"Worcester Central School, 50,000; and
"Yorktown Central School District, 50,000."
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The question is on the resolution.
Senator Krueger, why do you rise?
SENATOR KRUEGER: To ask some questions, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Krueger has questions.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. Who is the sponsor of this resolution?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, can we have some order in the chamber.
And if members don't want to take their seats, they can leave the chamber. Staff should sit down. I believe there's a resolution before the house.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Libous.
Again, please, everyone, I would ask you to cooperate so that the members can hear each other to discuss the legislation.
There was a request for a reading. The reading has been completed. I would ask now for order in the house.
Senator Krueger has rose to ask a question. Senator DeFrancisco will yield to you to answer that question.
I will remind you that we're under Rule 9, and as we discuss the resolution there is a time allotment given for this of 30 minute minutes.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
Can the sponsor please tell me what these six pages of numbers add up to in total amount?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: 9.95 million.
SENATOR KRUEGER: 9.95 million, thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
And this is 2011-2012 money that apparently we are attempting to reallocate during 2012-2013; is that correct?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Absolutely incorrect. Back in -- actually, on March 30th of 2011, when we passed the budget, we passed a bill the last year -- I mean passed a -- part of the budget was a procedure by which additional funding could be allocated to school districts.
And that language in the budget required that there be a resolution passed by both the Assembly and the Senate concurrently, with the names of the districts that would be getting additional funding.
Well, the Senate passed that resolution, and unfortunately the Assembly never did. Which, because of the budget language, these dollars could not be moved.
So in this year's budget, there was -- part of the budget said that we could move this very money from the last year's budget just by a resolution of the Senate alone, without having to wait for the Assembly to do what they were supposed to do last year. And what this -- that was in this year's budget.
So what this resolution is is those same items that would have been released had the Assembly done what they should have done under a joint resolution. Now we can do it alone, based upon our budget language this year, and that's what we're doing.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR KRUEGER: So this is an identical resolution to the resolution that was passed at some point during the 2011-2012 school year here in the Senate?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It is not identical. And it's not identical because some of this money was released at an earlier date. This is what hasn't been released yet that was dependent upon a joint resolution by the Assembly.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Is this what we would define as discretionary funds being distributed to school districts?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm sorry, what?
SENATOR KRUEGER: Is this what would be defined as discretionary funds being allocated to school districts?
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO: What it is is it's a listing of the funds, additional funds that went to the school district at the discretion of the Senate.
And by the way, when we passed this resolution before, there were only five negative votes when the listing of school districts was prepared and voted on, assuming the Assembly was going to do the same thing, and that was done on -- when was that? In 2011.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the speaker would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
Are any of the school districts lined out on pages 1 through 6 totaling $9.95 million, are any of these school districts in Democratic Senators' districts?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't know. I just -- I think it's -- I don't think so, nor were there any in Republican districts in the years 2009 and 2010.
And by the way, as far as disclosure, I've been informed that this listing was on the Governor's website, it's been on the Governor's website for about two months now.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: So the argument being presented is that this was money from 2011-2012 that was passed in the Senate but not passed with a concurrent resolution in the Assembly, and so it was still sitting there to be spent. Is this resolution going to be passed in the Assembly as well now?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No. And as I mentioned before, in this year's budget there was language that allowed the Senate alone to move this money so that we wouldn't have to wait indefinitely for the Assembly to pass a concurrent resolution.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President --
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO: And by the way, that there was only a few negative votes in allowing this procedure to take place when the budget was passed.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: There seems to be some confusion by some of us as to whether the language that was in this year's budget allowing what I believed at the time, when the chair of Finance and I were debating the budget, the language in this year's budget allowing discretionary funding within the budget to be lined out and passed by only one house rather than two houses, I believe that violated the Budget Reform Law from several years ago. And we discussed that at the time.
But I'm still confused because I believe -- and we are looking -- that the Governor actually did not allow the language to go forward that previous years' money could be single-house-resolution passed, that only the 2012-2013 bullet aid money would be allowed to be so processed, but that previous years' money could not be moved through this new questionable process of only one house passing it. So we're looking for that language as I speak.
But I will ask the Finance chair, is it his understanding that the language in this year's budget bill permitting discretionary dollars to be put in resolutions passed only by one house applies to previous years' money as well as 2012-2013 money?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That is correct.
SENATOR KRUEGER: That he believes that that is allowed.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That is allowed. It's exactly what we put in the budget this year. Because this money that was reappropriated in this year's budget couldn't be released. And this house was dependent upon what the Assembly was going to do, and they hadn't acted on the 2011-2012.
And we can show you the actual budget language if you need it.
SENATOR KRUEGER: We might need you to. Thank you, Mr. Sponsor.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO: I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
So we've established this is 2011-2012 money that wasn't spent, that it's discretionary money that the Senate can vote through a resolution. We're still debating whether or not the new rules that you don't need an Assembly vote applied to previous years' monies, and these are previous years' monies.
My unders -- oh, I'm sorry, I didn't want to cut you off.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, go ahead.
SENATOR KRUEGER: My understanding is that discretionary monies going through this house are supposed to go through a formula of two-thirds the majority, one-third the minority. And yet our review shows all of this goes to Republican school districts.
Now, I suppose Senate Democrats could have decided for 100 percent of the money to go to Republican school districts even if we had discretion over a third of it, but it doesn't seem that likely.
So what happened to that rule that there's supposed to be two-thirds/one-third distribution of discretionary funds?
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO: These monies, number one, are not totally discretionary. And as far as whether the budget this year allowed us to do this, we gave you the language. You might want to read it before we continue debating that issue.
But it's not discretionary, it's only for certain purposes, and that money was reappropriated. And it's my understanding from talking to the secretary to the Budget Committee that some of this funding was provided administratively to Democrats. And I imagine you'd have to talk to your leader to see how that was distributed.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
So we are looking at the materials we were given, so thank you very much. And it does seem that 2011-2012 money can go through one resolution.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It seems that way because that's what the law said.
SENATOR KRUEGER: No, no, I was questioning and I was telling you that I thought that that was a bad move by both houses of the Legislature allowing this budget law to be notwithstanding overruled in certain sections this year. Apparently this is one of the reasons I should have been concerned about that.
$9.95 million, is there additional money remaining from 2011-2012 not in this resolution that we can anticipate future resolutions will have?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: There is not.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: How can you give this money out administratively?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, I'm not quite sure how it was done. But I can tell you this is what I was informed. And you might want to check with your leader as far as what those funds were from prior years, money from prior years that were not spent that were allocated to the leader to distribute, your leader to distribute.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President.
So if I'm understanding -- I'm not sure if I am understanding correctly. But we're being told that there is some money left over from 2011-2012 for distribution to school districts that requires a resolution to be passed by this house. And yet I'm also being told there was some money left from 2011-2012 that don't have to go through a resolution before this house but was done administratively, and that I should ask someone.
I'm very confused. How can -- if we can do it administratively, why are we looking at this resolution at all? Why isn't this money just being given out?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: This was money that had not been spent before this resolution requirement was made part of the budget process.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: So before we passed the 2012-2013 budget, which provided language allowing the Senate to move discretionary funding through a one-house resolution, there was another mechanism that was allowed for spending 2011-2012 money not having to go through resolutions in either house? What was that language in the budget?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That language was not in the budget.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. And if this administrative action was inappropriate, then I think that we should really look into it to see if we should have that money repaid to the state for violating some provision of the budget laws that are passed by the State of New York. But it was funding that was readily accepted by your leader.
SENATOR KRUEGER: My leader says that's not actually a situation that occurred.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Krueger, are you asking a situation or are you on the bill?
SENATOR KRUEGER: No, I'm on the -- I'm not sure if this is the bill, but I guess I'm on the bill for a moment.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: On the resolution, excuse me. On the resolution.
SENATOR KRUEGER: On the resolution. My leader said that process did not take place.
But I'm confused, because if the Senate majority gave out money in a certain way that the sponsor's representative is arguing wasn't okay under the budget, I'm curious what that is. And maybe I agree with him that somebody is supposed to do something about that.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I will take the word of your leader. I was informed, maybe mistakenly, that there was monies provided to the Democrat conference administratively. If your leader said that that did not occur, I'll certainly take his word for it.
But as far as any -- as far as there's any angst over the fact that this money was allocated in this resolution only to majority districts, I would expect that you have the same disgust over that process during the years, the two years that the Democrats were in the majority, because none of this additional funding was provided to the Republican conference at that time.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
Is this funding what we usually call bullet aid funding?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I've heard it called that, yes.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Okay.
So this is $9.95 million from 2011-2012. Where is the rest of the bullet aid that was in the original 2011-2012 budget? Have we in fact spent it through a resolution in this house?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It was prior-year appropriations, is what I'm informed.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: What was the total bullet aid amount in the 2011-2012 budget allocated to the Senate?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Sixteen million, which I believe approximated the bullet aid that was in the budgets during the budget years 2009-2010, 2010-2011.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. Apparently we didn't have bullet aid in 2010-2011 -- no, in 2009-2010? We did not have bullet aid in 2010-2011. But 2011-2012, I thank the sponsor for his answer that there was $16 million in bullet aid.
So this is $9.95 million. Did we have another resolution at some point during 2011-2012 where we approved the spending of the additional $6 million, approximately?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm not aware of another resolution. I don't recall another resolution.
SENATOR KRUEGER: And through you, Mr. President, the sponsor has already answered that he believes there's no remaining 2011-2012 bullet aid to come through an additional resolution at some future date.
So there was $16 million in the budget. This resolution accounts for $9.95 million. So there's approximately $6-plus million in bullet aid from 2010-2011 that did not go through a resolution. And yet how did it get distributed?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, when I say it hasn't gone through a resolution, it went through a prior resolution that the Assembly never bothered passing. So at one time we did vote on the entire $16 million in a resolution which the Senate passed but the Assembly did not.
Now, I'm not quite sure why the entire $16 million was not part of this resolution and there's only the 9-point-something million. But these were all publicly disclosed in a prior vote that unfortunately was not passed by the Assembly.
None of this that we're going through right now would have been necessary had we got, back in 2011-2012, the resolution that the Assembly indicated they were going to pass but for whatever reason did not pass.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
So there was $16 million in bullet aid in the 2011-2012 budget originally intended for use by the Senate. There was a previous reso that was never passed by the Assembly, so in theory, none of this $16 million was spent. Today we are being handed this resolution showing how the Senate intends to spend approximately $9.95 million, all in Republican districts.
Not clear what happened to the other $6 million, although I'm being told it won't show up again. Was that perhaps the one-third discretionary money that was supposed to be for Democratic districts that's disappeared in some way, someplace?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No. Believe me, there was never any intention to provide any funds to the Democrat conference, as there was none when the Democrats were in control.
On the other hand, and to assuage your concerns -- and, you know, there should be concerns on everybody's part -- we could certainly provide another resolution adding the -- putting the additional grants that are not on this one that were on the original joint resolution so we have a complete list. And I recommend that we do that so that there's no technical violation that we might be accused of.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER: So the sponsor is suggesting that perhaps now he's been informed that there might be another $6 million yet to be spent --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I didn't say that.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Oh, I'm sorry, then I misunderstood you. May I ask the sponsor to explain?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: What I said was there's no additional $6 million to be spent.
But the disclosure of what districts either got or are going to get that entire $16 million, we could pass a resolution to make sure that the complete list that was previously voted on when we thought it was going to be a resolution passed by both houses can be complete.
And that's what I'm offering to do if there's concern as to where that money was to be spent or was spent.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President. I believe I now understand. The sponsor is suggesting that there was a previous resolution that perhaps was, in total, more approximately $16 million --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Correct.
SENATOR KRUEGER: -- but it was never passed by the other house.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Correct.
SENATOR KRUEGER: So in theory, none of that $16 million should have spent, because you weren't entitled to spend it in last year. So none of that $16 million was spent?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: None of the $16 million was spent. From what I understand.
SENATOR KRUEGER: So there's $9 million today -- excuse me -- for rounding purposes, $10 million today. There's no longer the other $6 million.
To play devil's advocate, even though I'm not particularly happy with this whole scenario, why wouldn't you have a resolution totaling $16 million?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not quite sure why that was the case.
But on the other hand, if that is something that would complete this process, since we did pass it once with both houses supposed to be passing it, we could certainly have another resolution to make this one complete.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President. Can I point to page 6, the first line, Solvay Union Free School District being given an allocation of "A0,000."
I'm assuming that was probably an error and would suggest the sponsor might want to withdraw the resolution to correct it but also perhaps to deal with the full $16 million question of the 2011-2012 money that was not spent in 2011-2012 but perhaps should be spent in 2012-2013.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Mine doesn't have a typo on it. Let me see what you've got.
Well, I imagine we could -- I imagine it was -- I think "A0,000" is obviously a typographical error. But when we were requested to read the entire resolution, the clerk did read "$40,000."
And I think we could make the change from an A to a 4 to satisfy your concern, but when it was read for a vote it was read off as 40,000.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, Mr. President, may I ask an additional question.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: This isn't the first time, by the way, that a typographical error has occurred in the history of the State Senate. But I'm glad you picked it up.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The sponsor continues to yield.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
I certainly can understand typographical error. But I also think if you pass a resolution that doesn't give some money to somebody, they don't get the money.
But the sponsor said that his copy didn't have the typo. So I'm wondering what else might be different between the copies we received and the copy the sponsor has.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Here. Would you like to read my copy?
SENATOR KRUEGER: Well, perhaps I'd like a few minutes just --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Sure, we could read it.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Mr. President, the dilemma may be that the sponsor is working off a draft off of the original, so it shows that there is an error in the copy that we were distributed. But -- so there could be other errors. We don't know right now.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You could certainly take the time to compare every line if you choose, but I don't believe there's any other errors.
SENATOR KRUEGER: The half-hour is close to over, so I guess I would ask for extended time to review the comparison of the two copies, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The rules are as they are, Senator Krueger. Right now we have 30 minutes for each side. And I know there are other members on this side that are going to be wanting to discuss the resolution. So I would ask that we comply with the rules.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Senator, how much time do you need?
SENATOR KRUEGER: Give me an estimate, staff. Ten minutes?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The resolution under discussion, as a matter of note, Senator Krueger, is the resolution that was read by the Secretary. Even though we attempted many times to get order in the chamber, and I'm hopeful that people were being attentive to the resolution that was being read, as it had been requested.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The fact of the matter is, by the way --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. The fact of the matter is no matter what my draft copy says, what we voted on is what you have in your hand as read by the clerk.
So whether my copy is exactly yours -- which it is, I believe, except for the A substituted for the 4, the typographical error -- the fact of the matter is we're not voting on my draft, we're voting on what you've been working off.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Was the resolution handed up before the house? The resolution that is handed up before the house is the document that is on the floor right now. And if for some reason there's a typo there, it's been corrected in the debate. But the actual resolution does not have that typo. So the resolution is before the house.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, point of order.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron, why do you rise?
SENATOR SQUADRON: Point of order, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: What is your point of order?
SENATOR SQUADRON: There was a reference to the typo in the resolution being corrected in the debate. I'm not sure and familiar under what rule of the house a typo on a resolution can be corrected in a debate.
My impression, and I am happy to be -- just in the interests of the parliamentary I guess credibility, if that word is appropriate, I'm happy to be corrected. But my understanding is that we vote on the resolution at the desk that was read by the clerk, but the pronunciation of the clerk does not change the resolution. It is the written resolution at the desk on which we vote.
If there's a typo in it, then we are being asked in a couple of minutes to vote on a resolution with a typo in it?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: No, no, that is not correct. I have already indicated -- members, please. I have already indicated that the resolution that was before the body as read by the Secretary, as requested to be read in full, is the resolution that we'll be voting on.
Senator DeFrancisco, why do you rise?
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, I -- point of order --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You know, could I --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron, Senator DeFrancisco rose. I will take his --
SENATOR SQUADRON: We're not done with my point of order.
And just for clarification, is the resolution -- is the resolution at the desk, does it have a typo distributing, instead of $40,000 to the Solvay Union Free School District, A0,000 dollars to the Solvay Union Free School District? I have not in fact seen the resolution on the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron, one minute.
Senator DeFrancisco, why do you rise?
I want order in the chamber. Again, please, I will take up questions one at a time.
Senator Squadron, we are reviewing your request.
Senator DeFrancisco has risen. I will ask, what is your point of order, Senator DeFrancisco?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: What I'd like to point out, for all those who may be insomniacs and have nothing to do at home who may be watching this on the Internet, what we are debating, to be very clear, one line of this resolution, instead of having 4-0, comma, 0-0-0, 40,000, says A-0, comma, 0-0-0.
And what all of this point of order is about is a complaint that the A was wrongly put on the resolution rather than the 4. There is no other typographical error. And when the clerk read the resolution, he read it as $40,000.
Now, I would --
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm still speaking.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Would Senator --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron, Senator DeFrancisco rose to a point of order. I recognized that.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: So in response to his point of order, I would request that somebody -- and I'd be happy to do it, to satisfy Senator Squadron -- is replace the A by a 4 so it's exactly what the clerk read.
And I would hope that that major action on our part will satisfy this important, this very, very important point of order that we have to get over at 7 o'clock this evening.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, on my point of order. On my point of order, Mr. President.
What is important is having a democracy and a legislative body that actually allows all 62 members a voice, that allows folks to review what's been being voted on, not to have things snuck through in I guess not quite the dark of night, because of the time of year, but essentially in the dark of night.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous, why do you rise?
SENATOR SQUADRON: So in addition, there are rules in this house --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron. Senator Squadron. (Gaveling.) Senator Squadron.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous, why do you rise?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Because what Senator Squadron doesn't re -- we are following the rules. Any member can bring a privileged resolution to the desk. And that's what happened today. A privileged resolution was put before the desk.
If the chair accepts it and the resolution is read, you proceed on it. You debate it like we're debating, and then you take it to a vote.
So there were no rules broken here today, Senator Squadron. There are no rules that said that a privileged resolution has to be handed out in mass quantity. It's before the house. And those are the rules, and I would challenge anybody who wants to challenge what the rules say.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous, your point is well-taken. And I had indicated that earlier in the procedures this evening.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron --
SENATOR SQUADRON: I'm on a point of order, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron, state your point of order.
Senator Sampson has also risen. Do you yield to Senator Sampson or do you want to continue?
SENATOR SQUADRON: Yes, I yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron, would you please be seated, then.
Senator Sampson, state your point of order.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just a point of clarification.
During the debate, Senator DeFrancisco, the chair, indicated that administratively I received or my conference received monies with respect to when you were talking about the allocations of money to school districts. Which I'm all in support of, allocation of money to school districts. But as a point of clarification and correction, administratively I didn't receive one nickel, one dime, or a penny. So I wanted to make that correct.
Second of all, when we're talking about dealing with a resolution that is going to be put in the Senate books -- and according to the budget, we're allocating monies to a school district where there is an error. And is the document correct?
And that's the point I think we're trying to make. If the document is correct, the resolution is correct, pointing -- and Senator DeFrancisco I think would understand that, and most lawyers would understand that. If there's a document that has a certain amount of money that's allocated and this document is incorrect, then it's invalid at that point in time. And also would therefore invalidate the record.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Sampson, your point of clarification is noted. We are reviewing the document.
As Senator DeFrancisco indicated, we also have the opportunity to amend the resolution.
SENATOR PARKER: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Parker, why do you rise?
SENATOR PARKER: Point of order.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: State your point of order.
SENATOR PARKER: My understanding is that there is not, in fact, a process in which a resolution, privileged or not, can be edited at the desk. And so I'd like to move that the resolution be struck, if in fact there is a error in the document, and have it reprinted and brought back to the desk at a further time.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Parker, your point is not well-taken.
In accordance with the rules and procedures of the house, you can amend a resolution before the body. And that has not been suggested at this point in time, but that can be taken under consideration and put before the house.
SENATOR PARKER: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Parker.
SENATOR PARKER: Point of clarification.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: State your point.
SENATOR PARKER: Can I know what that rule is?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous.
I will give you the specific rule, Senator Parker. Just give us some time to -- Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, there have been typos in bills that have passed and resolutions that have passed this house for years. They have been corrected.
This does not affect the substance of the resolution. The clerk read the number. That's the number that's in the resolution.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to continue the debate, they can continue the debate. But we will call a time limit and then we will take this to a vote. And it's before the house under the Senate rules.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Libous.
Senator Squadron, why do you rise?
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, on the point of order that was standing and the question from Senator Parker.
Before we move on and begin that clock again, I'd just like to have the understanding of the process by which we would amend a resolution at the desk after it has been read and debated.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I'm --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: What is this remedy? What is his point of order and his remedy? I don't understand what Senator Squadron is asking before the house, what -- his point of order has no meaning.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: That is correct, Senator Libous, you're --
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President. Mr. President, it has been suggested both by the sponsor of the resolution and by the Acting President of the house, by yourself, that this bill will -- this resolution will be amended at the desk if there's a typo. That's been suggested -- it's not been suggested by -- Mr. President, can I please finish? Thank you.
It has not been suggested by Senator Libous, but it has been suggested by the sponsor of the resolution and by the presiding officer of the house. That's why there's a point of order.
The remedy, as I understand it, is for a clarification from the presiding officer that such a process is not possible.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: There is no amendment pending before the house at this point in time, Senator Squadron. I have indicated that, in accordance with rules and resolutions and procedures that we follow here, the opportunity to amend a resolution that's before the house exists.
Senator Parker questioned whether or not we could find the specific section. We are determining -- it's a general policy of the house, but we are going to try to determine either under Mason's or the rules of the Senate so we can provide you that information.
SENATOR SQUADRON: So -- but --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: What you have before you -- what I want to again emphasize is you are -- you are -- the resolution before this body has been read by the Secretary. Regardless of any indicators that have been mentioned here relative to documents that may be -- or drafts before your desk.
We are discussing, we are debating the resolution before the house as presented, as requested. And it was read in its entirety.
So your point is not well-taken, Senator Squadron.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, as a point --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Please, Senator Squadron --
SENATOR SQUADRON: As a point of clarification --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: What is your point of clarification?
SENATOR SQUADRON: It sounds as if my point of order is not yet ripe. Since no such amendment has been made, the resolution as we have it on our desks is the one that's before us. If there is an attempt to amend it, I assume that will be put before the house and at that point the point of order will be appropriate.
So with that clarification, I will sit down. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, we're not amending the resolution, we're correcting it for the record. The resolution is before the house. It has been corrected. It has been read by the clerk. And we will hand up -- Senator DeFrancisco has a resolution that he will hand up that is corrected.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, point of order.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron, what is your point of order?
SENATOR SQUADRON: By what process and under what rules of the house can such resolutions be corrected in the way that Senator Libous has just described?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron, I'm going to reiterate that the official reading is the official document. Accordingly, any clerical error can be corrected. So --
SENATOR LIBOUS: It's been corrected. It's before the house, corrected. It is not an amendment, it is the document before the house.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Correct. It is the formal document before the house.
I'm going to ask one member at a time to rise. Senator Parker, why do you rise?
SENATOR PARKER: Thank you, Mr. President. Point of clarification.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: State your point of clarification.
SENATOR PARKER: My point of clarification is the following. What is the actual control that is in place to know what is in fact the actual thing, legislation, resolution, that the house is voting on?
Is it in fact the resolution that's been handed up and what we are supposed to have a copy of on our desk? Or is it just the arbitrary word of our clerk? Which we of course trust but is not necessarily, may or may not necessarily be consistent with what the actual document is.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The resolution as read by the Secretary is what we are discussing, as it was read to all of the members. The clerical error --
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Again, in all due respect to some of my colleagues here, the resolution is before the house. The typo has been corrected. The resolution was read by the clerk. That is what's before the house. And it's very close to time to take this for a vote.
SENATOR PARKER: Point of clarification.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Parker, I've given you the answer on that.
SENATOR PARKER: Right.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: And Mason's allows -- Mason's gives us the opportunity for any clerical errors, as long as the document has been read and put before the house officially, as it has been -- what is your point -- Senator Squadron.
SENATOR PARKER: I yield.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, point of clarification.
Can we have the citation in Mason's, please. It's not the rules of the house, it's Mason's. And so we would like to be able to review it.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: I'm going to allow Senator Flanagan to speak on the resolution.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Mason's is not binding on this body, it is only advisory. And I'm trying to give you guidance here. I've already answered the question several times. What you are discussing is -- it's the resolution that has been read and is before the body. That is all that's of significance at this point this time.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, you cited Mason's, and I'm simply asking for the citation so that we can follow along.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Section 405, Senator Squadron, Mason's. Thank you.
Senator Flanagan is recognized.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, I still have the floor.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: No, you do not, Senator Squadron. Senator Squadron, I have ruled on your point of order. I have recognized Senator Flanagan --
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, you ruled on the point of order. He does not have the floor.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: I agree --
SENATOR LIBOUS: He is out of line. You are running the house, and I think you --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: I am running the house, Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: -- I believe you called on Senator Flanagan.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron, I indicated that I've answered your point of order. Please be seated.
Senator Flanagan, please take the floor.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, I'd like to appeal -- I appeal the ruling of the chair.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: (Gaveling.) Senator Flanagan.
SENATOR SQUADRON: I'd like to appeal the ruling of the chair.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: As a point of information, Senator Squadron, there's no opportunity to appeal the ruling of a point of information.
SENATOR SQUADRON: You said "I ruled on your point of order." I am now appealing the ruling of the chair, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: I provided you information on a question you rose. How can you try to override a point of information?
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, to be clear, I am not able --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron, you're out of order.
SENATOR SQUADRON: I'm not able to appeal the ruling of the chair?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Flanagan, please take the floor. Senator Flanagan.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Mr. President, just to be clear, I am not able to appeal the ruling of the chair?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Flanagan.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, before Senator Flanagan takes the floor, I believe that he can appeal the ruling of the chair and we can take it to a vote.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you, Senator Libous.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: All those in favor of overruling a point of information given by the chair please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Opposed?
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The nays have it.
Senator Flanagan.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Show of hands.
MULTIPLE
SENATORS: Show of hands.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: A show of hands has been requested and so ordered.
The Secretary will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 24.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The ruling of the chair stands.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, a clerical error was pointed out. The clerical error has been fixed in the document that's at the desk. The stenographer has the right information that was read by the clerk. We would now like to move ahead to clean up any debate or to take this to a vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Flanagan.
SENATOR FLANAGAN: No, thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Flanagan yields.
Any further discussion?
Senator Diaz. We have three minutes left on debate.
SENATOR DIAZ: I would like to ask some questions to Senator DeFrancisco.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator DeFrancisco, do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR DIAZ: Senator DeFrancisco, when the distribution of this $9 million was done, any specific criteria was used to give money to these districts?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I think the main criteria was trying to provide additional funding to those districts that the formula is not perfect, the formula is not perfect to try to provide more funding for those districts where the formula did not provide sufficient funding for the needs of that district.
SENATOR DIAZ: I represent -- Mr. President, would Senator DeFrancisco yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Senator yields, Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Senator DeFrancisco, I represent one of the poorest if not the poorest school district in the state. And I see that the Lockport City School District got $425,000, close to half a million dollars out of the $9 million. Then I see that Niagara Falls got $275,000. Sachem Central School District has $250,000. And I see -- I don't see nothing for the city, for the poor districts.
So this is something upstate against the downstate or --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Long Island's downstate.
SENATOR DIAZ: -- or Long Island against downstate? Or what's going on here? How come none of the poor districts, really poor districts have been assigned any money here?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, the reason there was supposed to be a joint resolution is because the understanding was that the Assembly was going to take care of certain districts. And what they ended up doing is using their money, their funding, the bullet aid money for Teacher Centers in New York City. Because as you know, the Assembly majority is substantially concentrated in New York City.
None of the Assembly money provided funding for upstate districts. So the point was that this was going to try to get a balance. And that's the way it was done.
Secondly, and now that I'm up, I want to express to Senator Sampson, I did indicate before you were here that if Senator Sampson said that there was no money gone administratively, I take his word for it. I must have misunderstood what I was informed. And I want to make sure that's again clear on the record.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Will Senator DeFrancisco yield for one more question?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Senator yields.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I will.
SENATOR DIAZ: Senator DeFrancisco, don't you feel remorse?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I feel as much remorse now as you felt when you delivered all your school aid discretionary funds to your --
SENATOR DIAZ: When was that?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: -- districts when --
SENATOR DIAZ: When was that?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: -- when you were in the majority. That's how much remorse I feel.
SENATOR DIAZ: Would he still yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator DeFrancisco, do you yield to an additional question from Senator Diaz?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: I remember that time, Senator DeFrancisco, that you're talking about. And I remember sitting on that side and I remember saying -- supporting you by saying if I were not a minister, I would -- the way you have treated us before for so many years, giving us nothing for 42 years, from the time that I was here for ten years -- ten years -- eight years, from before that, I said if I were not a minister, I would say later for you. But because I'm a minister, I would ask my conference to be part of it. So we took care of you, we were part of that.
And now, Senator DeFrancisco, you're telling me you feel no remorse telling the people, telling the poor districts in this state, you have no remorse saying that you could give $425,000 to one district, out of $9 million you could give $425,000 to one district, and poor districts like mine and like many others here, zero?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Senator, I don't doubt that you as an ordained minister or as a man with integrity argued on behalf of this side of the aisle when you were in the majority. But I can guarantee you that none of the minority districts, when we were in the minority, received any of this aid.
Secondly, as I mentioned before, there is another house. And the other house distributes money in a certain fashion. And when the other house was in control -- when the Democrats were control of the other house and you were in control of this house, clearly the preference was to New York City. And I don't -- I will debate anybody on that point.
So the fact of the matter now is there is balance based on the house being -- each house being controlled by a different party. So I --
SENATOR DIAZ: Last question, if he'll yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator DeFrancisco, have you completed your answer?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yeah, I have.
SENATOR DIAZ: So you are telling me --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz -- Senator Diaz, just so that you know that we are approaching the end of time. So please --
SENATOR DIAZ: I said last question. Didn't I say that?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You said that before, too.
SENATOR DIAZ: No, I didn't say that before. No, I didn't say that. I say now, last question.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz's last question.
SENATOR DIAZ: So you are telling me that we have not nothing to look for in this chamber because there is the other house that will do whatever they want and we as a body, as a body, as Senators, 62 Senators, we have nothing to look for here --
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You have a lot to look forward to. We have a house that operates usually in a very professional way, barring some dispute like we have today on procedure.
And secondly, in prior years there have been many dollars that have gone to New York City. And you know we do have New York City representatives on this side of the aisle as well.
So -- but the decision-making process is by the majority, just like it was, the decision-making, on behalf of the majority when you were in the majority. And that's the answer to your last question.
SENATOR DIAZ: On the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Excuse me, Senator Diaz?
SENATOR DIAZ: On the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz, in accordance with Rule 9-3D, we have completed time. I will give you a couple of minutes, okay?
SENATOR DIAZ: Thank you, I appreciate that. You've always been my friend. You've always been part of -- so . . .
We are -- we are going through very difficult times in the State of New York. The Governor, Governor Cuomo, has killed every member item that we could use to help our districts. We cannot provide money to buy Smart Boards or to help any school district because Governor Cuomo decided that there would be no member items. So we're going through very difficult times.
And now to see that suddenly, suddenly $9 million appears out of the discretionary funds for certain people, and for us there is nothing -- and Governor Cuomo, if you're listening to me, people -- you should be ashamed. People should be ashamed to do what they're doing.
I mean, member items is the thing that help us help our communities. See those $9 million? Those are assigned to different Senators as a member item, discretionary funds. So for us there is nothing. And then they criticize us and we got to go back to our districts and tell them we cannot even buy a Smart Board to a school in our poor districts because that side has all the money and they say, Oh, we're in power now, and because we are in power, later for you, Senator Diaz, and later for the children in the poor districts of the City of New York.
Ah, God bless you all. Enjoy your power. What is this?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you, Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Oh. Oh. Senator Grisanti is the one that got the $450,000. Senator Grisanti, you must be campaigning. That must be good for you in your campaign.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you.
SENATOR DIAZ: Did you see what you're doing?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank you.
SENATOR DIAZ: Did you see what you people are doing?
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz, thank you.
SENATOR DIAZ: Shame, shame on you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: In accordance with Rule 9, Section 3D, the time is expired on the minority side of the debate.
Senator Flanagan, I asked if you wanted to be heard from this side. Do you want to be heard?
SENATOR FLANAGAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Flanagan, I recognize you.
SENATOR FLANAGAN: Thank you, Mr. President.
Senator Diaz, I listened very carefully to your comments and everyone else's. And I think we need to come back to a couple of basic things. If you look -- and I'm not going to apologize for any of this.
If you look at the budget process, it's ultimately about compromise. There's a lot of haggling back and forth, internally in one house, with another house, and with the Executive. But at the end of the day we come up with a budget that reflects some type of compromise. Maybe everyone walks away a little bit unhappy, but it is a budget that gets out, that gets passed and gets signed into law.
In the context of what we're talking about today, it can't be looked at in isolation. If you go back to last year, there was a $16 million allocation that was essentially there for the Senate. There was a $16 million allocation for the New York State Assembly. So no one should walk out thinking there was some largesse provided to the Senate that was not granted to the Assembly as well.
The priorities of the Assembly at that time were not to go to specific school districts that you had wished. And I believe I'm correct in recalling that not only last year but this year, you voted against the budget.
Now, in last year's budget we allocated money. And because of the commitment that was not honored by the New York State Assembly, money that was supposed to be going out the door, part of a handshake that has been a tradition of this Legislature for well over 200 years, we had to change how we were doing things to try and get money to schools who had been promised that they were going to get that money.
Now, you mentioned the City of Lockport. I don't want to speak for you, but I am going to tell you that I have actually been to the City of Lockport. I was there this year with Senator Maziarz. Based on your comments, I'm going to suggest that you perhaps really don't know much about the City of Lockport and the City of Lockport School District. The City of Lockport --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz, Senator Flanagan has the floor.
SENATOR DIAZ: {Inaudible.}
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz -- Senator Diaz, the Senator has not yielded. He has the floor.
SENATOR DIAZ: Point of privilege.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: You cannot have a point of personal -- there is no point of personal --
SENATOR FLANAGAN: Senator Griffo. Senator Griffo --
Senator Diaz -- Senator Diaz --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz, please. With all decorum and respect, would you please hold it for a moment.
SENATOR DIAZ: I understand, Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz, please.
SENATOR DIAZ: He called my name --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The member has the floor. He has not impugned you in any way. You cannot rise to a point of personal privilege. You have not been impugned. Your name has been mentioned. You have not been impugned.
Senator Flanagan, do you want to continue --
SENATOR FLANAGAN: I do, and let me --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: -- or do you want to yield?
SENATOR FLANAGAN: Senator Diaz, I don't want to create any misimpression. If I offended you in any way, I apologize. I withdraw the comment that I made.
My point is this. I have been to the City of Lockport. I know the needs of that district, having looked at their combined wealth ratio, their enrollment, their free and reduced lunch. And when Senator Maziarz advocates for that school district, it's because the formula didn't really work for them. He worked hard to get money for that district.
Now, looking at the budget, part of this year's budget, we reappropriated money that wasn't spent last year. So it should come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber and anyone out in the public that this money has not been around. It's been around for over a year. It was reappropriated as part of this year's budget. Everyone in this chamber was well aware of that.
And in this year's budget, which you voted against and you talked about the needs of very poor school districts, let me recount for you that Rochester got a million dollars, Buffalo got a million dollars, Syracuse got a million dollars, Yonkers got a million dollars, after-school programs for New York City got $1.5 million. That was recognition of need in those areas, and you mentioned the City of New York that you represent.
So if you are flabbergasted by some of the action being taken, I in turn am flabbergasted by your reaction, because you voted against funding $1.5 million.
Now, in this resolution there are pots of money that end up being discretionary to plug holes, as Senator DeFrancisco said. It is out there for the public to see. It is for educational purposes, largely related to school districts, potentially for libraries. So we have done a yeomanlike effort, Assembly, Senate, Democrat and Republican, to deal with some of these issues. And right there, there is money for the City of New York.
Thank you, Senator Griffo.
SENATOR DIAZ: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Again, I have to say that Senator Flanagan had it all wrong, with all due respect. Every single school district in the state needs money. I'm not referring about the budget. I voted against the budget because it cut the money for my district and for the poor people. That's why I voted against it.
I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning what they took out -- they took us -- they took -- the Governor took away our member items because we have no way to assign money to our schools in our districts. The way you're doing it now, now, suddenly, there was no member items --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Suddenly, suddenly $9 million appears --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz, you had the opportunity. I've given you some discretion here. Please.
SENATOR DIAZ: Are we --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Please, Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Mr. President, we're dealing with something very sentimental --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: You've had --
SENATOR DIAZ: -- very important. I understand, Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: I understand that. I understand that, Senator Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: I'm given you latitude and flexibility.
SENATOR DIAZ: Mr. President, please allow me two more minutes. Allow me two more minutes. Two more minutes.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: No, Senator Diaz, I've given you time. Please.
SENATOR DIAZ: Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Please conclude your comments.
SENATOR DIAZ: Yes, thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Right now. Please, right now.
SENATOR DIAZ: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're dealing with something very important and very tragic here. Very tragic. I mean --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz, I've given you the opportunity. You're out of order. I'm going to call the roll on the resolution.
SENATOR DIAZ: I'm always out of order. I was out of order when you voted for gay marriage. I'm always out of order.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: (Gaveling.) The Secretary will call the roll on the resolution.
SENATOR DIAZ: Come on, stop this --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will call the roll on the resolution.
SENATOR DIAZ: I'm always out of order.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator -- Senator Diaz, there is civility and decorum in this chamber. You are not observing that right now. Please observe some civility and decorum.
SENATOR DIAZ: -- you want civility and decorum --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Show us some respect, Senator Diaz, please.
SENATOR DIAZ: {Inaudible.}
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Secretary will call the roll on the resolution.
Members, take your seats.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Krueger, do you wish to explain your vote?
SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you, Mr. President, I do. I rise to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Krueger, before you begin the explanation, we will be strictly enforcing the two-minute vote-explanation rule.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER: Fine, thank you.
Despite my concerns about the process and even the dollar amounts in total being reappropriated, I will vote for this bill because I don't see why we should be penalizing school districts who have an anticipation of bullet aid.
I'm still curious where the other $6 million went or is, because I can't imagine us not wanting to spend it somewhere.
And just for the record, because I didn't want to cause a new set of chaos, just on the record, I certainly hope that somehow Hammondsoort Central School District, which I don't believe exists, so it won't be able to get money from this resolution, can be assured through some future process that perhaps it was Hammondsport Central School District who was hoping to get money -- but they're not in this resolution, so my understanding is they would not be eligible.
But I'll be voting yes on a still, I think, error-filled resolution.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Krueger to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Breslin to explain his vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I think it's a sad day for the New York State Senate to have a privileged resolution brought up in the dark of night, a privileged resolution that's ordinarily, by custom, shared with both sides, discussed, printed out. And then the process went downhill from there.
Including, if we all have a copy of a bill, it's a copy of an original. We have a copy of an original. And when we have the clerk read and insert something for the Solvay Union Free School District, and then use Mason's, which says clerical errors -- clerical errors doesn't include the substance of $40,000 versus an A. I mean, that means that you can -- we can have something on our desks that says "Three Little Pigs" and you can read something else up there, and because you read it, it's correct.
I think it's shameful, the process. Shameful. And that doesn't even go to the substance of approximately 170 school districts throughout this state, and not one Democratic school district. Please.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Breslin, are you being classified in the negative?
SENATOR BRESLIN: No. Because I want to protect school districts, even if they're not my own, I'm voting aye. Grudgingly voting aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Breslin to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Smith to explain his vote.
SENATOR SMITH: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. President.
And I too, Mr. President, I have exercised as much cordiality as I could to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. And I think this is really unfortunate, the action that was chosen today.
And Senator Breslin is correct, the resolution substantively is wrong. Which means that we are now voting on a wrong document. We may have to and obviously will confer with the leader. We may have to require a formal investigation into the allocation and appropriation of this money through the Comptroller's office, who has to release it, but that's for another fight.
But I will tell you, Mr. President, this is not necessary. Senator DeFrancisco made a very wise suggestion. He said that perhaps we should just put the whole $16 million in one document and have it voted on. And I think that was the way to go.
I'm not sure what the rush is. We're not opposed to voting yes for money. Senator Diaz simply just said, like anyone else did during the debate, that it was a challenge. We're not going to vote against this. We think all the money that needs to go upstate is fine. We recognize the Assembly is sort of the downstate representative; maybe they'll cover our districts.
All we're saying is just give us the courtesy of professional Senators to let us read a document in time so we can vote on it. All this could have been avoided.
I clearly understand the direction in which you're going. I served as president of this house. We did bullet aid as well. But we always gave you the opportunity to read the document and review it as a courtesy.
I'm voting yes, Mr. President. But all I'm saying is in the future this doesn't have to happen. This was unnecessary. It's totally disrespectful to our members.
And then at some point you made a statement that our leader actually received money which was only for the sake of causing some challenges on this side of the aisle. But we're all supportive of our leader, we're behind him. And it's in one place.
So I would ask, going forward, going forward, we don't have to do this. We don't have to do this. Just give us the respect. We're elected just like every single one of you. And that's all we're asking, to give us our due respect.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Smith to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Diaz to explain his vote.
SENATOR DIAZ: Thank you, Mr. President.
Again, I am not objecting to give money to school districts. I'm for it. That's not my point here. My point here is in the way, in the abusive and arbitrary way in which this is done. And cutting member items to some of us, and suddenly other people have member items. That's what I'm objecting of.
I'm for it, I'm voting for it. That's -- because that's -- I'm not here to prevent school districts to get money. On the contrary, I want them to get more money. It's the way, it's the abusive way in which this has been done. It's the arbitrary way and in the way that we all, we the Democratic colleagues on this side, have been left out, we have no money needed. At least something could have been done to share this $9 million with us. But that's what I'm saying here.
So enjoy, congratulations to all the districts. But that -- that was never my concern. My concern, again -- and again, I'm saying I'm voting yes because this is money for school districts that they need it. But we have been left out.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Diaz to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Stavisky to explain her vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you, Mr. President.
I sat and listened to the debate, and I said to myself this is a sham. It's disgraceful.
I remember at the end of March, Senator Krueger and I asked Senator DeFrancisco a number of questions about the budget, particularly in terms of bullet aid. We asked questions, I think it was a $20 million allocation for bullet aid in the 2012 budget.
I'm going to vote no tonight, very reluctantly, because I think the school districts do need the money. But if this is a $9 million appropriation and $16 million was allocated, where's the money? I didn't hear an explanation.
Secondly, when we debated the budget bill, we talked about the Budget Reform Act of 2007. And this is why we need true budget reform. Is this going to happen with the 2012 allocation, the 20.5 I think was the number, the $20 million bullet-aid allocation in the budget? I voted for that. I voted for each budget bill.
But I can't sit here tonight and listen to the fact that there is no explanation of where that other monies are going. I think we ought to take a step back, review it, and pass a proper allocation, a proper budget resolution.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Stavisky to be recorded in the negative.
Senator Espaillat to explain his vote.
SENATOR ESPAILLAT: Yes, Mr. President.
I believe this is much more than a typo. In fact, it was a last-minute effort to skip out of here, present a resolution that was not read in detail, was not discussed, an attempt not to discuss a resolution involving millions of dollars. Not a resolution honoring a family somewhere or a veteran somewhere or a special date in the state, but a resolution involving millions of dollars.
This was a last-minute, the last item on the agenda, an attempt to skip out of here without fully discussing a resolution that included millions of dollars -- in a Legislature that has seen the disappearance of discretionary money. In a Legislature that has seen the Governor veto reappropriations.
A highly unfair action, a one-sided action, if you may, that strikes right at the heart of what many New Yorkers have been complaining about, transparency, fairness and transparency in government.
There was an attempt to hijack here some dollars, in the night, without a full discussion, in an environment of a bad economy, where the Executive of the state is cutting reappropriations on both sides of the aisle and where discretionary money that usually goes to good purposes is being denied to many people across the districts.
This was a vile attempt to do an act of unfairness, of one-sided unfairness to take money to one side of the state and deny even the discussion of the other side. It strikes right at the heart of what New Yorkers, the voters that we will have to face in November --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Espaillat.
SENATOR ESPAILLAT: -- are concerned about, transparency in this house.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Espaillat, how do you vote? Senator Espaillat, how do you vote?
SENATOR ESPAILLAT: And I will be voting -- for that purpose, because of that reason, I will be voting no on this bill. On this resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Espaillat to be recorded in the negative.
Senator Parker to explain his vote.
SENATOR PARKER: Mr. President, to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Parker to explain his vote.
SENATOR PARKER: I'll be voting no on this resolution.
I really want to urge many of my colleagues, even the ones who said they were going to vote for this, to vote no. There's no reason to vote for this bill. They have the votes. It's going to pass anyway. Why should we allow ourselves to continue to be victims after victims after victims of what I've seen, a deteriorating small "D" democracy in this body.
When I first got here 10 years ago, everybody told me how horrible it was and how we didn't get anything. And they were right, we didn't get anything. You know, we could hardly get computers, you couldn't get furniture, you couldn't get hardly a pad of -- I remember Eric Schneiderman and Senator Tom Duane, you know, fighting to get paper for their offices. Paperclips. But at least you could speak on the floor then.
Now we have seen a deteriorating environment in this place where the minority is not even allowed to speak. It's a tyranny of the majority. That's not right. It's not correct.
And then, to add insult to injury, in your haste to obfuscate the issue, as Senator Espaillat -- I almost called him Congressman Espaillat -- indicated was to, you know, get out of here in the middle of the night, do this thing -- and you made a mistake. Instead of pulling the thing back and doing it straight and getting the thing straight, you're going to try to fix it at the desk, where in fact there's no precedent for that and there's certainly no rule for that.
But we'll talk about that another day. Game recognize game, as we say in Brooklyn.
And you have the votes. There's no reason to do this. As Senator Malcolm Smith indicated, we're better than this. And we have to be better than this.
As relates to the substance of the matter, I'm voting no because there's no money in here for New York City or for Brooklyn. And Senator Marty Golden, I'm ashamed that you're going to vote for this thing with no money going to our great borough, to the People's Republic of Brooklyn.
And don't tell me about Assembly money coming to New York City, because your Republican colleague, you know, the 63rd Senator, Mayor Bloomberg, controls --
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Parker, how do you vote?
SENATOR PARKER: -- controls the money there, and that money doesn't come to our district either. If you take $1.5 million and divide it between 1.2 million kids, it's a little over a dollar a child.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Parker --
SENATOR PARKER: Not nearly enough. I vote no, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Parker votes no.
Senator Zeldin to explain his vote.
SENATOR ZELDIN: So first off, my personal opinion, as we do our budgets and I see the school aid formulas and look at the amount of enrollment and attendance on Long Island, for example, and myself trying to represent the Third Senate District, always fighting for our share of school district, in last year's budget it was fairer, it was fairer that the Third Senate District was getting some of these funds.
But the fact of the matter, when you look at the enrollment and attendance numbers on Long Island, more of the money was going to New York City. But I voted for the budget.
Now, I represent school districts that really need this money. Central Islip School District, when you vote against this $40,000, this is a school district where the average grade in a classroom has over -- they have over 40 kids in a class.
You know, when you talk about foreclosure rates across the entire country and low-income, high-need school districts, Brentwood in Central Islip has the highest foreclosure rate in the entire state. We have real problems, and we need this money. So voting against the education, the real victims in here are the kids when you vote no.
So instead of being insulted or saying it's a sham and saying we're hijacking dollars -- our job is to represent our districts. And I'm fighting as hard as I can for the Third Senate District. And just on behalf of the residents of my district, I'm upset that you wouldn't be prouder that we are, in a balanced fashion, Assembly and Senate, doing everything we can to protect the kids. Because that's what this is about. It's not about power, it's about the children. And the children need this money.
And that is why I encourage all of you to vote yes, because this is going to do very real good things for school districts that desperately need it.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Zeldin to be recorded in the affirmative.
Is there any other Senator? Senator Squadron to explain his vote.
SENATOR SQUADRON: Senator Zeldin, thank you. And I know that you have 300,000 constituents and lots of kids and students who you worry about. I do too, in Manhattan and Brooklyn. My colleagues on this side of the aisle do too. Senator Diaz does in the Bronx. Senator Hassell-Thompson does in the Bronx and Westchester County. Senator Breslin does here in the Capital District. And those children are not getting any help today.
So please understand that this is a state with 19 million people, not slightly under half that. It's a state with 62 elected representatives -- let me say again, elected representatives in the State Senate, not the 32 that make up a bare majority. And that's an important distinction that has been lost tonight and is lost too often in this house.
Senator DeFrancisco made a comment earlier in the debate that there was a small question of the words in what we were voting on, that we were then considering the rules of the house on. I do believe the rules of the house matter. I believe the laws of the state matter. I believe all 19 million people in the state matter.
That's what a democracy is. A democracy is a system of laws in which the people get to choose their government, not a system in which a small segment or some portion are the only ones with a voice. That's what we're seeing today. It's a shameful night in the State Senate. It was a shameful attempt by the majority. I hope in the future we see better.
I will vote yes on this resolution because I do support Senator Zeldin's children and students and those on the other side of the aisle, and I wish the same courtesy was afforded the children in my district and on this side of the aisle.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Squadron to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Ranzenhofer to explain his vote.
SENATOR RANZENHOFER: Yes, thank you. I'd like to pick up on a point that was raised by Senator Zeldin.
Last year when we passed the budget, some of my districts and some of my colleagues' districts had the highest per-pupil cut throughout the state. They were treated much worse than the school districts on the Democratic side. When we added some additional money back, the children in my district still did not fare as the children did in your districts.
This is an attempt to equalize. And even with this attempt to equalize, you're still opposing a school district which doesn't even come close to the school districts that you have in your districts.
So when you talk about equity and fairness and you put the whole thing in perspective, this is a very small piece of the budget last year.
The New York City school districts still made out better, better, even with this correction. And you still don't want to help the entire -- all the children throughout the state.
So this doesn't treat school districts on this side of the aisle better. It doesn't even come close. Doesn't even come close. This tries to rectify an unfair budget from last year to make a just a little bit better. Just a little bit better. Not nearly as well as your school districts did in last year's budget.
So when I'm talking about the school districts in Genesee County or Wyoming County or Erie County, this just makes a situation from last year a little bit better, not nearly doing as well as the children in your school districts.
When you talk about fairness, when you talk about equity, this is it. I vote yes.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Ranzenhofer to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Sampson to explain his vote.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just to pivot off what Senator Ranzenhofer was talking about.
Senator Ranzenhofer, I understand you talk about last year's budget, you talk about how it was unfair. But last year your side of the aisle negotiated the budget.
When you're talking about equity and fairness, we're talking about equity and fairness for all the children here in New York State. Because the children in your district and my district are reflective of the entire state.
And that's what we should be concerned about, providing the educational level so our children in the state can compete with other states and other countries. And that's what it comes down to.
Everybody wants their fair share. And there's no issue about that. I want my fair share just like you want your fair share. But if you're talking about equity and fairness, let's talk about it across the board for everybody. There's children in my district that want Smart Boards. Because they are, they are the future for all of us. Not your district, my district, but every single one in this district. And that's what we're talking about here today.
You talk about 16 million, 10 million. Sixteen million is not here. But I think the bottom line that's here is this. We're all in support of putting money into education because we know the benefit of education for our children and the standards in which we want all our children to live by. That's all we're asking for today.
You know, this resolution or whatever you call it talking about educational funding, there is a clerical mistake or correction. It could have been done differently, and that's what we're saying.
You know, as Senator Parker said, game respects game. And I understand that you're in the majority. And I remember when you were in the minority and you squawked how we just treated you unfairly or whatever it was. You know what, life is very circular. You're on that side of the aisle, we're on this side of the aisle. Today. Nobody knows what tomorrow brings for any of us.
So collectively, as 62 Senators, we represent the entire state, so we should be concerned about children in my district just like I'm concerned about children in Senator Johnson's district. Because they are reflective of all our districts in the State of New York and the competition that we need to have not only here in the state but throughout the entire country and throughout the entire world.
And I vote yes on this resolution. Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator Sampson to be recorded in the affirmative.
Is there any other Senator to explain their -- Senator Stewart-Cousins.
SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: I don't know how many times I've stood on this floor talking about the City of Yonkers and the dire straits that that school district faces annually. I listened to the debate about who's got more this time and who's got less, and New York City is taken care of by the Assembly and the Senate takes care of upstate and Long Island.
And then there's these places in between that apparently don't get taken care of at all, and that's where I am. I'm in that place, apparently, where unless we take very seriously what happens with our children in these classrooms, what happens with the formula that doesn't work for most of us -- which is why we're all trying to scramble -- that hasn't assessed really where the needs are, we're always going to play this game, who's on top and who's on the bottom. And guess who loses? The kids.
I'm going to go back to my district, people may never even know that this vote happened. But we will still have a deficit. And it's not just Yonkers, it's Greenburgh, it's a lot of little things, little districts -- Elmsford -- that you'll never hear of, that because we're not on top didn't appear on this paper.
But because I understand what education means and how important it is and how all of us are suffering one way or another, I won't vote against what you're doing. But I will not allow us to pretend that when we allocate based on who's on top, stepping on or ignoring or hoping somebody else handles someone on the bottom, we bring down the caliber of what we do here.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: How do you vote, Senator Stewart-Cousins?
Senator Stewart-Cousins to be recorded in the affirmative.
Is there any other Senator to explain their votes?
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I just want to address the procedure. And everyone can argue the substance. And I know my city got a million dollars, the other cities like Yonkers got a million dollars exclusive of what are here.
You know, there's certain things that happen in the budget negotiations that try to do the best we can. The formula doesn't work always. And I believe, between the Assembly and the Senate, we made it better than the formula. And it always can be corrected.
But as to the procedure, the resolution dealing with all of these projects actually was passed June 24th of last year, under the agreement with the Assembly that they would pass the same thing. Because what we do depends upon what they do to make this equalization as best we can do. For whatever reason, they chose not to.
The reason we're doing it again today is because the Assembly didn't do it and we had to get a provision in the budget this year to allow us to do this alone because the Assembly did not do what they said they would do.
So, Senator Stavisky, with respect to your question, the $20 million that you referred to we haven't even talked about yet. There is no resolution for this year yet.
This is simply a repeat performance, although it wasn't as vocal back on June 24th, repeat performance of what we did on June 24th of last year.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote eye.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator DeFrancisco to be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in the negative are Senators Adams, Addabbo, Espaillat, Gianaris, Montgomery, Parker, Peralta, Perkins, Rivera, Squadron, and Stavisky.
Ayes, 47. Nays, 11.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The resolution is adopted.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until Wednesday, May 2nd, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The Senate stands adjourned, on motion, until Wednesday, May 2nd, at 11:00 a.m.
Senate adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 7:57 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)
This content is licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0. Permissions beyond the scope of this license are available here.
The software and services provided under this site are offered under the BSD License and the GPL v3 License.