Regular Session - June 3, 1999
3597
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE
STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 3, 1999
11:11 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR RAYMOND A. MEIER, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
3598
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will come to order. I ask evenone
present to please rise and recite with me the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: In the
absence of clergy, I ask everyone to please
bow their head in a moment of silence.
(A moment of silence was observed.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reading
of the journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Wednesday, June 2nd. The Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Tuesday, June
1st was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
object the Journal stands approved as read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports the standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
3599
Communications and the reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On behalf of Senator Skelos, please
place a sponsor star on Calendar Number 104.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: A
sponsor star will be placed on Calendar 104.
Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Mr. President,
on page 28, I offer the following amendments
to Calendar Number 704, Senate Print Number
827-A, and ask that said bill retain its place
on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On page number 6, I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 95,
3600
Senate Print Number 830, and ask that said
bill retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos, we have some
substitutions. Would you like us to do those
now?
SENATOR SKELOS: Please make
them.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 54,
Senator Seward moves to discharge from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 839,
and substitute it for the identical Third
Reading Calendar 1103.
On page 55, Senator Rosado, moves
to discharge from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 3007, and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar 1112.
On page 56, Senator Seabrook, moves
to discharge from the Committee on Rules,
3601
Assembly Bill Number 7053, and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar 1121.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitutions ordered.
Senator Skelos
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Immediate
meeting of the Rules Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I believe there
is a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator Saland. May we please have the title
read and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Saland, Legislative Resolution Number 1681,
honoring Jennifer Berkmayer upon the occasion
of her designation as recipient of the
outstanding achievement award for the
advancement of quality in child care on June
3602
4, 1999.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
at this time if we could take up the
non-controversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the non-controversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
97, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 1372, an
act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
payroll records.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take -
3603
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
257, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 2534, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to the transfer.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay the bill
aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
331.
SENATOR RATH: Lay the bill aside
for the day, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside for the day.
Senator Rath, you are referring to
Calendar Number 257?
SENATOR RATH: Correct.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay
Calendar Number 257 aside for the day. The
Secretary will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
331, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 3660-A,
3604
an act to amend the Private Housing Finance
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside. Senator Paterson, it would be
helpful to me because of my bad ear if you
would speak up.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
343, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 4062, an act to amend
Chapter 695 of the Laws of 1994.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
372, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2976, an
act to amend the Social Services Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
3605
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
523, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3832,
an act to amend the Executive Law.
SENATOR RATH: Lay the bill
aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. Chairman.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: One moment,
please, Mr. President.
May we please lay aside the entire
non-controversial calendar and take up the
controversial calendar starting with Calendar,
please, 1140.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the controversial calendar
starting with Calendar Number 1140.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1140, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 5727, an
3606
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to fees for registration.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bruno, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 1140 by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
this is a tax cut bill and it removes the ton
mileage tax from the large trucks that
transport goods across this State, 18,000
pounds or more.
We are the only state in the United
States that punishes owners of large vehicles
that transport every good that consumers and
businesses in this State need. So the net
results has been that trucking companies
locate their facilities outside of New York
State. So who benefits? Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. And
who loses? The citizens of New York State.
The bottom line net result for this
investment in the delivery of goods to
businesses and people is about $30 million
net. And the feeling is with that investment
it will be more than made up over the years by
3607
not making trucking companies noncompetitive
here in New York State.
We did, in this chamber, the earned
income tax credit last week. And many of my
colleagues, both sides of the aisle, supported
that. Why did we do that? We did that
because there are 1,100,000 people in this
state who are at the poverty level who are
trying to rise above the poverty level and who
are trying to earn an income and we in this
chamber think that it is unfair to tax those
people so we actually created a tax credit, an
increase by 50 percent the funds that are
available to those people to help them be more
independent, more productive, return dignity
to their lives.
Now, the Assembly has not to this
moment passed that piece of legislation. How
quick they jumped on the commuter tax and
passed that the same day it left this chamber.
I wonder why, with the higher paid
suburbanites being the beneficiaries. I
wonder why, when people making less than
30,000 a year, most of them 10, 12, 14,000 a
year.
3608
Why does that not pass the
Assembly? And my colleagues who are
questioning, and my favorite colleague, the
Deputy Minority Leader, questions the merits?
Well my answer is that we are going to
continue to cut taxes here in this chamber for
the people of this state individually and
collectively and for the businesses in this
state to make all of the people more
comfortable, more competitive with the other
states.
So I would urge you to support this
because as I said initially we are the only
state in the United States that has this
particular tax on truckers and it is
unconscionable in my mind that we continue, at
times when we have a two plus billion dollar
surplus, and that's why we ought to past the
EITC, the earned income tax credit for the
people of this state and you ought to, instead
of debating this, encourage your colleagues in
the Assembly to pass that bill today and when
this bill leaves this house with your support
I am sure I would encourage them to pass that
today, just as they did the commuter tax that
3609
created so much controversy and now is going
to end up in the courts.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
that was an explanation that deserved to be
stated and any restated because it is actually
an issue that has been of concern to the
Senate Minority. It was taken up in
conference committee last year by Senator Gold
and Senator Stachowski and as a matter of
fact, in March of this year Senator Stachowski
offered it as an amendment to another piece of
legislation that we passed earlier. So we are
strongly in support and really wanted to give
the sponsor the opportunity to explain
publicly and right here in this chamber as an
additional advocacy to the legislation that we
are the only state in the union that has this
type of tax. That it probably assesses 30
million or I think that is about the amount
that Senator Bruno quoted, which is really
unnecessary. It in many ways chills the
transportation of goods and services around
3610
this State.
Quite frankly, I do not know how we
wound up as the only state in the United
States that has this tax, but certainly the
action we're taking here today will certainly
go a long way toward trying to relieve it. We
just wanted, for purposes of publication, to
-- it to be known that Senator Stachowski in
his wisdom had brought this to the floor as
part of an amendment in March and even if we
didn't want to pass the amendment, we really
should have passed the bill about three months
ago.
So I am sure that is alright as
long as it gets passed, so I am sure that
we'll extend the same courtesy to the other
house that they might properly examine and go
through all of the elements of this
legislation as the Majority went through this
bill for the last couple of months after
Senator Stachowski introduced it. But I am
wholeheartedly in favor of it and I thank the
Majority Leader for the compliment and also
for the explanation.
It is a very good bill. It is one
3611
we believed in for awhile and one that we can
hopefully jointly lobby to make law as soon as
possible.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio on the bill.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President
and my colleagues, this is another effort to
unshackle the taxpayers of this state from the
oppressive taxation that has been placed upon
them during the decade between the late '80s
and early '90s.
Senator Bruno's bill today does
what we need to do to enhance one of those job
producing industries in the State, and that is
transportation.
Last year, as credit should be
given as credit is due, the other side of the
aisle talked about last month. I want to talk
about last year when Senator Bruno put forth a
total reduction of this tax and then, in
compromise had to settle for cutting it in
half, which was nonetheless, a giant step,
3612
even though forged in compromise.
Today this measure sends a clear
message to the trucking industry, the
transportation industry across New York that
we are serious about bringing the jobs back to
this State that traveled out of this State.
I have the largest section of the
Thruway and I have the largest trucking
company in this State that is still
headquartered in New York State.
Unfortunately we lost so many transportation
related jobs because of taxes like this.
Senator Bruno has certainly my
highest praise and the highest praise most
importantly of those men and women who are
involved in the transportation industry in New
York.
Mr. President, thank you for the
opportunity to support this fine legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senate
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
3613
Duane on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I agree that this
legislation would provide relief which our
state is one of the very few in the nation
which has not provided this kind of relief for
the trucking industry, but there are so many
things that New York State does not have that
other states have, for instance, a bias bill.
So many states across the nation in
fact have a bias bill but here in New York
State we don't have a bias bill.
Similarly, we don't have a lesbian
and gay civil rights bill here in the State of
New York and yet many states around the nation
do have a civil rights bill which protects
people based on sexual orientation from
discrimination.
And so while I completely agree
that we do need this relief for the industry
and it is sad that we have not yet gotten it.
I am looking forward to the day very soon when
we will have this kind of relief for the
trucking industry, but so too am I looking
forward to the day when all of the people in
the State of New York will be able to live
3614
lives free of the threat of biased related
violence in their lives, that people in every
neighborhood and every town and city across
this State will not have to walk the streets
in fear that they maybe victimized by a bias
related incident, as is the case in so many
states across this nation, and particularly
states on the east coast of our nation where
this kind of a protection is already being
provided.
I just wanted to lend my voice and
agree that it is time that we rectify some of
the things which we do not have in the State
of New York but which are in effect in other
states in our nation and to say that we should
follow suit and make sure that soon, very
soon, by the end of this session, that New
York State also has a bias related violence
bill as do so many other states in our nation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I rise because what I have learned
in this chamber is that when the voice of the
3615
Majority says no it does it very quietly.
When the voice of the Majority says yes, it
does it very loudly. And this is a perfect
example of this.
We could have had this legislation
tucked into the budget resolution three months
ago when Senator Stachowski put it on the
floor. It could already be in the
discussions. It would already be a part of
it. I hope Senator Bruno is shaking his head
yes because he wants it to be a part of the
budget deliberation this year. My hope is
that it will part of the budget deliberation.
But what I am always astounded at
is how the Majority in this house can vote so
quietly for a no back in March and now stands
up and proclaims loudly, Yes, we want to do
this, it is the right thing. I can remember
several Senators from this side of the aisle
and saying, vote for this amendment, it is the
right thing to do. But the word from the
Majority was no, no, we don't want to do this
now because it is a Democratic idea.
I would suggest to my colleague,
Senator Nozzolio, who I agree with on the
3616
merits of this bill, that what we need to do
in this house is not unshackle simply the
oppression of high taxes. Lets unshackle this
body from the oppression of partisan politics
too so than an idea, whether it comes from
this side of the aisle or that side of the
aisle is considered on the merits, and the
mere fact that it is proposed by Democrats
doesn't draw no votes from the other side.
I would point out to my colleagues
from the other side of the aisle that you have
had the best of all possible worlds. You
voted no once, you voted yes once. Maybe the
only thing that is left is to vote maybe.
Then you can cover all your bases.
I would simply point out one other
thing to Senator Nozzolio and others. There
are those who think that this tax out of the
middle of nowhere. That this tax all of a
sudden just poof, it appeared and all of a
sudden it was a terrible thing to do to the
truckers in this State.
You know how it came about? The
Majority of this house, the Republican
Majority of this house approved a budget in
3617
1991 that put the tax in place.
So I guess what we really should do
is reframe the debate. Senator Nozzolio was
correct. Lets free them from the shackles of
high taxes. Why don't we just add the
qualifier that is necessary to make it truly
accurate? Lets free them from the shackles of
high taxes that were passed and put into put
into place by the majority of this house.
Lets free them from ourselves.
Lets free them from what we had to do in 1991,
and I would acknowledge that this house had to
do some very difficult things in 1991 because
unlike today when there seems to be a lot of
money sitting in the State treasury, back then
there wasn't and we had to come up with a way
to meet shortfalls. But let anyone in this
house think for a second that this tax came
about because somebody else put it in place.
This tax is on the books, this tax is causing
problems to our truckers because the majority
of this house put it there.
I think it is now time, as I
thought it was in March, that the Majority of
this house now take it off the books. We
3618
don't need it any more. But I would just
suggest to everyone that what really needs to
be unshackled there is the creative wisdom of
this collective body. What we need to do is
stop the partisan politics, get down to the
business of governing and consider ideas on
their merits and not simply because they
originate in this side of the house.
I agree with Senator Bruno about
this bill. I also with the earned income tax
credit. Great idea. Originated on this side
of the house. This is the second thing that
the Majority has done that we started. It is
been our package. We welcome you to the
inspired look at a way to reduce taxes in this
State, and we are pleased that our agenda
seems to be moving ever so slowly across the
aisle.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
3619
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we call up Calendar Number 701, by Senator
Velella.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 701.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
701, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 3862, an
act to amend Chapter 455 of the Laws of 1997
amending the New York City Civil Court Act.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar Number 701 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
this is a five year extender of a bill which
we passed as a pilot program to allow the
marshals in the City of New York only to
enforce money judgments from the Family Court
3620
or Supreme Court of any county within the City
of New York. It is going to be an effective
tool and has been an effect tool to help
enforce money judgments based on child support
against deadbeat dads and allow the marshals
to enforce -- or the sheriff for the City of
New York, to enforce these judgments.
It will continue the program until
June 30, 2004. And it will also increase the
bonding required by marshals from 40,000 to
60,000. And groups that had questioned this
in the past, city employees, have removed
their objections. There are no union
objections to the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just one question of Senator
Velella.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: When we do
3621
these bills that create short time frames in
which we experiment with a new idea we usually
get some report back or some information back
that this idea has worked. Do you have any
evidence that indicate that the use of the
marshals in this case has achieved the goal of
the legislation that you originally
articulated a couple years ago?
SENATOR VELELLA: Well, there is
no formal report because we didn't want to put
a cost in. One thing we didn't need was
another government study of something. So
what we have done is we have asked people out
in the area who are the marshals themselves,
how is it working in terms of producing
revenue for them, the sheriffs if it has in
fact caused a problem. The unions who
objected to it when we put it in if in fact it
has caused a problem with marshals doing work
that was previously done by city employees.
And when we did the bill they know that its
time is up now. The extender has been around
for the whole session. Nobody has filed a
memo in opposition. Nobody has come to me to
ask for an amendment and to the best of my
3622
knowledge the people I have spoken to that are
involved in this, the marshal, the sheriffs,
the court employees, all think it is working,
so I have no knowledge of anybody objecting.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's good
enough for me, Mr. President.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
I'm sorry Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor yield to one quick question,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: I believe this
legislation is necessary and I'm glad it is
before us. Just a question for you as to why
we would not -- why the extender? Why not
make this a permanent provision of law?
SENATOR VELELLA: I would have no
problem in making it a permanent bill and I
3623
agree with you, it would lighten our work
burden for the Legislature. However there are
people who feel that after the first trial
this certainly still raises some questions
that need to be looked at and in 2005 the
Legislature will take another look at it and
see if it is working, and hopefully at that
time probably make it permanent.
I would be happy to make it
permanent. There were just people who felt in
the process of drafting the bill and in the
process of negotiating it and talking to
sheriffs and talking to the unions, let's take
another short five or six year look at it and
come back and revisit it.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President. Senator Velella,
what areas might be of concern such that we
would want to revaluate?
SENATOR VELELLA: It is mainly a
question of where the revenues are going to
go. The sheriffs were afraid this was going
to take a lot of business away from them and
they would not be able to generate the fees
that came out of this. It has not dramatically
3624
effected their ability to earn their ways.
In addition the employees of DC 37
who were very much concerned when we first
passed the bill that this might interfere and
have private individuals, marshals, taking
jobs of city employees. That in fact has not
taken place and the fact that they do not
oppose this bill shows that. But again,
people are a little gun shy and they say,
well, lets give it a few more years and take a
second look at it again and I can't blame
them. Maybe we didn't have enough experience
in the short period. I think it is only about
two, three years that we gave it. Maybe they
want to take another look and the Legislature
in 2005 will make that judgment.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. Mr.
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: This is a good
bill. I am glad it is before us and I would
just hope that when it comes back before us in
another few years that we have a comprehensive
reevaluation specifically taking into account
3625
the several concerns that Senator Velella just
articulated for us, which are real concerns
and which we should take a look at. I just
get nervous from time to time as I see these
extenders. If it is necessary to have this
legislation codified in the law I don't think
that we should in perpetuity extend the
provisions that are before us. If it is
necessary to make this permanent, lets make it
permanent. And if we need a comprehensive
reevaluation to determine whether the
permanency is necessary, lets do that. But
the bill before us is a good bill and I
support it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I was wondering if the sponsor
would yield to another couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you yield to a question from
Senator Duane?
SENATOR VELELLA: I certainly
3626
will, but I have never seen a bill with so
much support that has so many questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, through
you, Mr. President, I'm not a hundred percent
sure I am going to be supporting this bill so
perhaps my questions will be -
SENATOR VELELLA: I will clear up
your misconceptions.
SENATOR DUANE: -- best of all.
You don't know whether they are misconceptions
yet, Senator. I am wondering if you could
tell me what other areas besides child
support, what other ways of getting payment
are the sheriffs now entitled to?
SENATOR VELELLA: That would be
any judgments, money judgments, that the
courts have entered and the marshals will get
their fees on a percentage basis of what they
are able to collect, so there is no hit on the
government itself.
If they collect money they take a
percentage out of it, similar to the way the
sheriffs do and it would be money judgments
3627
from the Supreme Court, which are larger
judgments now. They also will be collecting
on student loans that people have forfeited on
and have money judgments against them, a
battery of other areas. Wherever you have a
judgment that you owe money they will now be
able to collect on after the court has made a
decision that you owe that money.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: During the
anecdotal study you did of how this bill was
working, I was wondering if any of the people
who had actually had their property or money
garnished, whether any of them were questioned
as to whether or not this was done in an
appropriate manner?
SENATOR VELELLA: Most deadbeats
don't like to pay and get caught, so I would
assume that they complained an awful lot. But
3628
none that were justified. No abuses came to
point where money judgments were enforced or
property attached that should not have been.
Nobody had a legitimate complaint,
just a regular deadbeat who doesn't like to
pay his bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you continue to yield.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: To your knowledge
absolutely no mistakes were ever made in the
collecting of these judgments?
SENATOR VELELLA: To my knowledge
no mistakes were made. However, that does not
mean that there were no mistakes made, just
like there may have been a mistake made in
originally granting the judgment against
somebody who shouldn't have had a judgment.
That would be the courts problem. To my
knowledge, nobody has called any mistake to my
attention. I know of none. If you know of
3629
some we ought to work toward that. Maybe
that's why people want that window for the
2005. But I absolutely know of no mistakes
that were made in the enforcement by the
marshals. Maybe one did occur. I don't know.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Was that
information supposed to be part of the scope
of the investigation when the legislation was
originally enacted?
SENATOR VELELLA: I don't
understand the question.
SENATOR DUANE: Whether or not
mistakes could happen or would happen and then
if they did happen.
SENATOR VELELLA: To be honest
with you, no the marshals are appointed,
confirmed by the City Council, as you know.
You were a member of that body.
3630
SENATOR DUANE: One of the best.
SENATOR VELELLA: What?
SENATOR DUANE: One of the best.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yeah, the
marshals do a good job. I assume you are
talking about the marshals, not the council,
when you say the best.
But there was a process that was
put into effect that said we have a lot of
money judgments out there for deadbeat dads
for people who have defaulted on college loans
and a battery of other things. The sheriffs
office was not really enforcing those. They
had other duties to do and there was a need to
provide additional manpower so we thought
about the marshals. Now, whether or not that
specifically, would marshals make more
mistakes than sheriffs who enforce those
judgments, I don't believe that was part of
the criteria. We thought that they were both
capable of doing the job. It was a question
of whether or not we should give them that
authority. But I assume, and maybe sometimes
to assume is to make a fool of you and me, as
you know, but not to use the other word, but
3631
certainly I do not know of any case where they
have not properly exercised their powers and
their duties and there is no reason to believe
that would make any more mistakes than a
sheriff would, who has the power to do it now.
Somebody will make a mistake.
Lawyers make mistakes. Legislators make
mistakes. Even legislators from Manhattan
sometimes make mistakes. About a week ago
last Tuesday a few of them.
SENATOR DUANE: To clarify one
final point, Mr. President, would the sponsor
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, will you yield for one final point?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Then I am to
assume then that in this next window of
approval that as part of the scope of study
that looking at or documenting mistakes will
not be part of the study, the scope of the
study?
SENATOR VELELLA: Well, Senator,
3632
in 2005 I do not know if you will be here. I
don't know if I will be here. But I have
enough confidence that the Senate will be in
the proper hands and the proper control to
deal with this in the right way.
SENATOR DUANE: On the bill, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: It would be my
great hope though that we would have the tools
at hand for whatever leadership would be
running this wonderful body to make the best
possible decision about whether or not the
program has been working. And I think that is
my final word on the bill at this point.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: We'll give
Senator Velella a break.
I have a question of Senator
Paterson or the departing -- no. Senator
Paterson, I have a question for you.
SENATOR RATH: Point of order.
3633
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: One
moment, Senator Oppenheimer, there is a point
of order on the floor.
SENATOR RATH: The floor was not
under the control of Senator Paterson at the
time so I think Senator Oppenheimer, you are
out of order.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: That is
correct. Under the rules of the Senate, only
a member currently having control of the floor
can yield. So the point of order is
sustained.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. Then
we'll call back Senator Dollinger.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: No.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I mean,
someone had to be here.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: It is
the opinion of the Chair that at the current
time the sponsor of the bill has the floor, or
let me take that back. You have the floor at
this moment, Senator Oppenheimer. Under the
rules of the Senate you can ask a member who
has sponsored the bill to yield to a question.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Alright, so
3634
we'll go back to Senator Velella. Senator
Paterson, I give him the floor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
just a point of order, my reading of the rules
is not that it is the member that currently
has the floor but your ruling is correct. It
is that a question cannot be asked of a member
that has not chosen to speak on the particular
piece of legislation. I just wanted to clear
that up.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Let me
restate that so we can clarify it.
The rule in fact is that a member
who currently has the floor can be asked to
yield or a member who has previously spoken on
the legislation, that is correct.
SENATOR PATERSON: Exactly. Now,
while I am here, Mr. President, would Senator
Velella yield for a question?
SENATOR VELELLA: I would, but I
believe Senator Oppenheimer has the floor, Mr.
Chairman.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Well,
3635
this is all very entertaining, but it is
correct that Senator Oppenheimer currently has
the floor.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
I am delighted to have the floor and the
chair.
I just have a question which was
asked to me a moment ago by Senator
Montgomery, and it is sort of if Senator
Velella will yield.
SENATOR VELELLA: Are you sure
you prefer me to Senator Paterson?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Actually,
either can give me this information.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: We were
questioning why two years ago the following
peopled voted against this; Connor, Dollinger,
Gentile, Kruger, Lachman, myself, Paterson,
Santiago, Seabrook, Smith, Stavisky and some
Republicans; Kuhl, Leibell and Saland.
SENATOR VELELLA: Two years is a
long time. They have been educated. They
3636
misunderstood it two years ago and they
understand now and the I believe that they
will properly vote for the bill now.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: It seems to
me to be a good bill but we had both Democrats
and Republicans opposed to it in 1997.
SENATOR VELELLA: I think I can
clear that up.
There was some confusion at the
time as to whether or not this included New
York State sheriffs outside the city. Some of
the sheriffs from upstate were concerned about
it. There was some questions as to whether or
not this would displace union employees from
DC 37 and they had issued a memo and then
retracted it. So there was some confusion as
to exactly what this bill would do.
It is strictly confined to the City
of New York. There are no sheriff groups that
object to it. There are no unions that object
to it now. After the two years they realized
that the predictions that this would have
terrible effects on other people did not
materialize but still have requested that it
not be permanentized.
3637
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I see.
Thank you, Senator.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I just want
to say that it seems like a fine bill and my
confusion about two years ago is valid if I
voted against something two years ago, I
wanted to know, because my memory isn't so
perfect on every bill two years ago why I did
it, and Senator Montgomery had the same
concern.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 55, nays 2.
Senators Duane and Goodman recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
3638
is passed.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President,
would you please take up Calendar 1115.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1115.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1115, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 2315-A,
an act to amend the Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Law, in relation to
establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I know that
Senator Paterson lives in the City of New York
and probably is not familiar with the Erie
Canal so I will explain it to him as best I
can.
This legislation, Mr. President,
designates a geographic area of Niagara,
Orleans, Monroe, Wayne and Erie Counties as
3639
the Western Erie Canal Heritage Corridor. It
provides for the establishment of an 18 member
Western Erie Canal Heritage Corridor planning
commission to develop a comprehensive
management plan for the Western Erie Canal
Heritage Corridor over the next three years
and submit it to the Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation for
approval.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Maziarz would be so kind as to -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yield?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, would you yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Oh, absolutely,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Maziarz, in 1820, New York City, where we are
interested in this legislation, had a
population that actually measured out to three
3640
percent of the national population. In other
words, the number of people that lived in New
York City constituted three percent of the
national population. And interestingly enough
we also shared about three percent of the
country's economic development. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania constituted two percent of
nations population, did two percent of the
business. Charlotte, North Carolina was one
percent of the nation's population and did one
percent of the business.
By 1830, only a decade after that,
New York City grew to eight percent of the
nations population and was now responsible or
38 percent of the economic developmental that
occurred in this country really making New
York City the great metropolis, but what was
really not known is that probably in addition
to the Erie Lackawana Railroad construction it
was the building of the Erie Canal that put
New York City in and also benefited this
entire state by making New York the real
economic epicenter of rail freight and also
shipping.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
3641
Paterson, I believe Senator Maziarz yielded
for a question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, I know.
I am getting to the question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Well, I
wish you would.
SENATOR PATERSON: The point is
that -- Mr. President you have interfered with
my train of thought and without the Erie
Lackawana Railroad I wouldn't be able to get
it back.
But the point I am making is that
what goes on in western New York does have a
tremendous effect on what happens in New York
City. Now, my question is, those who live in
the area of the building of the original
canal, I am wondering how well they are served
by this new western corridor Erie Canal
heritage commission that Senator Maziarz is
suggesting. In other words, those who
actually live along the region that the canal
served, are they put at a disadvantage by this
expansion of service and actually of decision
making to an 18 member commission that expands
into other parts of wester New York?
3642
That is my questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Mr. President,
first I want to thank Senator Paterson for
pointing out another example of how upstate
New York is taking care of our brothers and
sisters in the City.
To answer the Senator's question,
in the last several years the state, through
the New York State Thruway Authority, the
Federal Housing Urban Development Corporation
have been allocating funds for the restoration
of the western portion of the Erie Canal. The
area of the canal in Syracuse and in the
Mohawk Valley region has also received both
federal and state funding to restore the
historic areas of the locks and also to
facilitate recreational boating, which is
growing particularly large in Niagara, Orleans
and the Monroe County areas, so that -- but
there is no comprehensive plan developed. It
tends to be piecemeal by the counties and this
commission would assist in developing at least
a western systemwide comprehensive plan from
3643
Rochester to Tonowanda.
And I may add, Senator Seward who
is not here right now is going to ask me who
appoints the members of this commission and
there is a member from the Senate -- or
Senator Connor gets to appoint a member of
this commission. Senator Paterson, I am going
to strongly recommend that he appoint you to
that commission because you have obviously
great historical knowledge of the Erie Canal.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If Senator
Maziarz would yield for another question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: It is
considered -- it is uniformly appreciated in
western New York that I see you have counties
that have different populations, you have
areas perhaps that are not even really
included in the commission. The county
executives each have two appointments but the
3644
counties don't all have the same number of
people. Is this something that has been a
concern to any of your constituents, an even
number of people on the board which makes me
wonder how they break a tie. Just to request
a couple questions about the structures of the
board itself, if you would give us an idea?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: All five of
these counties, Senator Paterson -- Mr.
President, through you. All five of these
counties, Senator Paterson, have passed
resolutions in support of the commission.
Perhaps if you didn't show up at
the meeting Senator there would be an uneven
number then they could pass something.
SENATOR PATERSON: We don't want
to discourage perfect attendance, Senator, but
Mr. President, I thank Senator Maziarz for
answering the questions and for his brother
hood as an upstater and we will continue to
flourish with his and the assistance of
everyone in western New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
3645
would the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you yield to a question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator Maziarz,
your member in support refers to existing
planning efforts and that they should be
incorporated into the commissions
comprehensive review.
Just for an understanding as to why
this legislation is necessary, can you outline
for us what the existing planning efforts are
and why they are by definition insufficient?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Senator, they
vary by county and that is the problem. Some
of the counties seem to want to concentrate on
the historical preservation of the canal, lets
say in Niagara. Orleans, quite frankly, has
done very little as far as restoration of the
canal. Monroe County has done a great deal
but seems to tend to concentrate on
recreational boating, pump out facilities,
3646
shower facilities, over night facilities for
boaters. We want to have all these services
available; the heritage areas, the areas for
recreational boating, for overnight stays if
you will, but we would like to develop it in a
more comprehensive plan so that when boaters
are coming down the canal that they will not
find long stretches where services are not
available.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. Mr.
President, would the sponsor yield to another
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator, is the
make up of the 18 member commission based on a
geographic proportionality? In other words,
each area that would have a party to decisions
as to the planning are represented in that
particular proportion?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Mr. President,
3647
through you. Each county has two
appointments. The Assembly majority and
minority each have appointments and the Senate
majority and minority have appointments and
the Governor has appointments.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. On
the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
just briefly, I think this is a good piece of
legislation. I commend Senator Maziarz for
bringing it to our attention and certainly
defer to his expertise on this important piece
of legislation which really insures that
planning of our wonderful resources in the
State of New York will be done in the best
possible way. It is an admirable goal and I
believe should be mirrored in other pieces of
legislation, particularly since we do from
time to time have problems where single
parochial interests might compromise the over
all integrity of a comprehensive management
approach. I think this a wise piece of
legislation. I commend Senator Maziarz for
3648
bringing it to our attention and I intend to
vote in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Would the
Senator yield to just one question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, will you yield for just one question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I concur with
much of what my colleague Senator Hevesi said.
My question is, there have been a
number of initiatives with respect to the
canal. HUD has had one, Andrew Cuomo had one,
Governor Cuomo had one. The Cuomos have been
involved in the canal. The Thruway Authority,
the Canal Division of the Thruway Authority.
My question is, do we need another group to
sit down and do this planning or why couldn't
what's there now do it and not just throw this
extra organization which will put another
layer on top of this?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: The problem is,
3649
quite frankly, Senator, I think that all the
groups that you have mentioned have had some
very good intentions but they really haven't
done a very good job of it. Recreational
boating, as you know, particularly in the area
east of Rochester is very popular along the
canal, but what we are finding out is that
without some comprehensive systemwide plan you
are going to have stretches where there is
just nothing going on and then stretches where
you really have too much going on.
The other very important
consideration is that some of the historic
areas of the canal are -- I mean there is
considerations for landfills near the canal.
There are considerations to sell some of the
canal side property to private residential
developers which would ensure that public
access would not be available.
So I think that everyone, or a lot
of other organizations and groups have tried,
some with very good intentions, but they have
not done a very good job. And we are thinking
with this Heritage Quarter Planning Commission
in conjunction with another Heritage Quarter
3650
Planning Commission that has been established
and has done a very good job that we can do
better.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: One final
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: It is more of
a suggestion, depending on the answer.
You raise the issue in the scope of
the bill that you are going to look at Native
American settlements?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I'm sorry, I
didn't hear you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, the bill references a review of
Native American settlements, yet the
commission -- does the commission require the
appointment of a Native American
representative.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No, the bill
does not require.
3651
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I would just
suggest, as you know, the construction of the
new salt mine in Livingston County and a
number of other issues have cropped up in
which there have been claims that Native
Americans have not been represented on the
commissions and the bodies that have some
jurisdiction over Native American settlements,
Native American culture, and particularly
Native American history, since this is a
region, because of the presence of the
Iroquois Confederation, the canal runs right
through or abuts a lot of Native Americans.
I would just strongly suggest that
to overcome that potential problem that the
Native Americans be included with a designated
representative on the commission.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Mr. President,
through you.
I will answer that Senator
Dollinger by saying that is an excellent
suggestion. I will certainly recommend it to
the appointing authorities of which I'm not
one, including your minority leader. I
recommended Senator Paterson. Perhaps they
3652
could take his place on the commission.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I am going to
vote in favor of this bill as well. I commend
Senator Maziarz, my colleague from Niagara
County, for his concern about the western
region canal development. He is absolutely
correct when he says that east of Rochester
there has been greater development of the
canal; Fairport clearly comes to mind,
Pittsford comes to mind. But it also
highlights one of the interesting aspects with
respect to the canal and its future is that
many years ago when our form of transportation
changed in New York and we abandoned the canal
as the means of bringing goods to market and
instead opted for trucks and motor vehicles,
we paved over significant portions of the
canal. And one of the reasons why it has
been difficult to get the State's attention on
the canal is that the portions of the canal
that went through Syracuse, went through
3653
Rochester, and that I believe even went into
downtown Buffalo, those portions of the canal
have all been filled in. And as a
consequence, the canal now generally meanders
through largely rural areas which do not have
the same connections to cities that canals
have in Europe. If you are -- I am sure you
are familiar, the major canals in Europe go
through the major cities, usually right
through the middle of them. They are natural
tourist attractions because they are a
waterway in a city. Rochester had that. In
fact, Rochester, the community I represent,
also had an aqueduct over the Genesee River
that was one of the most unusual pieces of
architecture in the whole Erie Canal process.
It is now Broad Street in Rochester and to
some extent it has been difficult to rally
support for the canal when it doesn't go
through the major cities in western New York.
I think this is a good idea. I
think we took some steps 40, 50, 60 years ago
that now are coming back to make it more
difficult to develop the canal, I hope that
this bill if it passes and becomes law will
3654
increase the focus on the canal as a possible
resource in the future. I will be voting in
the affirmative, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
I ask that you call up Calendar Number 1128,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1128.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1128, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 4613,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to increasing penalties.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
3655
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, an explanation has been requested of
your bill.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, very
much, Mr. President.
Very simply, Mr. President, this
bill would make it a Class E felony offense if
you are convicted of a fourth DWAI within ten
years in the State of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Maziarz would yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, do you yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Maziarz, does the legislation encumber any
3656
restrictions on plea bargaining to the
defendant?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No, it does
not.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr.
President, if Senator Maziarz will continue to
yield for another question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, you
made certainly an explanation of the fact that
this is the fourth conviction. Being that it
is the fourth conviction did you give any
thoughts to perhaps establishing a mandatory
prison term since this person has on four
occasions, three prior to the one at which
they are being tried at this time has actually
put neighbors and residents danger, certainly
by the fourth time one would think that with
the person still having a license that there
would be more than a criminality, a need for
punitive actions, incarceration.
3657
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Mr. President,
through, this bill does make it, as I said a
Class E felony that is punishable by a fine of
not less than 1,000 nor more than 5,000
thousand or by a period of imprisonment as
provided for in the Penal Law, or both a fine
and imprisonment so the discretion would be up
to the judge as to whether or not the
defendant should go to jail.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the Senator would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: As you know,
when prosecuting an E felony there is often
what they call the E felony split, which is a
certain amount of jail time and a fine. But
really, where the defendant in my experience
in law enforcement, where the defendant is
able to pay they generally would rather take
3658
the fine. So what you have is a possibility
of individuals who are causing this problem
but are really able to alleviate it
financially, but perhaps as a prelude to their
fifth violation, and one of these violations
could result in somebody being seriously
injured if not killed, so I would just want to
make the suggestion and ask what Senator
Maziarz thinks of the suggestion that perhaps
a minimum sentence be attached to this
legislation.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr.
President, through you.
I think it is a good suggestion,
Senator Paterson. I think we could certainly
take a look at it, but again I think the
discretion regarding individual circumstances
are better left up to the judge and the local
prosecuting attorney, but it is certainly a
suggestion we would take a look at, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
3659
Paterson on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: In the past I
have been somewhat opposed to altering the
plea bargaining arrangements, but in the
particular cases where I would think it might
actually need some revision would be these
specific situations where the actual plea may
be a prelude to unfortunately another event.
Now, if I could ask Senator Maziarz
to yield to one final question.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
noticed that the bill passed this house
unanimously in 1997, didn't get out of
committee in 1998. What is your assessment of
the reason that we have not been able to
convince of other house that perhaps this is
apt legislation?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Actually, I
have been talking to Assemblywoman Connelly
and I believe that she is going to sponsor
this bill if she has not already in the other
3660
house, Senator Paterson, and Assemblywoman
Connelly is an able person. I believe she is
in leadership over there. Deputy Speaker.
And I expect great things out of our
colleagues in the Assembly.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
One last question. When is the first
commission meeting up in western New York?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Senator
Dollinger kicked you off the commission. You
don't have to worry about it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor yield to a few
questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator Maziarz,
does the judge under law have no discretion to
impose jail time upon the fourth conviction of
3661
DWAI.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I believe he
does have discretion, yes.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Can you tell me
what is the maximum?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Under current
law?
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No, I don't
have that information, Senator. I apologize.
SENATOR HEVESI: If you would?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I will get that
to you.
SENATOR HEVESI: Would you? I
would appreciate that.
Mr. President would the Senator
continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
3662
Maziarz, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator Maziarz,
I do not know, based on the last question I
had, whether you would know this, but under
the second conviction of a DWAI or the third
conviction is there jail time that a judge can
impose?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, either or.
He could do a fine or jail time.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, did you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator, under
your bill the -- only if the fourth conviction
comes within a ten year span can the judge
impose the maximum penalty; correct?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
SENATOR HEVESI: Why is the ten
3663
year span in this legislation?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Well, I think
we had to pick or we had to draw the line some
where and I think it actually mirrored some of
the Vehicle and Traffic Law and the Penal Law
for the DWI sections.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President, I
voted for this bill out of committee. I think
it is a good piece of legislation but I
certainly need to echo the comments of Senator
Paterson. Not to have mandatory jail time
after the fourth DWAI conviction is just
incomprehensible. And I will take it a step
further to suggest that after the second I
would like to know, and I am sure that Senator
Maziarz will furnish me with this information,
what is the imposition of a penalty after the
second DWAI conviction, and to further suggest
a few things; Number one is, I believe that
upon the third convictions of a DWAI offense
that the audacity of someone to have been
3664
convicted first the audacity of them to have
been convicted one time and then to go ahead
and get a second DWAI conviction probably is
grounds for a mandatory prison sentence. To
do it a third time is absolutely outrageous.
And every time that we don't deter that
behavior by a prison sentence, by having that
person actually off the road or by the threat
of the penalty we maybe lending ourselves to
not preventing and injury, DWAI related, that
we could have prevented.
And on the fourth conviction, think
about it, the fourth conviction, somebody four
times has gotten into that car with their
ability impaired, a complete and utter
disregard to not only himself and whoever may
be riding in his car, but to every single
other person on the roads. Absolutely the
most egregious kind of conduct for us not to
have a mandatory incarceration for that
individual is a short coming in the current
law.
And one additional point. I think
it is irrelevant for this person who has
little respect for human life, it is
3665
irrelevant that we have this ten year limit.
Why are we protecting this person's right
after a certain span to then go out and
reoffend? What difference does it make that
we set this arbitrary ten year time frame
within which all of his convictions or her
convictions must fall?
If two or three time or, God forbid
four times someone is convicted of DWAI for
the remainder of their natural life they
should be denied the ability of holding a
drivers license, putting at risk the lives of
everyone in this chamber and of their families
and their friends.
The fact that this legislation is
even necessary in and of itself is an argument
why we need mandatory prison time for
individual convicted of their fourth sentence.
It boggles the mind.
So, Senator Maziarz, I compliment
you on this legislation. I would ask that we
revisit this and really get even tougher than
we already are on individuals who would so
blatantly disregard our lives and the lives of
everyone else on the roads on the State of New
3666
York.
I intend to vote in favor of this
bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, very
much, Mr. President. Would the gentleman
yield to a question or two?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, do you yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator, in constructing this
proposal did you think it necessary that it
should build in a component that would take
from the fines a percentage of the money so
that these people who are prone to driving
under these conditions, so that the people who
are prone to driving under these conditions
would have the opportunity for some kind of
therapy, paid for by the fines?
3667
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No, Senator. A
certain portion of the fines do go back to the
local county DWI coordinators. How they spend
that money, I know they spend it on anti-drunk
driving programs, SADD programs, MADD
programs, but not specifically targeting it to
any particular program.
SENATOR WALDON: Would the
gentlemen yield to another question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR WALDON: Senator, do you
consider it meritorious that we should have a
designated portion of the monies accumulated
by fines so that these people would not any
longer be a danger to themselves but also a
danger to others on the roads, would that be
something that you might want to consider?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I would, in a
simple answer I would give you, yes. However,
I would hate to be put in a position where we
at the State Legislature are telling the local
3668
county DWI coordinators that they must spend a
certain amount of dollars for a particular
program. I think that those decisions are
better at the local level. I would not oppose
something like that.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, very
much, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator
Maziarz.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: We have had
a fair amount of success with our drunk
driving laws and we have seen a decrease in
the numbers of people driving drunk,
particularly with younger people which is very
advantageous and good for the future.
I would like to echo the concerns
of Senator Hevesi, which is if someone has
been brought to the courts four times for
having driven while drunk there is absolutely
no -- I fear there is little opportunity for
rehabilitation because he has been offered
rehabilitation, or she has been. And if it is
the fourth time there doesn't seem to be much
avenue open.
3669
I normally would support strongly
rehabilitation, clinics, a variety of
preventive and rehabilitative measures.
I am the founder, one of the
founders of MADD in Westchester County.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I feel very
strongly, as you can imagine because I was a
founder many years ago. But it is very
worrisome to think that someone has been out
there four times, caught four times, probably
person has been out there driving drunk 4,000
times to get caught four times.
It is just very worrisome that
person might be out on the streets driving
again.
That is my concern and I will
support the bill, but I hope that something
stronger can be legislated and I commend that
to you, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
3670
roll.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 331.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 331.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
331, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 3660-A,
an act to amend the Private Housing Finance
Law, in relation to the powers of the New York
State Housing Finance Agency.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson of Calendar Number 331.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a piece of legislation that
would authorize our New York State Housing
Finance Agency known as HFA, to establish
subsidiaries, which would acquire and hold
title to real properties when they receive
3671
some form of assistance from the United States
government, whether it be in connection with
foreclosures or other situations pursuant to
the operations of the HFA programs.
We now have other public benefit
corporations that have this authority such as
the New York City Housing Development
Corporation, the New York State Urban
Development Corporation and the Empire State
Development Corporation.
Rather than talk about the
formality of the legislation, it is now a
standard industry practice for lenders when
they do their mortgage documents that they
provide for the use of subsidiary corporations
to be formed and it is to prosecute
foreclosures to shield the parent corporation
from the risks involved in taking title to
managed property.
It is an internal thing that will
facilitate the FHA and give them the powers to
finance more affordable rental units
throughout the State of New York.
There is Assembly companion bills
that passed both the Housing Assembly
3672
Committees. They are now before the Ways and
Means on the Assembly floor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Bonacic would yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR BONACIC: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, as
you mentioned, the Empire State Development
Corporation and the New York City Housing
Development Cooperation already have this
process and I'm not entirely happy with the
way it has been run in New York City. I can't
really comment. I don't really know enough
about how ESDC -- actually I think ESDC does a
pretty fine job. But I am a little suspect of
what really amounts to establishing the
corporate shields agency to agency because it
is really the interaction on often foreclosure
that bring in federal issues that this would
actually apply, so my original question is
3673
does HFA have a management plan for how they
are going to effect these transfers or create
this?
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes. I don't
think the issue is whether they have a
management plan, it is when they have -- when
they are getting federal assistance from the
U.S. government and they see an opportunity to
purchase or acquire other land to expand to
increase affordable housing whether it is in
your district or any district in the State of
New York, they are prone to go and do it.
They may not take that opportunity and take
title to these lands because they don't want
the liability so they will do nothing. They
will just keep what they have and they won't
be aggressive in taking advantage of other
opportunities.
The second point I would like to
make with your specific question, when they
decide to see a housing opportunity to take
title to an additional piece or property and
if that property becomes distressed and there
is a foreclosure and they have to take it
back, they run the risk of losing federal
3674
assistance. And that would just diminish
their ability or capacity to do other things
in housing.
So when you say a management plan,
I don't think there is any blue print exactly,
but it is lost opportunities where they would
not do anything if they didn't have this
subsidiary to protect them from liability.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, thank
you for the answer. There are a couple areas
we can go in. Let me see if I can put them in
some kind of priority order. If the Senate
would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: How does the
entity that established the subsidiary protect
the parent corporation from liability?
SENATOR BONACIC: As you know
now, it does not exist with the HFA, we don't
have that power to create subsidiaries.
So that it does not exist in this
3675
situation, okay. But lets assume that we
passed this legislation and you are asking for
an example of how it would apply, I assume.
Is that your question?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
SENATOR BONACIC: Okay. The
example that was given to me by our housing
people was that if there were a foreclosure by
the FHA of its mortgages on properties which
receive mortgage interest reduction contracts
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development it would lead to a termination of
the subsidy.
So in that case, as an operation of
law the mortgage being foreclosed would end
and the contract corresponding to that
mortgage may be terminated. So in this case
it is not a question of a shield, it is a
question of losing federal assistance had this
law been in effect in trying to apply it to
your question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senate Bonacic would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
3676
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: So Senator, I
think I understand this now. In other words,
it is the action itself that impinges upon the
parent corporation, the HFA, from receiving
the federal dollars, not the outcome. In
other words, once you are already tied up in a
legal fight this actually diminishes your
standing, your rating so to speak to receive
federal money and therefore if it is operating
through the subsidiary the legal action taken
by another party still has full effect but
does not injure the -- or doest restrict the
parameters of the parent corporation to
continue trying to acquire property.
SENATOR BONACIC: That's correct.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. If the
Senator would yield for another question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
3677
SENATOR PATERSON: Speaking from
the point of view of one who would feel that
the subsidiary corporation is liable, is the
recovery in any way damaged by the fact that
the parent corporation is now not the prime
party in the litigation?
SENATOR BONACIC: Well, it is
diminished in the -- well, depending on the
outcome of the litigation, the subsidiary
would be diminished to the extent of and
adverse judgment. But federal assistance
would not be terminated to the principal
corporation and that is one of the primary
goals we are trying to accomplish by this
legislation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, if
you will continue to yield, my question is,
the party who is in litigation against the
subsidiary, are their recoveries in any way
limited or lessened by the fact that we have
created the subsidiary?
SENATOR BONACIC: You have to
know the facts of the case. Every case is
different.
I would say that the litigant, the
3678
plaintiff seeking to recover could recover
against the subsidiary to the extent of the
net worth of that subsidiary. So conceivably
they could be -- the plaintiff could be
diminished to the extent of the lack of assets
by the subsidiary.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right. If the
Senator would continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then the
absence of the federal dollars that are
contained in the parent corporation, wouldn't
that contribute to what would be the
inevitable loss on the part of the plaintiff
because the subsidiary is now devoid of assets
that would be available if a judgment was
rendered?
SENATOR BONACIC: Well, we have
to decide as a matter of policy what we want
to do with HFA. Is it our intent to preserve
and enhance the stability of that program and
try and seek more affordable housing
throughout the State of New York? If the
3679
answer to that question is yes as a matter of
state policy, then we want to create a
subsidiary to do two things; one to protect
the principal corporation from liability which
would impede the expansion of a housing
program. And number two, do nothing to
interrupts federal assistance to our principal
corporation. And in the case where you are
concerned about that plaintiff and the
subsidiary, maybe they might be diminished in
a certain set of facts where they would not
come out as whole has there not been a
subsidiary.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. Thank
you, Senator. Your answers are very clear and
my understanding is certainly enhanced through
the conversation with you. I just have one
last question, if you would yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, at a
point that the property is now taken over and
3680
managed, is there any plan in the legislation
for the disillusion of the subsidiary at a
point that its worthiness is no longer needed?
SENATOR BONACIC: I think I
appreciate your question and your concern. I
don't want to give the impression that we as a
matter of state policy create subsidiaries
that are shell corporations that are intended
to not make a subsidiaries projects worth
while. If a subsidiary -- think of it as an
extension of the HFA, having the same powers,
the same goals and enhancing housing but just
trying to give the main corporation a little
more protection from liability and not to cut
off at any time our economic pipeline from
Washington with federal assistance when it
comes to housing.
So they should function and
proliferate and be worth while. They are not
just intended, you know, to defraud a
plaintiff, to hurt him or diminish any
litigation that one may want to take against a
subsidiary.
They are not managed in any lesser
manner than the HFA. They make sure that the
3681
premises are kept up in a proper state, meet
all the code violations and that the tenants
are properly taken care of.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator Bonacic.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
Senator Bonacic and I have the same dream but
we have a favoring perhaps of different
values. I think that the focus of this
legislation is to provide our housing finance
agency with all of the utilities that it can
muster toward generating revenue, particularly
from the federal government.
In the past the actions and
liabilities of acquiring property have put the
HFA in difficult positions and so by
establishing the subsidiary we can certainly
create a situation where we continue to try to
increase the available housing stock in this
state and to put it in a decent affordable
rate through the work of our agency.
However, there are individuals,
3682
people like you and I who at times bring
claims against these agencies. They are tax
payers. They are citizens. They go to court
seeking relief. We have created a situation
where we favor the value of the whole over the
rights of the individual. Really what happens
at this particular point, and I think Senator
Bonacic was very honest in allowing us to be
aware of this, that an individual might not
have the opportunity to receive the damages
that they might otherwise have received had
the agency been whole. And because of this it
raises a concern for me about passing
legislation such as this because in the end
the individual suffers. We are a society that
was really founded on the basis of
individuals, individualism, where people were
not always subjugated to the needs, opinion or
wishes of the whole society.
And for that reason I would really
favor a negative vote on this bill, although I
would tend to think that with a little work
the interests of all of us would be well
served through Senator Bonacic's legislation
if we find a way so that the plaintiff in some
3683
up coming litigation is not hindered from
bringing a civil action if a person feels that
they have been wronged.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
I'm sorry, Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Would the
sponsor yield for a couple of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Senator
Bonacic, I understand the idea of where you
want to keep the parent separate from the
subsidiary. My question is, would the parent
be involved in any decision making with
respect to the subsidiary?
SENATOR BONACIC: I would assume,
because it does not exist today, we don't have
subsidiaries for HFA, but if they are creating
the subsidiary with the same powers and
duties, I am sure that they communicate with
each other, the parent and the subsidiary.
3684
So for the purposes of trying to
achieve common goals, I would say there is
common communication. But as to whether or
not the subsidiary functions by itself, I
would have to say it does, making its own
decisions.
SENATOR SAMPSON: My concern is
that if you want to be separate and apart and
if the parent is being involved, the
subsidiary's decision making then in essence
what we are doing is we are shielding the
parent from any sort of liabilities, however
they are indeed involved if they are making
certain decisions that the subsidiary is being
involved in.
SENATOR BONACIC: You raise a
principal of law that if the principal is
making the decision or shared employees with
the agent and if, in fact, it is the agent and
there is no shield, but that is, you know, an
issue of law that we hope doesn't operate that
way if and when this legislation passes and
goes forward, that the subsidiary would be
separate and distinct from the parent
corporation.
3685
SENATOR SAMPSON: I think the
legislation is good, however -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Sampson, do you wish the sponsor to continue
to yield?
SENATOR SAMPSON: On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I would, but I
think he is on the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On the
bill.
SENATOR SAMPSON: I think the
bill is good but certain principles I am
concerned about as to if we are really trying
to protect the principal from liability we
have to ensure that certain amendments and
legislation is put forth to create such
separate entities. So we can't be involved
in any decision making to prevent that whole
issue of liability.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
3686
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR PATERSON: Slow roll
call.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
please ring the bells.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will ring the bells.
More than five members having
arisen, there will be a slow roll call. The
Secretary will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was recorded as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(Senator Connor was recorded as
3687
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann,
3688
excused.
Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
3689
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
SENATOR NANULA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
3690
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado,
excused.
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
3691
SENATOR SMITH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
3692
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
3693
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 47, nays
one.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Housing, Construction and Community
Developmental Committee in the Majority
3694
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Immediate
meeting of the Housing Committee in the
Conference Room.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I ask that you
call up Calendar Number 533.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I'm
sorry, Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
very much, Mr. President.
I just wanted to be recorded on a
vote that was made yesterday. I know you
can't, but I wanted it noted that had I been
in the chamber to vote on Calendar 449, which
was Senate Bill 3651, that I would have voted
in the affirmative. It was late yesterday
afternoon that it came up.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
record will so reflect.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
533, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 4439-A,
an act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to charging of a fee.
3695
SENATOR SMITH: Explanation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you,
Senator Dollinger.
This legislation makes the
acceptance of or the offering of any fee,
compensation or other thing of value for the
placing out or adoption of a child other than
by an authorized agency a Class C felony and
repeat offense would be a Class D felony.
Currently it is an A misdemeanor.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I will yield
the floor to Senator Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Would the sponsor kindly yield for
a few questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
3696
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you, very
much.
Through you, Mr. President, the
previous bill, did it not have a monetary
amount of $10,000 as a fine?
SENATOR SKELOS: The previous
bill?
SENATOR SMITH: Yes.
SENATOR SKELOS: I am dealing
with this bill. I'm not sure what the
previous bill had.
SENATOR SMITH: Okay. We are
increasing the penalties, and since there are
no amounts allocated in the bill, would it be
fair to say that if a person received
something that we might think is minor, say a
very expensive bottle of champagne or some
very expensive chocolates, could that be
construed as a fee?
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Smith,
we are not changing the law at all as to how a
person could be prosecuted. All we are saying
3697
is that baby selling, which has occurred in a
number of instances in the state, recently in
Nassau County we had a birth mother attempting
to sell her child for $60,000. I have a
letter from Aaron Britvan, who is very active
in the area of adoption and the bill, which is
supported by the New York State Bar
Association, he has seen situations where
individuals have sought $120,000 finder fees
and the most that could happen, even if it was
a repeat offense, is that they would be
charged with an A misdemeanor.
I think baby selling is a
horrendous act. We should not be putting
babies up for sale. There is a proper process
right now established in the law for private
placement adoption which says that basically
if you are seeking to adopt you can help with
certain medical expenses, that type of thing,
which the court must approve, and you can
adopt a child.
We are not changing the law at all
other than the penalty side of it. If you
think the penalties are inappropriate, fine.
I feel that in making it a felony is correct.
3698
SENATOR SMITH: Through you, Mr.
President.
I am not in disagreement with you,
Senator Skelos. I am just trying to get a
clarification of exactly what it would do and
especially since you have other problems, I
believe the family, the two women who were
bringing the children from Mexico and that was
just recently. So it is a problem that is
rampant, but I wanted to know exactly how it
would operate because from what I am reading
anyone that may receive any kind of
renumeration, that is why I am asking if there
shouldn't be some kind of something in the
bill.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator, the law
continues to operate the way it has for years.
Certainly a district attorney, I
don't believe that if a person gives a bottle
of wine, but of course the birth mother
shouldn't be drinking if she is pregnant. I
don't think the DA is going to prosecute.
Here we have a situation where it
really comes down to baby selling, baby
buying. It is supported by the District
3699
Attorneys of Nassau County, the New York State
Bar Association and the Adoptive Parents
Committee.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you. Would
the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SMITH: But isn't there a
possibility of evading prosecution by this
means. For instance, if I gave you cases and
cases of champagne, they would be worth a
great deal of money. It would not be
monetary, but it would be of value.
SENATOR SKELOS: That is of value
and you would be prosecuted for that.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you, very
much.
SENATOR SKELOS: Or you could be
prosecuted for that.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Mr. President,
3700
would the gentleman yield to a question or
two?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I also read the stories of the
mother in Mexico who sold two of her children
was promised a home. The description of the
home was an adobe hut with a kind of
corrugated tin roof and a flush toilet and
that was heaven for her. The person who was
negotiating it for her in Mexico did not build
the home. Took the children and gave her
little or nothing and those children
eventually ended up in America and were sold
here apparently.
My question is do we have comedy
with Mexico in situations like this and can we
reach the person who did the initial
negotiation with the mother in Mexico, part
one. Well, I will let you answer each part of
3701
it.
SENATOR SKELOS: I'm not totally
familiar with that case but I would imagine
they would be charged federally in that
instance and again this bill very simply
raises the penalties.
We can bring up a number of cases
that may exist throughout the country and they
may or may not apply. All we are saying is if
your prosecuted in New York State it will now
be a felony prosecution and the felony level
will increase if your prosecuted a second
time. That is all the bill does.
SENATOR WALDON: Would the
gentleman yield to another question or two,
Mr. President?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALDON: One, I
appreciate your clarification, Senator.
I am just trying to find out how it
helps us to prosecute people who participate
in this very nefarious scheme that I saw in
the newspaper. I think it is abhorant that
3702
children should be bought and sold.
I can understand the plight of the
mother because she was so destitute with six
or seven children that she could not even
provide food for working for, I think it was
$20 a week as a maid someplace and not even
able to feed her children. But the bad people
involved in this are the persons who
negotiated initially in Mexico, brought the
children to the person who was the conveyor
supplier in the states, and eventually those
children may end up in the State of New York.
So what you are saying is that your
bill would reach the person who brings the
child into New York and would be able to
prosecute and elevate the penalty in terms of
the fine, etc, and the prosecution in terms of
jail time, etc, but would not be able with its
long arm to reach into Mexico and that would
have to be done on the federal level.
SENATOR SKELOS: Again, whatever
the law is in the state in terms of reaching
that person is not changed. What this
legislation very simply does is increased the
penalty, the punishment, the deterant factor.
3703
The statement buy the State of New York saying
we don't tolerate baby selling, and if you do
you are going to be charged with a felony
rather than a misdemeanor. That is simply
what the bill does.
SENATOR WALDON: On the bill, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Waldon on the bill.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Mr.
President. Thank you, Senator Skelos. I
think what you are doing is very commendable.
I think the people who participate in the sale
of children under these circumstances are
creating a great problem for society. One,
the children are not ushered through the
proper screening agencies. They are not given
the proper health care to insure that they
have the proper immunizations. They are not
placed in a manner that insures that the
family they are going to will be a whole
family which will nurture them and raise them
in a manner that we want all of the children
in the State of New York to be raised, even
though we sometimes fail as a society.
3704
So I commend what you have done. I
think it is great. I comment the
thoughtfulness you put into it and the
timeliness of your move. So I encourage all
of our colleagues to vote in the affirmative
and to support your efforts.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Will the sponsor yield to just
three quick questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield to three questions? And
I will keep count.
SENATOR SKELOS: Quick questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: They are
quick because this amends a specific section
and the questions that I had maybe addressed
in earlier portions of the Social Services
Law.
The first one is, does this exclude
3705
contain an exemption for legal fees so if you
pay legal fees either as the birth mother or
as the recipient parent that it is excluded?
SENATOR SKELOS: It doesn't deal
with legal fees.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This doesn't
effect fees that lawyers would charge?
SENATOR SKELOS: All it effects
is the increase in penalties. It does not
change any other part of how kids are adopted.
All it does is increase the penalty.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. The
second question is, through you, Mr.
President, I think what Senator Smith was
referring to, and she may not have had the
prior version of the bill, but there was -
the original draft of your bill said it is a
misdemeanor if the recipient gets less than
$10,000. If they get more than $10,000 it is
a Class D felony.
My question is, why did you make
that change from the first print to the A
print?
Why did you make that change? Was
there something about that?
3706
SENATOR SKELOS: Just felt that
it would be appropriate to strictly increase
the penalties if you violate the law at all.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Not based on
dollar value?
SENATOR SKELOS: Right.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's all I
have, Mr. President. The explanation is
satisfactory.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: We would like
a slow roll call on this vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: At least
five members have arisen.
The Secretary will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Aye.
3707
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was recorded as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(Senator Connor was recorded as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: At my seat, yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
3708
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann,
excused.
Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
3709
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
3710
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado,
excused.
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
3711
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
3712
THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Announce
the results. No?
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
3713
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
SENATOR NANULA: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 44. Nays,
1.
3714
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President. Would you please call Calendar
Number 1091.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1091.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1091, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
672, an act to authorize the New York State
Urban Development Corporation to utilize
certain funds.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco, an explanation has been requested
by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. Back
on last Labor Day, there was a devastating
storm in Central New York that affected many
counties, and all the counties are listed in
the bill.
In the past when we've had such
occurrences, whether it be floods on Long
Island or in Central New York or ice storms in
3715
the North Country, we've been in a position to
attempt to help homeowners from bearing some
of the costs that they are not able to obtain
through their insurance. Most recently, last
year I think we did a bill dealing with the
area around Mechanicville.
And the bill that I've prepared
here is basically identical to that bill,
indicating that homeowners with unreimbursed
expenses could apply for up to $5,000, or 50
percent of the claim, of the cost of their
claim, whichever is less, to be reimbursed
through the New York State Urban Development
Corporation. And that's what this bill would
do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Mr. President. I certainly don't have any
objection to the relief that we're providing.
But if Senator DeFrancisco would yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco, do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
3716
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
is the precedent for using economic
development funds from the Regional Economic
Development Partnership Program for relief
to -- from storm damage to the homeowners and
renters in the areas that you've described?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The
precedent that I used was Senate Bill 6780A,
which passed last year during last year's
session and was passed unanimously by this
house.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Mr. President. If the Senator would continue
to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: We're in June
of '99. This incident happened in September
of '98. And you point out, and I agree with
this, that this type of relief should be
3717
timely.
Should this situation happen in the
future, do you have any suggestion as to how
we could get the resources to these areas
quicker than nine months, when the storm has
actually passed and presumably the people that
live or rent in that particular area have
pretty much gotten through this situation?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well,
unfortunately, we're dependent upon the budget
each year, so it's difficult to say that
there's going to be a fund always available.
But most of the hurt that homeowners have
experienced have already been taken care of by
either homeowner's insurance or, in some
cases, FEMA or SEMO aid.
But there's a crack in some cases
where either the deductible for the
homeowner's insurance or some special
situations arise where those did not cover it.
So that's what this bill is for.
It's not that people are waiting
with bated breath to get through this terrible
time. What we're trying to do is be
consistent with what occurred in other natural
3718
disasters for the people that were hit by this
storm.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you. If
Senator DeFrancisco would yield for another
question.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
same storm that you referred to in September
1998 damaged some other areas outside of the
areas you've covered in the legislation. For
instance, I'm aware -- I've been made aware
that Queens County suffered a number of losses
to homeowners and renters -- lines down,
injury to people's automobiles and that kind
of thing.
Would you be open to perhaps some
kind of standard by which if any township or
county met the threshold they would also be
eligible for assistance?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Excuse
3719
me gentlemen, one moment.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes,
Mr. President. There will be an immediate
meeting of the Civil Service and Pensions
Committee in the Majority Conference Room,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: An
immediate meeting will be held of the Civil
Service and Pensions Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Excuse the
interruption, gentlemen.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That would
not apply to this bill, Senator, insofar as
these counties were declared disaster areas by
either the state or the federal government.
That's what kicked in the majority of the aid
here, FEMO and SEMO. So that's what this bill
would apply to. I don't -- FEMA. I don't
think that -- FEMO is SEMO's brother. But -
FEMA.
But I don't think we should broaden
this bill to include every time a wire has
gone down, whether it's in the Bronx or
3720
Syracuse. You need a disaster area
declaration which would kick in with other
assistance.
SENATOR PATERSON: I see. So the
standard was those areas that were eligible
for federal assistance or the Federal
Emergency Management Administration. Okay,
good.
I have one final question for
Senator DeFrancisco, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco -
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: -
gladly yields, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, did
the victims of this -- in this area receive
any other assistance other than the one that
we're providing now?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
Federal emergency assistance as well as SEMO
assistance, State Emergency Management Office
assistance. But that did not cover all the
losses. Nor did it in the storm that we took
care of with last year's bill, and this is
3721
modeled after that bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry,
Mr. President. If the Senator would yield for
one further question.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: What about
those who are not covered by any insurance or
were not covered, would any of the resources
properly assist them?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm not
sure I understand the question. If there was
no insurance, that's one of the main reasons
for the bill. If someone got short on
insurance and it didn't cover the entire loss,
then they can apply for up to $5,000 or 50
percent of the claim, whichever is lesser.
So it's those -- those situations
or a case where the insurance doesn't cover
it. If a tree goes down and it lands in the
driveway, doesn't hit the house, most
insurance companies wouldn't necessarily pay
for that because there's no damage to one of
the structures. This would fill in that gap.
3722
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm assuming
from what Senator DeFrancisco said that anyone
who was covered under the insurance would not
be included in the resources that would be
made available through the Regional Economic
Development Partnership Program as we're
providing through the State Urban Development
Corporation.
So with that understanding, I'm
quite satisfied with the explanation. Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you,
Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield for a
few brief questions?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator
DeFrancisco, my understanding is that this
legislation authorizes expenditures up to
$5 million.
3723
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That's
correct.
SENATOR HEVESI: Was that -- that
number is based on an assessment of what the
damage -- what the damages are in terms of
both the individual claim amounts and the
aggregate number of claims?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, it's -
it really wasn't a scientific number, nor was
the number that was picked for last year's
storm. The reason is it's almost impossible
to determine what damages were not covered by
insurance of an individual homeowner or a
farmer or someone who's got some damage on
their property that was not covered by other
relief programs or other insurance.
There had to be a cutoff point. We
used $3,000 -- or the sponsor of last year's
bill, with the Mechanicville storm, used the
number $3,000. This was much more extensive.
Many more counties, as you see from the memo,
were affected. So we picked that number as an
outside limit.
SENATOR HEVESI: Through you,
Mr. President.
3724
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR HEVESI: Last year's
number was not based on any type of
assessment?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't see
how you could do an assessment on individuals'
damages that aren't covered by homeowner's
insurance or another program.
With the municipalities you can
make a determination, because municipalities
were given relief by FEMA or SEMO up to a
certain percentage of the loss. And that
bill -- there's another bill I have that's
going to address that if it gets to the floor.
But this one, with individuals it's virtually
impossible to tell what claims are out there
until a program is offered.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, would the sponsor yield for an
additional question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
3725
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Do you know how
close we came last year to the cap that was
placed within the legislation?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: We were
nowhere near the cap. I think the cap was
like $3 million. From what I was told, it was
under a million dollars that was applied for.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Just a few more questions, if the
sponsor would yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator, my
question for you is we've now -- we have a
provision in this legislation which provides
up to $5,000 for an individual claim, or 50
percent of the project cost per claim. Am I
to understand that we are capping claims at
$5,000?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That's
correct. Whichever is less, $5,000 or 50
percent of the claim.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. And
my final question, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
3726
DeFrancisco, do you yield for a final
question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Under this bill,
the Public Authorities Control Board does not
have to approve claims, I assume in order to
expedite the relief for those who have
suffered damages. My question to you is, does
their normal process of reviewing claims of a
similar nature take an exorbitant amount of
time?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You know,
it's very difficult to identify what an
exorbitant amount of time is. But I've been
informed that the administration of the last
fund, last year, went smoothly and we
didn't -- at least my district didn't hear any
complaints about it.
SENATOR HEVESI: Truly the final
question.
My concern here is that in all
likelihood this review process by the Public
Authorities Control Board is in place in order
3727
to prevent fraudulent claims from being filed.
And while I understand that there is a
necessity to have timely claims for these
individuals who have unfortunately been the
victims of a natural disaster, I'm concerned
that there may be some unscrupulous people out
there who will take advantage of the
well-intended provision in this bill which
exempts the oversight that is normally there.
I'd just like your comment on that.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: My only
comment is in all walks of life, whether it be
in politics or in government or in business,
there's always unscrupulous people. All we
can do is set up a procedure and hopefully
weed those out and benefit the people who
really are in need.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: I would just
like to make a suggestion that in the wake of
one of these disasters and a piece of
legislation similar to this, that there be
3728
some kind of random audit to make sure that we
are not being victimized by individuals,
unscrupulous as they may be, because we were
trying to do something beneficial to the
majority of people out there.
And if we find that there is
widespread fraudulent claims being submitted
because individuals may know, hey, this is a
good chance for me to put in a claim, that we
then take another look at how we structure
these bills and whether we make a real
determination as to is this the best way to
proceed or can we proceed in another way where
there's an expedited review process but still
remain -- there has to still be a review
process, potentially, to avoid there being
this kind of fraudulent behavior.
I think that would be something
that we should take a look at in the future.
And perhaps after this good piece of
legislation is passed and becomes law, maybe
this should be the case for which the state
then performs some auditing. And I may
suggest to the state comptroller that this is
an appropriate exercise of his power.
3729
I intend to vote in the
affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, on the bill.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you,
Mr. President. It's obvious, Mr. President,
that there's some sort of a slowdown going on
here today in the Senate. But I wanted to
just recognize the importance of this
particular piece of legislation.
In the western end of New York
State -- particularly in Niagara, Orleans, and
in Wayne counties -- the apple farmers of our
state were almost completely wiped out in
those three counties by this Labor Day storm.
And certainly Senator DeFrancisco's bill is
going to help them out somewhat.
Their losses, however, are much
more severe than this. And quite frankly, the
federal government, under the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and the Clinton administration,
3730
has not -- not come to the aid of apple
farmers in New York State. They instead have
concentrated almost all of their storm relief
on growers of corn, soybeans, and wheat. I
think it's an insult to the farmers of New
York State.
Senator Nozzolio, Senator Kuhl,
Senator Hoffmann and I are working vigorously
to put together a program with an expedited
review process that Senator Hevesi mentioned
which would mirror the program that was used
in the North Country last year.
So I just want to rise in support
of this bill, congratulate Senator
DeFrancisco. This bill is going to bring some
much-needed relief. And Senator DeFrancisco's
bill encompasses a lot of different areas, and
I particularly wanted to mention the apple
farmers to let them know -- and hopefully it's
going to reported -- that help is on the way
and that, unlike the administration in
Washington, this administration under Governor
Pataki does care about them.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
3731
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes,
Mr. President.
I rise to certainly reinforce what
Senator Wright has said. I look forward to an
opportunity for the urban center in New York
City to have a closer relationship with the
farmers upstate, because I think it's
important for us and it's also important for
them. We want to have access to fresh produce
and other products, and certainly they want
access to our markets. So we have a common
interest.
But I would like to just ask a
question of Senator DeFrancisco with regard to
the legislation.
Senator, you know, last -- I
believe it was last session the Governor
proposed, as part of our budget, I believe, a
relief program for those areas where the storm
had impacted and destroyed people's homes and
properties and farms. Now, the 5 million that
you're talking about, is this part of the
budget or is this -- is this fund already in
place from prior years? Or does this in any
3732
way relate to our budget process, which is not
going on at this moment?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It
authorizes the New York State Urban
Development Corporation to use the funds that
they have for this purpose. It's my
understanding that there's leftover funds from
last year's bill that we did for the relief of
Mechanicville and that general vicinity.
But obviously a lot is dependent
upon the budget. In the event that the funds
are not sufficient that are left, then
certainly we would have to budget sufficient
funds to cover this.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And so
Mr. President, if you will, I'd just like to
ask, then, if this could possibly be an
off-budget or over-budget bill, or do we know
that the Governor is going to in fact propose
for this program enough funding that we're
going to be able to cover this?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, it
authorizes New York State Urban Development
Corporation to use these funds, so obviously
there's no mandate that it has to use these
3733
funds. It just gives them the authority to do
what they've done on prior bills such as this
in previous disasters.
My guess is that there will be
funding in the budget, because it's been done
in the past.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So in other
words, if the other house comes up with some
proposal and there is an agreement, hopefully,
that either covers this or goes beyond that,
then that means that piece then must be
negotiated as part of our budget process?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I would
think so, if there's insufficient funds from
last year's budget. And Assemblyman Magee is
sponsoring it in the other house.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you, Senator. Thanks, Mr. President. I think
that clarifies it, that we in fact are
possibly talking about a budget issue. Which
naturally is a little bit premature, since we
don't have a budget yet. But I thank you.
And I certainly agree with the
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
3734
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you,
Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield for a
few questions?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm curious as to why it is that
the State Urban Development Corporation was
chosen to perform this function as opposed to
ESDC.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Once again,
I didn't want to reinvent the wheel. If it's
worked before and the Governor signed the bill
before, like he did last year, it seems to
me -- and it passed unanimously in this house
last year for a similar disaster -- I used the
same language. There was no great wisdom in
doing it this way.
SENATOR DUANE: As far as you
know, do you know whether or not it has been
the practice for disaster relief to use UDC
every time since the consolidation which
created ESDC?
3735
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't
know the answer to that.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Mr. President. Now -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Now, as you are
probably aware, every agency and department in
the State of New York, with the exception of
the New York State Senate, provides
domestic-partner benefits. And actually as a
result of a request I made to ESDC in 1996,
because they had their own board -
previously, domestic-partner benefits had not
been offered by ESDC. And as a result of my
inquiry to them, they did start to provide
domestic-partner benefits.
I'm wondering whether or not you're
aware of whether or not the UDC provides
domestic-partner benefits.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm trying
to think in my own mind what relevance that
has to this particular issue. Maybe you could
enlighten me on that.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, I have -
if I may respond to the sponsor's question to
3736
the questioner.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm always
looking in state government and among
quasi-state agencies to find out whether or
not they were required to provide
domestic-partner benefits as a result of the
Governor's Executive Order or whether, as is
the case with ESDC, they were not de facto
required to provide domestic-partner benefits.
And here I find a situation where
there's a state agency where I had not
personally made the request to them as to
whether or not -- or the inquiry as to them as
to whether or not they provided
domestic-partner benefits.
So the trail of questions was
leading to why it is that we may have given
this responsibility and this duty to an agency
which may or may not at this time be providing
domestic-partner benefits. Because as the
sponsor knows, it is my position and I think
it's the position of people in the civil
rights field that to not provide
3737
domestic-partner benefits is actually
discriminatory, because in fact employees who
have domestic partners end up not being paid
the same amount of money as those employees
who may be married.
So I'm trying to find out whether
or not this discrimination exists in an agency
which we are now giving these duties and
responsibilities to.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I can't
answer that question. That was not one of the
issues on my mind when I was researching this
particular bill.
But anticipating the future
question, this bill applies the relief applies
no matter what your sexual orientation nay be
as a victim.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: And I believe the
3738
Senator is probably also aware that
domestic-partner benefits also apply to people
regardless of their sexual orientation as
well. So it's sort of a perfect civil rights
initiative.
I have an additional question,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does the
Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering
whether or not the sponsor knows whether or
not UDC continues to have an independent board
of directors as does ESDC. I know in the old
days when UDC did a lot of the duties which
now the state -- ESDC does, it had an
independent board of directors. Do you know
whether that's the case with the UDC now?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, I don't
know.
SENATOR DUANE: And an additional
question, Mr. President.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
3739
DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering
whether UDC is considered to be an agency of
the state or is it a sort of off-budget agency
of the state.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I have no
idea. I don't know what your definition might
be.
And once again, I wish there was
some relevance to these questions. It would
make the debate much more productive.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President,
with the sponsor's permission I can respond to
that, what the relevance is.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I didn't
ask a question, Mr. President.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, I did ask a
question, if it was an off-line or an on-line
agency -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: And the
Chair heard the sponsor answer that. If you
want to address the bill, you can speak on the
3740
bill, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: For instance,
DHCR is an on-line agency. It's under the
direct control of the Executive branch. But,
for instance, ESDC is quasi-independent of
state government. And I was wondering which
more closely resembles what UDC falls under,
because that may answer my question about
domestic partnership, for instance.
Because if it is like the DHCR,
then domestic partners would be covered. But
if it is more like ESDC, then we would have to
make an inquiry to the head of UDC to find out
whether or not they're providing those
benefits.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't
know the answer to that question. And I would
hope that the answer to that question is not
crucial in your decision whether to grant
relief to people who were harmed by a storm,
which included deaths, in central New York.
But if it has some relevance, you know, then
that's something you're going to have to
determine.
SENATOR DUANE: On the bill,
3741
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I am planning on
supporting this initiative. I often support
legislation which may not be perfect in every
way to my point of view. But oftentimes, on
balance, I decide to support legislation
because it helps people.
But I think it's always relevant to
raise the issue of where in the state of New
York, with state agencies, domestic-partner
benefits are being granted and where they are
not. It would be interesting to find out if
there was another place in state government
besides the state Senate where those benefits
were not provided to employees.
And I plan on continuing to try to
make sure that throughout the State of New
York, throughout state government, that all
employees are treated equally. And as you
know, it is my hope that in the very, very
near future that employees of the state Senate
will be provided with the same rights as other
state employees.
3742
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I'd just
like to briefly rise to support Senator
DeFrancisco's bill and tell him it's a great
idea and I'm glad he's providing this
opportunity for the people that were -- had
financial difficulties imposed on them by the
storm, particularly the apple people that
Senator Maziarz spoke about.
And I feel it's a shame that the
two majorities in Washington didn't provide
the President with enough money that he could
also provide the aid that he's giving to the
Midwest that was severely hit by storms, and
that if that money would have been put in by
the majority, he might have had enough money
to cover the New York State farmers also.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
3743
Maziarz, on the bill.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Mr. President,
Senator Stachowski is showing his lack of
knowledge of the apple farming industry. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture is an Executive
agency. There is more than enough money for
disaster relief. That agency has decided,
made a policy decision to favor growers of
wheat, corn, and soybeans over Northeast apple
farmers.
And just to give you an example of
the insult to New York apple farmers, one
farmer, Krenning Orchards, located in
Knowlesville, in Orleans County, lost in
excess of half a million dollars in apple
crop. Governor Pataki went to Knowlesville,
met with the Krenning people and assured them
that the State of New York was going to come
through for them after they learned that the
total recovery from the USDA under this
Administration would only be approximately
$30,000.
Thank you, Mr. President.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Would
Senator Maziarz yield for a couple of
3744
questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Sure.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Seeing as
I'm not that well-versed on this and, you
know, you said that the farmers in the Midwest
were favored as opposed to the apple farmers,
Senator, are these decisions made by
Agriculture, or the amounts of money provided,
are those done by statute? Or does the
department randomly just give a number and
give it to the people that had the loss?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No. Those are
policy decisions made by the Executive agency,
sir.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: But the
amount of money given to different groups,
that's determined by the agency -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: -
individual location by individual location,
farmer by farmer, and they say, Well, you lost
a million, we're going to give you 30,000?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes. That's
3745
policy within the Executive department, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
-
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: And they
just randomly do that without any kind of -
and this is a new policy that is put -
Mr. President, if he will continue to yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, I continue
to yield.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: This is a
new policy, and that the reason they got so
little is because this Administration, as
opposed to any previous Administration, has
decided to do it that way? Or it's policy
that has been long-standing and just carried
out and that that specific department -
Agriculture, in this case -- would just
provide the same policy relief that's usually
provided in a storm and the decision's made by
whoever makes those decisions in that
department as to what they would give?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I know that the
USDA policy, as it is currently constituted,
favors the farmers in the Midwest over New
York State apple growers. And I know that
3746
after the Labor Day storms of 1998 when
Governor Pataki came to western New York,
Senator Stachowski, and met with those
farmers, that he promised them that the State
of New York would come through for them
because it was apparent that the USDA, under
the current Administration and the current
policies, was not going to do that. And they
did not.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr. President,
if Senator Maziarz would continue to yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, is
this Administration and the agricultural
decisions that are made favoring the Midwest
farmers over the Northeast farmers any
different than any of the other agricultural
bills that come out of Washington or
agricultural decisions that are always slanted
towards the Midwest farmers, as opposed to the
Northeast farmers, in every area of
agriculture?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I'm not really
3747
aware of federal legislation, whether it's
always favored them or not, Senator.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: On this
legislation. And I can make a remotely
applicable comment just like Senator Maziarz
to make the political statement that he did.
The Northeast farmer's always been
held kind of like a second-rate person in a
lot of the agricultural decisions that were
made, and this Administration is no different
than any other one. If that were the case,
then we wouldn't have to have a Northeast
compact, because the dairy farmers would be
treated equally every place in the country,
and they're not.
In every kind of growth thing it
seems that since the majority of farm
production comes from the Midwest, that they
get the majority of the application of aid, et
cetera.
And I'm not going to be the one
that's going to say -- and stand up and say,
just to make my governor look good or my
policy look good, that the Washington
administration favored the Midwestern farmers
3748
when I don't know the seriousness of what they
lost. I think it's a terrible thing when we
use this floor to take advantage of somebody's
mishap, whether it's the apple farmers here as
opposed to the person that lost everything
they have in the Midwest, as opposed to -
even though I represent New York State, I
don't like to see political things judged on
people's loss.
And I'm sure that those people that
made those decisions, it's a trying thing for
them and they don't like to favor one against
the other. And I would hope that we wouldn't
try to do that.
And that's why I'm glad that
Senator DeFrancisco's bill covers all these
different areas and we try to do as much as
possible, as New York State legislators, in an
even-handed way and we don't worry too much
about, when we vote for bills, no matter whose
bill it is, as long as it treats people
fairly, and we don't worry about getting a
political statement in, we worry about getting
an end result.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
3749
Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you,
Senator.
Senator Stachowski's last remark
segues into what I was going to say. This
bill doesn't really actually take care of all
of the areas in the state of New York. I
believe that Senator DeFrancisco said that
those areas where FEMA and SEMO came into were
inclusive in this bill.
Well, southeast Queens, SEMO and
FEMA was there. And those homeowners have the
same kinds of losses that they did upstate.
And as long as all of the people of the state
of New York who suffered under this storm are
not included, then I cannot vote for the bill,
because it's discriminatory.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
3750
DeFrancisco, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. I'd
just like to indicate my surprise at what was
just mentioned, that the Bronx was considered
a disaster area which -
SENATOR SMITH: Not the Bronx.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Queens, I'm
sorry. I got it mixed up with the Bronx that
was mentioned before.
I'm surprised at hearing that. And
I will check that out. And in the event that
that is true, I will do all that I can to try
to bring in another bill to correct that,
because that's not the information I received.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco will be recorded in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will announces the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
2. Senators Paterson and Smith recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Morahan.
3751
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
I'd ask that you recall Calendar Number 885.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 88 -- just -
just -- I have several people talking to me at
the same time. Just a second.
We'll hold that for a second.
Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you,
Mr. President.
On Senate 4439A, Calendar 533,
there was a slow roll call. I was at a
committee meeting. Had I been in the chamber,
I would have voted in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
record will so reflect.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
885, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 1180, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to directing the Triborough Bridge
and Tunnel Authority.
3752
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marchi, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President,
this is an old-timer. I've been introducing
it ritually since 1991, when the federal
government had imposed a mandate that the toll
across the Verrazano Bridge be collected going
into Staten Island. And this was -- the
mandate was proclaimed -- issued in 1986.
With the expiration of the mandate, I know
many Islanders have been disquieted that this
might change, and others who are affected by
any variation of that method of handling the
problem.
This would make it a matter of
statute that the tolls be collected going into
Staten Island rather than the other way or at
the other end of the bridge in Brooklyn. Any
alternative would be disastrous. Traffic
piles up in Staten Island beginning very
early, maybe 5:00 or 6:00 o'clock in the
morning and extending through the morning.
So that the traffic moves out
rapidly so that people going to their places
3753
of employment or other purposes, commercial or
otherwise, are able to meet those
time-intensive requirements without -- without
any undue hindrance. Coming back, you can
absorb the amount of waiting time that -- in
waiting for the toll to be collected, but it's
simply not a disposable item in practical life
during the morning.
So this would make what is existing
practice law in the state of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yeah. Through
the Chair, will the Senator yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marchi, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Are you aware,
Senator Marchi, of a TBTA environmental study,
impact study, of 1993?
SENATOR MARCHI: But it's
appropriate that you raise it, Senator.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I raise it only
because they say in the study that a one-way
3754
toll has a minimal effect on air pollution.
And they also discuss the problems that exist
now in terms of traffic crawl in Chinatown,
Manhattan, and Bensonhurst and Bay Ridge in
Brooklyn.
Now, I think the intent of this
legislation was a good one. But I think the
impact of the legislation upon the community
is not a good one, it's a negative one.
As you know, I happen to live in
Bensonhurst. I live ten blocks from the
highway, from the Belt Parkway. It takes me,
on a Sunday afternoon, approximately 13 to 15
minutes to get on the Belt Parkway, and
sometimes another 5 to 10 minutes to get to
the Verrazano Bridge. And there is no
question in my mind that having the toll only
on one side rather than both sides impacts
negatively upon the communities in terms of
traffic tie-ups and in terms of pollution
created by these traffic tie-ups.
So regretfully -- and we seldom
differ, Senator Marchi, I will have to vote no
on this bill.
SENATOR MARCHI: My advice to
3755
you, Senator, would be to continue voting no,
given the reasons that you've assigned.
But we just don't have that luxury
of, you know, going the other way around. I
mean, it's impossible if you have to get on
the job or you have a time-intensive date. So
if I were in your shoes, I could understand
perfectly.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay.
SENATOR MARCHI: Be my guest.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky -
SENATOR MARCHI: But we cannot
afford that, and I -- Senator Gentile is an
expert on that, and Senator -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky. Senator -
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: -
Senator Stavisky has the floor.
Yes, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President
and members of the Senate. I can understand
why Senator Marchi has introduced this
legislation. It benefits his constituents and
3756
does not benefit the constituents elsewhere in
the city of New York.
There are those of us who represent
districts that are covered by the Whitestone,
Tirboro, Throgs Neck, and other crossings
across the river. And I see no relief for
these constituents in Brooklyn, in Manhattan,
or in Queens who do not enjoy the benefits as
that Senator Marchi would confer with his
legislation. Aren't my constituents or those
in other districts serviced by MTA bridges
entitled to the same consideration as Senator
Marchi seeks for his constituents?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President, I
certainly -- I believe that your complaint or
your lament is legitimate and properly on the
floor. But I simply cannot answer that
problem.
We have -- we're an island out
there. Our only connection to the -- by motor
vehicle to the city of New York is that
bridge. You eliminate that, that means
thousands of people who cannot get on their
3757
job in a timely -- in any kind of fashion.
We'd be cut adrift. There would be a
paralytic effect. We have no other option.
We can go to Jersey very quickly.
We have three bridges that go to Jersey, and
that's very accessible. And we have people
going back and forth, Jerseyites working in
Staten Island and New York and vice versa.
But as far as the Island is
concerned -- and I'm sure that the Senator, my
colleague, knows very well, and also his
predecessor, Senator Connor -- Senator Gentile
and Senator Connor -- it's a problem. You've
placed a problem on the floor. I wish I had
an answer.
But we really -- we'd be committing
suicide if we made any alteration to the
existing pattern. I don't know of any
alternative. It's the only connection that we
have by motor vehicle to the city of New York.
And to reverse that pattern would have
catastrophic -- not just inconvenience, but a
catastrophic effect on the community that I
come from.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
3758
Duane -- I'm sorry, Senator Stavisky, you have
another question?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Those of us
who represent communities in Queens, Brooklyn,
the Bronx, and Manhattan, I ask you to
consider that this legislation is beneficial
only to one borough and does not consider the
cost, the imposition, and the inconvenience on
the other bridges that I've mentioned which
cross the very same river. And there are
people who work and live in the boroughs that
I've mentioned, boroughs of the city of New
York, that are entitled to the same
consideration that Senator Marchi gives to his
constituents.
I do not understand why this
legislation is limited to one borough, one
part of the city, and ignores the others. I
think that this is a special-interest piece of
legislation that does not address the needs -
legitimate needs -- of constituents who travel
between Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan. And I
think we are entitled to the same
consideration which this bill woefully
ignores.
3759
My respect for Senator Marchi is
not diminished by this legislation, which is a
special-interest bill for one borough, one
part of the city, while never giving
consideration to the rights and needs of
constituents who represent districts in other
parts of the city where there are bridges
which impose tolls in both directions on
residents in districts represented by many of
the members of this body.
This is the reason why, on a prior
vote in 1997, there were negative votes on
this legislation from Senator Lachman, Senator
Kruger, Senator Gold, Senator Leichter,
Senator Markowitz, Senator Montgomery, Senator
Nanula, Senator Onorato, Senators Seabrook,
Paterson, Smith, and Stachowski, in addition
to myself.
We must not give special privileges
to one part of the city, ignoring the rights
of constituents who represent communities that
have the same problem and who pay tolls in
both directions. And I wish that my
colleague, Senator Marchi, had given
consideration to these constituents.
3760
Constituents who cross the Whitestone Bridge,
the Triboro Bridge, the Throgs Neck Bridge,
and other crossings over the same river that
Senator Marchi seeks to protect his
constituency must not be put at a
disadvantage.
I'm speaking on behalf of
Republicans as well as Democrats whose
communities are in the area where the MTA does
impose tolls in both directions. And until
Senator Marchi will broaden the legislation to
permit the same consideration to these
constituents, I will ask that this bill be
defeated, and I will cite the nonpartisan vote
in 1997 on this bill when Senators Connor,
Gold, Kruger, Lachman, Leichter, Markowitz,
Montgomery, Smith, Onorato, Paterson,
Seabrook, and Stachowski all voted in
opposition to this very same bill, for the
reasons I have cited.
I would like to support the
legislation if it were broadened to include
consideration for my constituents and yours in
the boroughs that I've mentioned. But until
that happens, I cannot in good conscience
3761
endorse this legislation, which seemingly
gives a benefit to one and not to others. I
think this is a mistake.
I think we were right in opposing
this bill in 1997, and I ask my colleagues to
consider the same circumstances. Crossing a
bridge under MTA jurisdiction in one part of
the city is as sacred to our constituents as
Staten Island is to Senator Marchi. And for
these reasons, I will continue to oppose this
bill and ask my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Thank
you, Senator Stavisky.
Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President, I
have -
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Marchi, on the bill.
SENATOR MARCHI: -- been a member
of the Senate for 43 years. For many of them
I was chairman of New York City, chairman of
Finance. I made all kinds of efforts to
cooperate with every mayor that we've ever
had, irrespective of party affiliation. And
3762
I've tried to be very responsive to any
request that I could possibly express myself
affirmatively on the floor, in any and all
circumstances.
And you have too, Senator. I don't
deny you your objectivity or the legitimacy of
the problems you present. They are problems.
But there is no way in which we can
connect to the rest of the city without
multiple means of transportation, whether it
be a ferry and -- we have no subways. I mean,
we have no -- we have no magic by which we can
reach the rest of the city. And this is our
only connection to the continent of North
America, is that bridge. It's the only one,
unless we go to another state.
And sometimes many people do.
They'll go over to the state of New Jersey and
then make the long way around into the state
of New York. And that's the way I get up here
to Albany. I have to go to New Jersey to do
it when I -- every week when I come up here.
But it's a nightmare.
And if this pattern were altered on
the Island for tens of thousands of people -
3763
and I would believe and submit that even your
Minority Leader, when he had -- he shared that
district, my distinguished colleague, it's -
it's -- we've got a rather difficult chore to
discharge here.
So I submit -- I understand anybody
who would -- who is disquieted should reflect
the sentiments you've expressed. I mean, I
won't question that. But I think the majority
of this chamber should be responsive and
affirmative on this issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you,
Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield to
a -
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Marchi, would you yield for a question from
Senator Duane?
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Mr. President.
The imposition of the one-way toll
was something done before we had the tool of
E-Z Pass; is that not correct?
3764
SENATOR MARCHI: It was federally
mandated in 1986. And they established this
pattern, and it's been continued ever since.
I wouldn't want to impose on, you
know, anybody's intelligence that it's likely
to be changed, because of the problems it
would raise. But it is disquieting, as I move
around the district, that in the -- I haven't
heard the argument raised contrary to it
recently. But certainly early on, a variation
on that theme. And the sentiments expressed
by Senator Lachman, of course, gives you a
different perspective.
But with us, it's life or death. I
mean, it's like aiming a rifle at us if it was
ever changed, for tens of thousands of people
down there.
SENATOR DUANE: If I could just
continue with my questions through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Marchi, do you continue to yield to a question
from Senator Duane?
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: As I understand
3765
it, the reason for making the one-way toll did
have to do with the traffic tie-ups and the
backups at the toll booths, et cetera. That
was the primary reason, and the problems that
that caused.
SENATOR MARCHI: The federal
government at that point thought it was in the
interest -- in the balanced interests of
everyone involved that it be collected going
into Staten Island. People coming home or
returning from work or returning from other
engagements have a large space to operate in,
and there's adequate room to handle it. But
sometimes you're inconvenienced.
But that inconvenience would be
frightening if it were reversed. I just
don't -- I mean, we're only faced with hard
choices here. So that's the problem we have.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President, if
I could -- I'm going to try to formulate it in
the form of a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: It has to do with
does the sponsor now think it's possible, with
3766
the advent of the technology of E-Z Pass, that
traffic flow could be eased, as is the point
of E-Z Pass, to the point where that tie-up
would not be such a problem?
And I'll actually put my second
question along with the first, and put it in
the context of saying if there were to be a
two-way toll to be enacted, I would be very
supportive of, for instance, providing a
discount for E-Z Pass use, thereby encouraging
even more people to use E-Z Pass and thereby
ensuring that the traffic tie-ups would not
create the terrible problems on Staten Island
which previously were being created.
And my question is, would the
sponsor consider those options as other ways
of mitigating the problems which have been
caused by not having E-Z Pass, which we now
have, and the problems caused in Brooklyn and
Manhattan by the one-way tolls?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Marchi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: I -- I believe
that the Senator's remarks are completely
appropriate. And indeed, I have an E-Z Pass,
3767
and many Islanders do. Those who use it
ritually, of course, it's an easier problem to
solve. And it becomes a matter of expense, I
guess, if it's spasmodically used and needed.
But that's obviously one of the best ways of
handling it.
But even so, the -- if the pattern
were reversed and we had that traffic going
the other way, it would just be terrible in
the morning, especially if you were trying to
get on a job or something like that. It's
just the nature of the beast. That's -
that's it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President, on
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I would like to
see at least a study as to whether or not E-Z
Pass, the encouragement of the use of E-Z
Pass, including the possibility of a volume
discount for E-Z Pass, might be something
which could lead us back to having the two-way
3768
toll on the Verrazano Bridge.
I completely understand and can see
Senator Marchi's point of view on this matter
and my colleague on this side of the aisle as
well, Senator Gentile, on why it is that they
feel the way they do about it.
But I would be remiss if I didn't
speak to the terrible problems which it has
caused in lower Manhattan, not least of which
is the enormous increase in air pollution
which has occurred in Manhattan south of 14th
Street. The traffic in the evening is such
that it is choking. We have increasing
incidences of asthma, which are already at a
very high level. This has only made the
problem far worse.
I'm also concerned that there is
some environmental racism going on in this,
because one of the most -- one of the
neighborhoods that is most negatively impacted
is Chinatown, which has a huge number of
children, a huge number of older people living
in it. They are virtually trapped within this
terrible air pollution every afternoon.
Sometimes it starts as early as 12 noon and
3769
doesn't end till near midnight.
And it is just blatantly unfair for
a neighborhood which in some ways may be less
empowered than other parts of the city to be
put at such an enormous health risk and such
an enormous disadvantage.
I'm also -- and earlier today we
did vote on legislation which provides relief
to the trucking industry, which I was
supportive of. But I also believe that we
need to be looking at the -- frankly, the
dishonesty of people in the trucking industry
and how they take advantage of using the
Holland Tunnel to go west. You can see trucks
backed up for miles along Canal Street and
along Varick Street. They do this to
manipulate fees, which we should be getting
for the people of the state of New York and
the city of New York, for these truckers to
use our city streets and avenues. And what
happens is, is that they end up contributing
even less because of the situation which has
been brought up.
And while it's possible that in the
short run that my position won't be the one
3770
that will win, I'm not naive about that. I do
think in the absence of that, though, that we
must not stop looking at other solutions,
which would include incentivizing the use of
E-Z Pass with an eye towards allowing that to
be used in both directions on the bridge. And
also looking at how it is that trucking
concerns take advantage of the situation and
make it so that they are enormous offenders in
the pollution of lower Manhattan and parts of
Brooklyn, as well as cheating New York out of
revenues which we rightfully deserve to get
from them for their use of our hard-worn city
streets and avenues.
So with great respect for Senator
Marchi and my colleague Senator Gentile on
this issue, I must respectfully vote no on it,
but also request we look at other avenues to
mitigate the terrible problems which have
arisen 1986.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: I just want to
point out that -
3771
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Marchi, on the bill.
SENATOR MARCHI: -- I'm not
insensitive to your statement. In fact, I
represented lower Manhattan for a good number
of years, and Chinatown was one of my -- well,
it was right in the heart of my district for a
period of twenty years. So then our
population increased, increased, increased,
and now Senator Gentile comes across the water
to help us out, and, before him, Senator
Connor.
But there was a time when I had a
farming community, you know. So I stretched
from my Staten Island farm all the way up into
Chinatown and beyond, beyond. And in fact -
well, just before, I was the first one that
had the whole area. But we even went into
Rockland County. Can you imagine the size of
the district and the change, demographic
changes that have taken place over the years?
But I'm sensitive to your -- I know
what you're talking about. On the other hand,
count your blessings. Everybody's fighting to
get into Manhattan. It's the capital of the
3772
world. The world -- the whole world is your
empire, and we're fighting to get into it. So
it has its advantages. And I certainly -- I
think I -- I sympathize with the problems you
have raised.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
The bill, Senator Marchi's bill,
brings up an issue that is very near and dear
to my heart, the transportation across the
Verrazano Bridge, both from Brooklyn and from
Staten Island. I have great personal
experience with transportation across the
Verrazano Bridge, having experienced it many,
many times in the week. And I must say I have
experienced the delays on the Staten Island
Expressway even with the one-way toll, and
those delays can be tremendous and very
burdensome.
So certainly the one-way toll has
helped to alleviate some of that backup, and
certainly from the Brooklyn end or the toll
plazas on the Staten Island end of the bridge.
3773
And the studies do show that the pollution is
very negligible. So certainly I think that
this is -- addresses one aspect of the burden
that Brooklynites and Staten Islanders have in
dealing with that bridge.
Unfortunately, unfortunately, the
bill doesn't address the most serious issue of
driving across that bridge, and that's the
burdensome toll on that bridge. And certainly
that's an issue that I've been dealing with
and I think you have too, Senator Marchi.
Especially in light of -- especially in light
of the debates we've heard in the last two
weeks over how burdensome the commuter tax is
on our suburban residents in New York. Most
people do not realize that the revenue
collected on the Verrazano Bridge is the
highest of all the bridge and tunnel bridges
in the city of New York.
And that tells me that it's a cash
cow. And out of that cash cow goes a
tremendous percentage to support the operation
of Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North
Railroad. And that is the burden that we face
every single day when we travel across the
3774
Verrazano Bridge. If we used the money
collected on the Verrazano Bridge on the
Verrazano Bridge, it would be lined and paved
in gold. We need to have some relief for our
residents traveling across that bridge.
As you know, Senator Marchi, many
Brooklynites -- many Staten Islanders are
former Brooklynites, and the two mix very
easily. Many of my Brooklyn residents travel
to the College of Staten Island and to Wagner
College and to many of the colleges on Staten
Island, forced to pay $7 a day to get across
that bridge. Forced to pay, if they work in
Staten Island, $7 a day to get across that
bridge.
There is an answer. There is an
answer. We do not need to make it the cash
cow of the Bridge and Tunnel Authority. We
need to do what I have been suggesting we do,
is to use the E-Z Pass technology, much as we
do for Staten Island residents, and make the
E-Z Pass technology calculated to zip codes
that use this bridge on a daily basis, and
reduce the toll and the burden that the
residents and my constituents in Brooklyn as
3775
well as my constituents in Staten Island have
on a daily basis.
So your idea, Senator Marchi, on
the one-way toll is a good one. It does not
impact in the ways that have been suggested.
In fact, I agree with Senator Stavisky, we
should do a regional plan on this, and I
believe we can work one out. And I hope we
can have some suggestions on that. So I agree
with Senator Stavisky. But we should not deny
the plan that you have suggested here, because
it's the only one on the board. We should
work on the other ones also.
But your suggestion is only a
stopgap measure, Senator, until we get to the
real issue of reducing and then eliminating
the toll using the E-Z Pass on the Verrazano
Bridge. So I do support the legislation.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Marchi, on the bill.
SENATOR MARCHI: A postscript.
Your remarks are very constructive. The
biggest part of this is not the cost itself.
I mean, the bridge has been paid off by now.
3776
But we do subsidize -- the biggest slice goes
to the support of the subway system, too.
Of course, we run into that whether
it's your people or -- you know, over in that
part of the district, the major portion -- or
this, the Staten Island, sooner or later
there's the question of how you meet your
local expenses once you get into the big city.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
there have been a number of good points made
here. So let me weigh in with what I hope
will also be a number of good points.
First of all, at the risk of
sounding like somebody who is of much more
advanced age who you always hear say things
like "I remember when a movie was a nickel and
you could buy a bag of candy for a penny," let
me say to you I remember when the tolls on
these bridges were $1.50. It wasn't very long
3777
ago, and it wasn't very long ago that it was
cheaper in recent times also, even cheaper
than $1.50.
So let me start off by saying that
to charge $3.50 -- that's without the E-Z Pass
discount -- for this interborough traveling is
preposterous. It means that if I want to go
from my district in Queens into Manhattan and
I don't want to take the 59th Street Bridge
because I'm going into lower Manhattan or the
59th Street Bridge is congested, it means that
I have to pay $7 every time I go into the
city. And I'll tell you all here, my
colleagues, I go into the city just about
every day that I'm not up here, for various
reasons. Seven dollars, it's a lot of money.
Want to hear something worse? In
my home borough of Queens there is a toll that
we have imposed on residents of Queens and any
other borough in the city for travel within
our own borough on the Cross Bay Bridge.
You've got to pay $1.50 to go out to the
Rockaways. It's $1.75, I stand corrected by
Senator Waldon, $1.75.
And we were told for years and
3778
years -- because recently, you should know,
for residents it has recently been enacted
that residents get to make that transfer for
free, very much based on the same logic that
Senator Gentile was artfully articulating for
us how it is an additional burden and
impediment for these residents who have as
their livelihood a necessity to travel outside
of their borough or out of their community on
the Rockaways. And we were told for years you
cannot eliminate that toll on the Cross Bay
Bridge because the bond covenants wouldn't
allow it. Well, that just turned out not to
be true.
And so now we have that terrible
burden there remaining for all other residents
of the city and the state, anybody who wants
to get out to the Rockaways, and we have this
additional terrible burden of a $3.50 charge
every time we want to go from borough to
borough. It's really outrageous.
The E-Z Pass technology has allowed
us to do a number of things that we never have
before been able to do. And I've heard the
suggestions made here that E-Z Pass has
3779
eliminated traffic congestion. I would not
say that it has eliminated it. It has worked
in several instances to ease that traffic
congestion.
But the problem is in the city of
New York that many times when you are
traveling towards a toll plaza you're only
traveling there with two or three lanes.
Then, within 500 or so feet of that toll
plaza, you open up into six or seven or eight
lanes, thereby enabling people to go to a
designated E-Z Pass lane. Well, the problem
is once you've filled up that entire toll
plaza, now your three lanes begin to back up
and queue up, and so you have terrible traffic
problems even with the E-Z Pass, and it
becomes a struggle even to get to the E-Z Pass
lanes.
And I'll tell you why I say this
here, because my colleague Senator Stavisky
articulated his opposition to this legislation
based upon the fact that other residents of
the city in other boroughs were excluded from
the beneficial aspects of Senator Marchi's
legislation.
3780
Now, let me say right off I support
Senator Marchi's bill and I'm going to vote in
favor of it, because traffic mitigation
efforts -- traffic congestion mitigation
efforts are paramount in the city as
congestion is getting worse and worse and
worse. And the one-way toll on Staten Island
I believe provides a tremendous relief for
individuals traveling in one direction.
And I'll remind everybody, although
it's logical, this is a logical conclusion, by
doing a one-way toll you don't increase the
amount of congestion or traffic on the
direction that you are still required to pay
the toll because you have to stop there anyway
to pay it. Okay? Now, traffic on Staten
Island always was terrible crossing that
bridge. It's a good idea.
Here's what the problem is. This
legislation has an adverse impact. Senator
Duane spoke of it, Senator Marchi acknowledged
it, and a number of others have addressed it.
The adverse impact is that when this was
enacted, I believe, either it was an
unanticipated impact or it was anticipated and
3781
disregarded that trucks would decide, because
they pay a hefty price to make the crossing,
that they instead would go through Manhattan,
across Canal Street to the Holland Tunnel and
into Jersey. Okay?
And we forfeited a lot of revenue
from that, and we have created a tremendous
traffic problem in Manhattan. And I am
extremely sympathetic to that traffic problem.
However, there is a greater good
here. And the greater good is the elimination
of tremendous traffic congestion as a result
of the two-way toll.
Now, Senator Stavisky points out
that Senator Marchi's bill neglects to benefit
anyone else in the city. I agree completely.
And I have a plan, which I'm going to now tell
you about, to benefit the entire city of New
York in a way that doesn't disadvantage any
particular community. And it is a direct
result, a direct result of the E-Z Pass
technology. So allow me to articulate it for
you. And understand here that it does not
ignore the traffic considerations that are
ignored under the bill that we are going to
3782
vote on today.
Here's the plan, and it's
comprehensive. On the Throgs Neck Bridge
going from the Bronx into Queens, you will
have a one-way toll coming southbound. Okay?
Toll plaza collects the toll in the Bronx. On
the Whitestone Bridge, same situation. You
have a one-way toll at the Whitestone toll
plaza going from the Bronx into Queens.
Now, here's where it gets
complicated: the Triboro Bridge. From the
Triboro Bridge going from the Bronx into
Queens you also have the $7 toll, because if
you didn't, then individuals who would have to
pay the $7 from the Bronx into Queens would
swing over to the Triboro and come in. So you
have to charge the $7 toll coming into Queens
from the Bronx.
But -- and here's the important
point here -- from the Triboro Bridge going
from the Bronx into Manhattan, I don't want to
charge a $7 toll. The reason I don't want to
charge a $7 toll is if you do that, you will
have unbelievable congestion from people going
up the Major Deegan and taking the Willis
3783
Avenue Bridge or the 3rd Avenue Bridge into
Manhattan to avoid the $7.
So here's what I propose. Going
from the Bronx into Manhattan, that toll is
not $7, it's $3.50, which it is right now.
That's the toll that it is right now. So you
will not have the increased congestion on
those streets. And anybody who says, "Well,
Senator Hevesi, if you don't charge $3.50
there, you could have individuals who will
slide across on that $3.50 toll into
Manhattan, take the FDR Drive south to the
59th Street Bridge to get to Queens in order
to avoid the other $3.50 they would have had
to have paid were they to have taken the
Triboro into Queens or the Whitestone or
Throgs Neck into Queens," I say to you I
seriously doubt whether anybody would deal
with the extra 45 minutes to an hour if
there's no traffic, really, to do that.
Now, how else do we do this? On
the Queens Midtown Tunnel, Queens Midtown
Tunnel, you have also a one-way toll. And you
can't do this -- the ideal world is to do this
from Manhattan, put the toll in Manhattan so
3784
you'd have to pay it as you're going out to
Queens. Can't do that for practical reasons,
because you've got traffic up onto 2nd Avenue
and onto 36th Street, 35th, 34th, and 37th and
38th. Really can't do it. So we have to put
it in Queens, okay, where there already is a
tremendous traffic problem in Queens. So if
you're coming from Queens into Manhattan,
you'd have to pay that toll, that $7 toll.
Which creates one additional
problem. Here's the problem with the entire
structure we've set up, and I'm going to tell
you what the solution is, based on E-Z Pass.
Based on the system I just laid out for you,
somebody could, a truck driver or anybody
else, come south from Westchester, Senator
Oppenheimer's district, come south from the
Bronx down into Queens, pay the $7 toll to get
into Queens either on the Throgs Neck, the
Whitestone or the Triboro, swing into Queens,
and then take the Midtown Tunnel into
Manhattan and have to pay another $7 in order
to get into Manhattan. So we'd then be
charging them $14 to get into the city.
However, with E-Z Pass technology,
3785
what you can do is that vehicle travels
through one of the toll plazas crossing from
the Bronx into Queens, and then when it
crosses through again that toll plaza -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me, Senator. Senator. It's an
interesting dissertation, perhaps fodder for a
series of bills and legislation. I don't know
if it's germane to the bill we're talking
about. I know you're speaking on the bill,
but we're talking about Senator Marchi's bill
and not a proposal for -
SENATOR HEVESI: Well, Senator -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: If
you have an amendment that wants to be brought
out or something -- I hate to make a
suggestion like that, but -
SENATOR HEVESI: Well, Senator
Marcellino, Senator Stavisky -- I'm sorry,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Point of
order. The legislation we're talking about,
3786
Senator Marchi's bill, has to do with a
one-way toll in Staten Island, which is a part
of New York City.
Senator Hevesi is talking about the
encumbrances due on the residents of Queens.
He's not talking about their tax problem.
He's not talking about their education
situation. He's talking about their
transportation problems. He's talking about
the Whitestone Bridge, the $7 toll if you go
from Bronx to Queens. All of this, in my
opinion, is not even a question of
germaneness. It's right on point with the
transportation issue raised by Senator Marchi.
I submit to you, Mr. President,
that this is quite germane and quite
appropriate.
SENATOR HEVESI: And, Senator
Marcellino, might I say that I am responding
both to Senator Stavisky and Senator Marchi,
as we have a problem recognized by Senator
Marchi in response to comments by Senator
Stavisky that his legislation does not benefit
other residents of the city. I am calling for
exactly what Senator Marchi's bill is calling
3787
for for the rest of the city. So I believe
it's perfectly germane.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
hear what you're saying, Senator. But the
bill is specific to the residents of Staten
Island. You want to draw an outreach that it
possibly could reach out into other boroughs,
fine. But what we're talking about, we're
changing tolls on the Throgs Necks, the
Whitestone and the Triboro and all the other
roadways here.
That may be your desire, to go on
indefinitely on this particular tack, but the
Chair would just suggest that perhaps we could
stick to the bill at hand. We have enough
bills on the calendar that we could continue
this debate and this stall on forever without
meandering through.
But you have the floor.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, why do you rise, sir?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
once again I have to rise to say that this
commentary that Senator Hevesi is offering is
3788
directly related to whether or not we should
pass this bill. One of the arguments, whether
you agree with the bill or not, might be that
if we're not providing the same service for
other residents of New York City, that it's
very difficult to extend this to those in
Staten Island.
If you look at the transcripts from
the previous debate on these bills, most of
the issues that Senator Hevesi is covering
have been covered in those debates before.
Never were they ever questioned from the point
of view of germaneness.
Now, I don't know that the previous
speakers were as articulate as Senator Hevesi,
but at the same time he is pointing out what
might be the differences in the transportation
problems and needs of different residents
around New York City, since all New York City
residents at some point pay for tolls going
from one part of the borough to the other.
So again, I have to insist that
there is no question of germaneness at all
related to what Senator Hevesi is talking
about.
3789
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
As I was saying, Mr. President.
The problem that we would confront if there
was somebody who was traveling from the Bronx
or Westchester and desired to go into the city
would be that under the plan that I've
outlined here, they would be hit twice with a
toll -- once by crossing either the Throgs
Necks, Whitestone or Triboro, and then by
crossing the Queens Midtown Tunnel, were they
not to decide to take the 59th Street Bridge
also.
But the E-Z Pass technology has
allowed us to overcome this obstacle, which at
one point would have been insurmountable,
simply by having any one of these vehicles pay
the toll as they come from the Bronx into
Queens and then having a mechanism by which
when these vehicles, having just paid one $7
toll, now go through Manhattan, where they
have to pay another $7 toll, where instead of
being charged the $7 by the E-Z Pass they
would not be charged that $7.
3790
And similarly, any cars right now
under this plan which desired to go from
Manhattan and wanted to go up to the Bronx or
Westchester or anywhere else on the Northeast,
they under this plan would not pay a toll
coming outbound from Manhattan into Queens and
they also would not pay a toll going into the
Bronx or Westchester.
However, they do have to drive
through the toll plaza. So if they drove
through the toll plaza, the first time they
wouldn't be charged. The second time they
drive through the toll plaza, we could set up
a computer program whereby within a prescribed
period of time -- maybe it's six hours, maybe
it's 12 hours, or maybe it's a day -- if
you've driven through both of those tolls, you
would be charged the second time, so that
everybody would pay their fair share.
And so I would suggest that as we
consider Senator Marchi's legislation -- which
I'm in favor of because I believe it has an
impact that outweighs the negative impact that
it creates in Manhattan -- that we consider
that there is a negative impact by this bill,
3791
and we consider Senator Stavisky's
right-on-the-money assertion that to do this
is providing a benefit to some of our
residents in the city that we do not provide
to others. And that as a result, what we
really need to do is engage in a comprehensive
discussion.
I'm not sure I'd be ready to put
what I just spoke about in bill form and go
with it. I might want to see a study. There
could be all kinds of tangential impacts that
I haven't yet considered. But certainly this
is worth looking at, particularly as, as time
goes on, we are faced with increasing problems
with traffic in the city of New York and
indeed throughout the state.
And I believe that the
Brooklyn-Queens Expressway ranks among one of
the top three worst-congested highways in the
United States of America, behind perhaps one
or two of the freeways out in California. So
I have another suggestion, based on an
economic model, that we can put forward here.
This is another concept that is
made possible by the E-Z Pass technology, and
3792
the concept is called congestion pricing. And
congestion pricing is simply an incentive
mechanism to encourage behavior by travelers,
by people who are traveling to work or to
their jobs or to their families or what have
you, to travel at times that are off-peak by
providing for them a financial incentive to do
so.
For example, we could suggest that
if somebody travels from -
SENATOR SKELOS: May I just
interrupt for a moment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I know that in
the past week there's been a sense of
frustration by many. And I would just
encourage us, if we could, perhaps -- and I'm
not going to ask the Chair for rulings and all
that, because there has been a sense of
cooperation between the Majority and the
Minority this entire year in terms of
legislation. And perhaps giving a little bit
more leeway than if we strictly interpreted
the rules and Robert's Rules of Order and all
3793
that. It's not something that we really want
to do.
So perhaps if we can stick a little
bit closer to the intent of Senator Marchi's
bill. There are a number of other bills that
can be debated today. If the Minority wishes
to express their sense of frustration on other
bills, that's fine. But if we can just
perhaps be a little bit more germane in our
conversation as to the bill before us, I think
it would be more appropriate.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Skelos.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: I appreciate
Senator Skelos's comments. And I can
appreciate his sense of frustration, but I
think that his comments are little bit out of
place in light of the fact that the comments
that I'm making are directly germane to the
bill that's before us and the fact that,
despite what some may believe, were we not
engaged in the current situation I would be
articulating these positions just as I am
3794
doing right now, because I believe that this
is a compelling public policy matter, that
it's getting worse, and that we need to
address it.
And as we have a piece of
legislation that's before us that addresses
some of the problem, and has its drawbacks, I
think it is absolutely germane that we get
into other areas to attempt to alleviate
traffic congestion.
And I will point out, Senator
Skelos, that that traffic congestion is a
negative factor in the lives of your
constituents as they travel through the city
of New York to get anywhere else in the state.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Hevesi,
you've obviously been thinking about this
issue for quite a while. Have you introduced
any legislation on this, or studies, whatever?
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator
Paterson -
SENATOR SKELOS: No, I've asked
you the question.
SENATOR HEVESI: Oh, I'm sorry.
As I said about five minutes ago,
3795
I'm not sure whether I'm ready to introduce
legislation, because there are so many
potential impacts of such a comprehensive
plan. But I'd like to see a study -
SENATOR SKELOS: I understand
it's June 3rd and we have 13 more days to go.
So perhaps at some point, maybe next session
or whatever, you can show us legislation that
would accomplish what you're looking to do.
But I still think, in the spirit
that has existed between the Majority and the
Minority this entire year, perhaps we can move
on to Senator Marchi's bill. And there's a
number of other bills that should be debated
today.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I agree with Senator Skelos, we have had a
spirit of cooperative exchange here on the
floor of the Senate, mostly due to his
graciousness and that of the Majority Leader,
Senator Bruno, and yourself. And we would
hope that that would continue.
But I'm going to have to raise
3796
again that a member of the Senate has now been
interrupted on three occasions and been forced
to defend what he's talking about when it's
very clear that what he's talking about is
very germane to the actual legislation.
And so when there was some
discussion about the frustrations that might
exist on the floor, I guess the frustration
must be that Senator Hevesi is exercising his
right as a member. He has not violated the
time element. He hasn't violated the two-hour
time limit for debate. He hasn't done
anything other than speak on the bill.
He's talking about issues, as I
pointed out before, that are raised every time
the one-way toll on Staten Island comes up and
are raised by different members at times on
both sides of the aisle.
Now, I don't know what the cause is
for this discussion to in any way be impinging
upon the integrity of this chamber to such a
point that the germaneness issue is even
challenged, since there is no germaneness
issue, or that Senator Hevesi would be
encouraged to move any more quickly than he
3797
has, because Senator Hevesi said that these
are issues he wanted to discuss.
Then Senator Hevesi got asked about
whether or not he offered legislation, which
actually that question is not germane, because
that does involve other legislation.
So I would just like all of us to
recognize that cooperation is something that
goes both ways and that cooperation is based
on what we feel is a free and open exchange
between our two Conferences. And also that
when we make representations, that we follow
them and that we are honest and that when we
offer information or we make arrangements,
that we keep them.
So I'm just getting up,
Mr. President, to suggest that Senator Hevesi
has raised some issues that I think are
actually going to persuade me to vote against
this bill. And I would like to consider it by
having Senator Hevesi address the issue right
now, not as his right whether or not he should
be addressing the issue.
So I would most respectfully ask
all the members in the chamber to please
3798
extend Senator Hevesi the courtesy that you
would certainly want accorded to you if
legislation were as important to you as this
is to him and to myself.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, the Chair might remind you
that the Chair has not ruled anyone out of
order. It has raised certain questions.
We've simply asked that the conversation be
direct and -- more direct to the bill.
I've been present in this chamber
when this legislation has been debated in the
past. We have never, never gone off on this
length of time on this particular piece of
legislation. That does not preclude Senator
Hevesi from speaking at length. We know we
have a two-hour limitation on the bill. We'll
go that route if that's necessary.
We have a lot of bills on the
calendar that could be debated and should be
debated. But Senator Hevesi still has the
floor, and he has not been ruled out of order.
Nor have you, sir.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I'd just like to bring to your attention that
3799
in 1995, in March, we debated this bill. We
used the entire two-hour time limit to debate
on this bill.
And what I'd also like to point out
is that you are correct, there haven't been
any rulings. But certainly I would just like
to bring to your attention that if I were
speaking on a bill and got interrupted three
times, I would feel that that would be more of
a distraction, not really a valid questioning
of -- I don't even know what we're questioning
when we get up and ask Senator Hevesi. He's
talking about the traffic congestion around
the city of New York and the issues of
transportation relative to pollution -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Skelos, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: -- to cost -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me, Senator.
Senator, why do you rise?
SENATOR SKELOS: I just wanted to
point out to Senator Paterson that because he
believes in the freedom of speech on this
floor, I think there is also a rule of this
3800
house that we are permitted during debate to
ask a member to yield. In no way was this
just an interruption or something cavalierly
done.
Just as you wish to express
yourselves at times on bills, I think the
Majority has the right to ask another member
to yield to ask a question or make a comment.
That's all that occurred here.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hevesi, you have the floor.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you,
Mr. President.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
That's the fourth time, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Just to make
sure that the record is -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: But
who's counting.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- clear on
this point, the Acting Majority Leader got up
3801
to ask that the discussion be truncated. And
then, after Senator Hevesi continued in his
conversation, he got up to ask him to yield
for a question.
I don't have any problem with him
getting up and asking him to yield for a
question. I'm glad that Senator Hevesi has
interested him in the issue. And if he has
any questions right now, I would certainly
hope that Senator Hevesi, who is quite
capable, I think, would be happy to answer
them.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hevesi, you have the floor.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you,
Mr. -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
just want to note, debate started at 1:55.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I'd just like to state for the
record that I absolutely have no objections to
Senator Skelos or anyone else questioning me
or any other member on a piece of legislation.
I am, however, a little
3802
disconcerted by the suggestion or insinuation
that unless I intend to introduce a piece of
legislation at some point in the future about
issues which I am currently discussing before
the floor, that I am therefore precluded from
discussing those issues. I wasn't aware and
do not believe that those are the rules of the
Senate.
And, Mr. President, I would like to
say that I'm almost done with my presentation
that is absolutely germane -- and I'll state
it again -- absolutely germane to the
discussion we're having.
And I believe where we left off, we
were discussing congestion pricing. And as
we're debating a piece of legislation which
harms some people in Manhattan, perhaps it's
possible, by the congestion-pricing mechanism
that I'm suggesting, that maybe at some point
we will not have to use this one-way toll and
that maybe that alleviates some of the burden.
That's why I'm discussing congestion pricing,
because it's directly germane to Senator
Marchi's legislation.
So briefly, let me just share with
3803
you what it does. You set up a system whereby
somebody traveling at off-peak hours does not
pay $3 -- that's the discounted price from the
$3.50 -- they pay perhaps $2. And what that
does maybe is make some worker who has to get
in at 9 o'clock for his shift get in a little
bit earlier, and thereby alleviate some of the
congestion.
And conversely, or at the same
time, what you are doing is you are suggesting
to anybody who is traveling during peak hours
that they're now going to have to pay a higher
price. And so that's a disincentive.
And this plan and this program has
worked in other areas of the United States, in
other municipalities. It is an economic
approach to pricing of congestion which will
alleviate some of the burdens that have led to
the legislation that is on the floor before us
right now.
So we need to take a good look at
congestion pricing, because that really is the
way to go in the future. This is a problem
that is only getting worse. And we now
finally have the technology to facilitate it,
3804
as we now finally have the technology to
facilitate this comprehensive approach to
making sure that Senator Stavisky's concerns
are addressed and that other residents of the
city of New York are not disenfranchised.
Having said that, I support Senator
Marchi's legislation because I do believe that
the greater good is served by one-way tolls,
and I intend to vote in favor of it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Hevesi.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: So much has
been said today -- and some of which I wanted
to respond to, but it's been a while since it
was said, so I'm not sure I remember it all.
Let me respond first to what you
have just brought up now. About four years
ago, with Senator Norman Levy, we had studies
done of congestion pricing. And it is
something that probably will find its way into
our transportation system. We were first
going to try it out on a particular toll booth
on the New York State Thruway, and that led to
3805
the Tappan Zee Bridge. And we have enormous
problems with that one bridge.
But it is a wonderful suggestion,
and I applaud you for the work that you have
already done, even though you haven't gone in
depth yet. And I'll be happy to share with
you some of the studies that were done. And
the DOT has it, and the Thruway Authority.
There was a discussion of the
bridge crossing to Staten Island costing $7
being outrageously expensive. I just want it
noted that all of the bridge crossings are at
$3.50. And so when I leave Westchester and
want to go to visit my sister in Long Island,
I have to pay $3.50 on either the Throgs Neck
Bridge or on the Whitestone Bridge. I think
that's a high cost.
And I think many of our residents
in the suburban and the city area are looking
for some relief on the high cost of our
bridges. Because to make a trip, if you're
doing it daily -- and we now have a lot of
corporate headquarters in Westchester, so we
have people coming to Westchester from Nassau,
from Suffolk, from the city, from the Bronx.
3806
And it's really an awfully high cost. If you
do $7.00 times five, you're dishing out 35
bucks just to go to your job.
I can't remember my other points,
because they were from a few -- about an hour
ago. But it's a bill I think that I have
supported in the past -- I know I have
supported your bill in the past. And the
reason I have is -- someone earlier -- I know,
someone earlier said, and it was
counterintuitive, that it was not
environmentally effective to have one-way
tolls. I disagree completely.
All the studies I have seen have
shown that if you are slowing down cars in one
direction to pay one toll, that it eliminates
the slowing down of cars and the stalling -
the reduction in the speed of the motors of
the cars, and therefore much less smog is
produced by having it stopped just in one
direction.
So I think it is a good bill. I
support what my colleagues have been saying,
that this bill really ought to be one that is
done for all bridges entering and leaving New
3807
York City and coming also from the suburbs.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you,
Mr. President. Would the learned Senator from
Richmond County yield to a question or two?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Marchi, would you yield to Senator
Waldon?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
Senator, I'm going to be very
brief. My concern is, could the federal
government come in and change what we do
legislatively here today? Is there any danger
that if we pass this and if it were to be
signed by the Governor, both houses pass it
and it becomes law, that they can superimpose
their will on us and change it a two-way
directional again?
SENATOR MARCHI: No, there's
no -- there's no -- I wouldn't want to preempt
3808
the federal government from doing anything.
But they had a mandate which expired. And
then it was a question of adapting our own
public policy with respect to the bridge. But
they had a mandate in 1986. And for the
life -- in 1991 was the first time I
introduced this bill, and so it carried up
until then. But then it expired, so we're
left to our own devices.
Would they come back? I doubt it
very much, but they could. They could, I
suppose, if we got into some ridiculous
situation where it was reversed or something.
But I really doubt it.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Slow roll
3809
call.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: A
slow roll call has been requested. If I see
at least five Senators standing, we'll do so.
Ring the bells outside. Call the
roll slowly.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me. Are we ringing the bells outside?
The answer is yes, Senator. Thank
you.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was recorded as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(Senator Connor was recorded as
voting in the negative.)
3810
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzales.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann,
excused.
3811
Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
3812
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes.
3813
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado,
excused.
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: No.
3814
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Call
the absentees, please.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
(No response.)
3815
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
3816
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Announce the results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 33. Nays,
9.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
3817
bill is passed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes,
Mr. President. Would you please call Calendar
Number 1133.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1133.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1133, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 4984,
an act authorizing the assessor of the County
of Nassau to accept an application.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Balboni, a number of our colleagues
have asked for an explanation.
SENATOR BALBONI: Oh, boy.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
think they mean a brief explanation, Senator.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
this is a bill relating to the Shelter Rock
Jewish Center, located in Roslyn, New York -
3818
beautiful downtown Roslyn, New York. On
January 4, 1995, the Jewish Center obtained
the premises known as 73 Capri Drive in
Roslyn. The purpose of the acquisition was to
be a parsonage for the rabbi.
Thereafter, an application was made
for a tax exemption, and a clerical error was
made. And instead of listing Lot 33, they
listed Lot 3. The exemption therefore had to
be renewed and finally granted on July 3,
1997, during which time period, the Nassau
County Department of Assessment continued to
list on the rolls the property as being
taxable.
The synagogue was required to pay
the taxes until this error was rectified.
This bill before us would seek to allow the
synagogue to come back and to have its tax
exemption recognized for the time period
between January 4, 1995, and July 3, 1997.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield to a couple
of questions?
3819
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Balboni, do you yield to Senator
Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Why did it
take two full years for the parsonage, or the
home of the rabbi, to be found that there was
a technical error? Why did it take two years?
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Dollinger, I would respectfully request that
you call Arnold Cohen, the trustee attorney
for the synagogue -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is this an
800 number?
SENATOR BALBONI: -- who is
located -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I'm not into this -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, please don't interrupt
Senator Balboni when he's responding.
SENATOR BALBONI: -- who is
3820
located on Shelter Rock -- at the Shelter Rock
Jewish Center. His number is 516-741-4305.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President. Senator Paterson will dial him
up right now and put him on speakerphone.
But on a more serious vein,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This in fact
relates to an entire year that they -- this is
not an instance where they're seeking a
partial year's reimbursement of the tax
exemption. They had the opportunity in May or
June or even, for that matter, in January or
February of 1995 to be exempt for the whole
'95-'96 year. And then, even if they had
applied, they missed a second year as well.
We're absolving two full years of taxes. Is
that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: That is
3821
correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So -- through
you, Mr. President -- this isn't one of those
cases which we've dealt with before that
involves a partial year's reimbursement where
they bought the property and they're seeking
to abate one year. This was on the taxable
property list for a whole year, and they had
plenty of time to apply for the exemption for
the 1996-'97 year. They could have done that
in the spring of '96, a year after they bought
the building.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. So I
just want to make it clear that this is a
mistake that occurs and then it should have
been realized at some point in the first year,
but it's not until they get around to it after
the second year that they seek to have it
abated.
SENATOR BALBONI: Is there a
question here? There's one coming, isn't
there? It's going to get here eventually if I
wait long enough.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
3822
Mr. President.
Isn't that correct, Senator
Balboni?
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger -
SENATOR BALBONI: I didn't hear
that last part.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That is
correct, isn't it, Senator Balboni?
SENATOR BALBONI: That is
correct.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Are
you asking Senator Balboni to yield, Senator?
Hold it, hold it. Are we asking Senator
Balboni to yield?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is that
statement correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: Which
3823
statement?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I should ask
that it be read back. I won't do that.
Through you, Mr. President, if
Senator Balboni will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This tax
exemption involves one part of the tax year
and then a full tax year after that that
they -- the claim is that they erroneously
paid when they shouldn't have paid; is that
correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: That is
correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President. Do you know
whether -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
3824
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do you know
whether they applied for this tax exemption to
the Nassau County assessor?
SENATOR BALBONI: They had to.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And do you
know whether -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do you know
what the opinion was of the assessor with
respect to the tax exemption?
SENATOR BALBONI: The opinion?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes. Well,
he obviously denied the tax exemption.
SENATOR BALBONI: Now, does -
when you speak of an opinion, do you mean a
legal document as issued by the assessor's
office, or do you mean an opinion by the clerk
or the adjuster who looked at the piece of
3825
property -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Gentlemen. Gentlemen. Excuse me, Senator. I
don't mean to be overbearing, but you're
supposed to go through the Chair, back and
forth.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
does the gentleman -- in referring to the word
"opinion," does he refer to a legal document
issued by the assessor's office, or does he
refer to an individual clerk or adjuster who
has taken a look at the application and the
property itself and deemed it to be
sufficient?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I can
repeat that question if you want me to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Please don't.
Senator Dollinger, you have the
floor.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. If Senator Balboni will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
3826
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
a point of order. I believe that I have asked
the gentleman to respond to a question. I
believe the question is still out there.
Could we -- for purposes of further debate,
could he answer the question? What does he
mean by the opinion?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, would you please clarify for the
other Senator?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'd be glad
to do that, Mr. President. I'll clarify the
question.
Is there any written opinion, any
written evaluation from the Nassau County
assessor with respect to the eligibility of
this property for a tax exemption that affects
this bill?
SENATOR BALBONI: Contained
within my file, Mr. President, is a letter
dated July 3, 1998, from the Nassau Department
of Assessment, from a Peter DeMicco, Exempt
Division, which specifically states that the
Shelter Rock Jewish Center is to be used
3827
for -- exclusively for religious purposes,
thus setting up the predicate for giving them
the religious exemption.
Other than that document, I have no
other documents in my possession.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there any
comparable opinion or letter or correspondence
from the Nassau County assessor's office that
says that this institution, the Shelter Rock
Jewish Center, Inc., applied for a tax
abatement -- for an exemption from property
taxes prior to the date of the July 3, 1998,
letter that you reference?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I don't have any document detailing when the
center applied for the specific exemption,
other than the information that I've already
3828
related regarding the initial filing and then
the renewal and the change of the clerical
error. The correction, I should say.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Mr. President. If the sponsor
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: As I
understand the application by the Shelter Rock
Jewish Center, Inc., there was a piece of
property that was accorded a tax break, Parcel
Number 3 instead of 33. And that property was
exempt for a period of time; is that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, that is not
correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, then
maybe I don't understand the sponsor's memo.
SENATOR BALBONI: Perhaps.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: It says here
that "not having been able to obtain property
3829
tax exemption due to a clerical error. The
lot was incorrectly identified as 3 instead of
33."
Which would mean to me -- through
you, Mr. President, if Mr. Balboni would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- that there
was an exemption granted for Parcel Number 3.
And my question is, in taking into account the
refund that would be due in this case, have
you taken into account the fact that there was
a parcel granted an exemption, which means
that the net taxes paid back would actually be
lessened because some property was exempted?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I wonder if the gentleman recalls the episode
of The Odd Couple where Felix goes to the
blackboard and writes down the word "assume"
and then breaks it out into its individual
components?
3830
The gentleman here is assuming that
there was any action taken in regard to Lot 33
in any regard -- or Lot 3. I don't have any
information to that extent. I don't believe
it was. But I'll tell you what. After the
bill is passed, if you want to go down and we
can talk to the assessor's office, we can.
You can also call the trustee itself.
But that assumption in and of
itself raises an issue that is not a part of
this bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm simply
trying to find out if there was a property
that was given a tax exemption. They
obviously didn't pay taxes on that. I'm
simply trying to find out whether this is a
net $12,000 to the Nassau County treasury or
whether this is some lesser amount. Is that a
fair question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Not really.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll accept
that as an answer.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
would the gentleman yield to a question?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Not at this
3831
time, Mr. President, until I'm done
questioning, and then I'll be glad to yield.
SENATOR BALBONI: Aw, you can't
do that.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
gentleman refuses to yield, Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: (Inaudible.)
Then fine. I'm -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I'm
afraid to ask for a clarification.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.President,
actually I think I'm finished with my
questioning. Or, no -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Read the last section.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No, I believe
I have to yield to Senator Balboni.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: No,
you don't have to, Senator.
SENATOR BALBONI: Now he yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll simply
be heard on the bill, then.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
3832
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. President,
these bills I have traditionally voted
against, and I've made this point on the floor
a number of times. I won't repeat it today,
although this is a day, I guess, filled with
repetition sometimes.
And my point is simply that this is
exactly the kind of case that we should not be
adjudicating on the floor of the Senate. We
have tax status days. There are firm rules in
this state, and there are firm rules for a
very good reason. And the reason is because
not a single community that collects property
taxes, not one, could deal with the problem of
having to grant partial exemptions all the
time for buildings that are bought and sold
during the year.
And they're also fast and hard in
the law because they can't deal with the
problem of the guy who says, "Wait a second,
it's the parsonage, it's the home of the
rabbi, it's the adjunct to the temple lot, to
the temple parking lot," and four years later
someone says, "Gee, it should be tax-exempt,
they shouldn't be paying taxes on that," and
3833
then someone says, "Well, I want to go back
and get the taxes back." That would cause
chaos in the operation of municipalities.
And as I've said a number of times
before, if they have to be able to depend on
the tax revenue, we have to have a definitive
eligible tax status date. It's frankly no
different than April 15th. If you don't pay
your taxes by then, it's going to be big
trouble. We have an eligible tax status date
in this state. It applies in Nassau County.
We seem to run into all these problems in
Nassau County. I can't believe it's
indigenous to Nassau County.
I think it may have -- the reason
why these bills hit the floor may have
something to do with the political
configuration of Nassau County. And they seem
to always come to this house in droves,
because -- and rightfully so -- these are
Senators doing their jobs for their
constituents, standing up and fighting for
their tax dollars when it turns out that they
missed the eligible tax status day.
And as a consequence, and I agree
3834
with Senator Balboni on this, it's very
difficult for the Shelter Rock Jewish Center
or any other religious organization to cough
up $12,000 in taxes that, had they processed
the application properly, they would never
have had to pay.
This continues to be a problem. It
continues to be a problem which we're waging
on the floor of the Senate. It's frankly a
waste of time for us to do it. If we're going
to do this seriously -- I've talked about
this, I know, on the floor before with the
Acting President, I've talked about it with
other members from Nassau County. If this is
what we really want to do, let's pass a bill
that gives the Nassau County assessor the
ability to make these adjustments himself so
that we don't bring them here to the floor of
the Senate, so we don't end up 12 days before
we're supposed to get out of here for the end
of the summer, we're not on the floor debating
the merits of whether Lot Number 3 was exempt
and it should have been Lot 33 and why didn't
the rabbi know that -- suddenly he gets a tax
bill one year and he says, "Oh, I think I'll
3835
just pay those taxes," and it never occurs to
him that he's not required to pay those taxes,
and somehow he waits a year and a half before
he does anything. And then he happens to say
hello to his friend, Senator Balboni: "You
know, I've been paying property taxes on this
piece of property, it ought to be exempt."
And, lo and behold, Senator Balboni, who's
been on the floor of this chamber, says, "We
do those all the time on the floor of the
Senate. I'll do it for you, abate the taxes."
Senator Balboni is rightfully hailed as a hero
by the Shelter Rock Jewish Center, Inc.,
because he's suddenly saved them $12,000, done
something for them that either the Nassau
County assessor should have done or, quite
frankly, their lawyer should have done or
someone who was in charge of their property.
It's just -- this continues to be a
problem, and I would strongly suggest that we
come to a reasonable solution. Let's pass a
Nassau County bill. We seem to be able to
pass individual Nassau County bills all the
time here. Let's pass one big Nassau County
bill that will take care of the problem
3836
throughout the county.
I would commend it to everyone's
attention, and I hope that sometime before I
leave this body, whenever it may be, that
we'll do a bill like that, get these problems
out of here, get them back to Nassau County
where they should be resolved on a
case-by-case basis.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Thank
you, Senator.
Read the last section, please.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, I have
two clarifications.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I'm
sorry. Senator Oppenheimer, why do you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
I just wanted to make two clarifications. One
is -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
Well, actually, one is a question, if the
sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
3837
Senator Balboni, will you yield to a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yup.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: The monies
that have been paid by the synagogue over this
two-year period I expect will be repaid to the
synagogue?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. That
was the question.
Now, the other thing is just a
piece of information. And that -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: -- is that
the home of a rabbi next to a temple or
synagogue is not called a parsonage.
Thank you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What's it
called?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: It's called
a home.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Can
we read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
3838
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Announce the results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Morahan -
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr.
President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
would you please call Calendar Item 372.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 372.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
372, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2976, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to concurrent kinship adoption.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
3839
Senator Saland, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Mr. President, there are currently
approximately 18,000 children in foster care
in New York State who are placed with
relatives. Those foster-care children are
predominantly in the five boroughs of the city
of New York, overwhelmingly in the five
boroughs of the city of New York.
What this bill proposes to do is to
create a new status, a concurrent kinship
adoption status. The purpose of that status
would be to permanentize the relationship that
exists between, for example, a child and his
or her grandparent, if that be the case,
without permanently severing the rights of the
natural parent.
The idea here is to provide
permanency, to enable families in effect to
remain whole, to not penalize a natural
parent, to not subject a natural parent to the
type of confrontation with a relative in which
a relative, in order to get some type of
3840
permanency planning for a child that is a
foster child, must allege that the natural
parent -- who may well be their child -- is a
bad and neglectful parent.
This bill would provide stability
to families. There's also an associated tax
savings, the savings being some $2,500, which
would be the costs that would be saved per
child by placing them permanently with what
had previously been a foster kinship
situation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, why do you rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes,
Mr. President. I wonder if the sponsor would
yield for a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yeah.
Senator Saland, this is a very good bill. My
first question is, do you have -- is there an
3841
agreement with the other house on this
legislation?
SENATOR SALAND: We're hoping -
we passed this bill unanimously last year, as
you may recall. In fact, unanimously, and it
went on consent. We're hoping to find
somebody in the Assembly, and currently are
attempting to do that, who might be willing in
light of the fact that it passed last time and
I reasonably expect it will pass as well
today.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
If you would continue -- if the sponsor would
continue to yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I note that
you specifically designate the grandparents
or -- the grandparents who are serving as
foster parents. Is that correct, or am I -
SENATOR SALAND: Well, it talks
in terms of, I believe, of the third degree of
3842
consanguinity. And while I'm embarrassed to
admit this -- I should know, from having done
estate work at one time, where that would take
me. But it goes beyond grandparents.
But we believe anecdotally that one
of the more common examples and prevalent
examples would be a grandparent.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. Sure,
that's certainly true. But, Senator, I note
that there are 18,000 children who are
currently living with relatives. And I'm just
wondering if you have any idea how close those
relatives are.
Is the third degree based on -
your choice of a third-degree relationship
based on the fact that that's where most of
them are, or is there any relationship there?
SENATOR SALAND: We believe that
we would capture -- let me rephrase that. We
believe that this would impact probably the
vast majority, if not -- let me say the
overall majority, virtually the entire
population.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. And
it's not just grandparents, but it goes even
3843
beyond that?
SENATOR SALAND: It goes beyond
grandparents. We could be talking cousins, in
some instances. But as I said, both
anecdotally and based on information that we
have received, we believe one of the most
common examples that occurs is with
grandparents.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you, Senator Saland.
Mr. President, on the bill,
briefly. I just -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I want
to support this legislation. I think it's
something that is very long overdue. It would
help to resolve some of the issues I think
both as it relates to the decision that judges
very often hesitate to make because of the
severance of a parental right.
So this creates an opportunity for
us to have it almost both ways, that there is
a parent, a biological parent, that can
continue to be involved in the child's life
3844
legitimately, but that the ultimate custodial
rights for that child rest with someone who is
more stable and can provide security.
So I wholeheartedly endorse this,
and I certainly hope that we can see this
legislation pass both houses this session.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Read the last section, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, excuse me.
SENATOR PATERSON: I just have a
quick question for Senator Saland.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, will you yield to Senator Paterson?
SENATOR SALAND: Always yield to
Senator Paterson, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
First of all, Senator Saland, I
want to bring to your attention on page 1,
3845
line 20, it talks about the foster child's
parent. I think that should be "parents,"
plural.
And my question, assuming that the
that the shared adoptive rights take place, or
the shared -- I really should say
"guardianship" really take place, at what
point, if the biological parent wants to end
that -- in other words, let's say the
biological parent was ill or maybe had
substance-abuse problems or something, and at
some point later on they're able or feel that
they're able to resume the care for the child.
How would the process end?
SENATOR SALAND: This
effectively -- the status becomes, on the one
hand, as Senator Montgomery alluded to, a
situation in which the adoptive parent would
become the custodial parent. Not unlike a
matrimonial situation, the natural parent
would be the noncustodial parent. The natural
parent would not have the ability to abrogate
the adoption.
SENATOR PATERSON: Excellent.
Now I have an understanding. Thank you.
3846
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Read the last section, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
I would ask that we return to reports of
special committees -- or standing committees
at this time. And I believe there is a Rules
Committee report at the desk, and I ask that
it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator. There is a report of the
Rules Committee at the desk.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 733, by Senator
3847
Stafford, an act to amend Chapter 466 of the
Laws of 1995;
860, by Senator Balboni, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
1074, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law;
2205B, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Tax Law;
3260, by Senator Maltese, an act to
amend the General Business Law;
3588, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the Highway Law;
3665, by Senator Maziarz, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
4303, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Village Law;
4427, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Correction Law;
4471A, by Senator Bonacic, an act
in relation to enacting the Christopher
Gardner Memorial Act;
4631, by Senator Balboni, an act to
amend the Education Law;
4659, by Senator Volker, an act to
authorize the Office of General Services;
3848
4661, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend Chapter 483 of the Laws of 1978;
4728, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Tax Law;
4928, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law;
4952A, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
5016, by Senator Trunzo, an act
authorizing the Department of Transportation;
5074A, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Civil Rights Law;
5139A, by Senator DeFrancisco, an
act in relation to adjusting;
5175, by Senator LaValle, an act
authorizing the Trustees;
5205, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Education Law;
5258A, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law;
5402, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
5434, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
5560, by Senator McGee, an act to
3849
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
5567, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
5573, by Senator DeFrancisco, an
act to approve building aid funds;
5583, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law and the
Executive Law;
5588, by Senator Alesi, an act to
amend the General Business Law;
5598, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules;
5632, by Senator Maziarz, an act to
authorize the Town of Gates;
5637, by Senator Rath, an act to
authorize the City of Tonawanda;
5659, by Senator Maziarz, an act to
amend Chapter 779 of the Laws of 1986;
5671, by Senator Goodman, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law and others;
And 5677, by Senator Saland, an act
to amend the Criminal Procedure Law and the
Family Court Act.
All bills ordered directly for
third reading.
3850
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
I ask that the report be accepted and moved.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
in favor of accepting the report of the Rules
Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Rules Committee report is accepted.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, Senator, I believe we do.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you,
Mr. President.
On behalf of Senator Hannon, I wish
to call up his bill, Senate Print 2937, which
was recalled from the Assembly, which is now
at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
3851
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
206, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 2937, an
act to amend the Public Health Law.
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
bill passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Call
the roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President, I
now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Amendments accepted.
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President,
we wish to amend these different bills:
By Senator Skelos, page 6, Calendar
98, Senate Print 587A;
By Senator Skelos, on page 14,
Calendar Number 376, Senate Print 902A;
Senator Maltese, page 15, Calendar
416, Senate Print 2188;
By Senator LaValle, page 16,
3852
Calendar Number 458, Senate Print 2990B;
By Senator Leibell, on page 33,
Calendar 803, Senate Print 2661;
By Senator Seward, on page 35,
Calendar 822, Senate Print 5525;
By Senator Johnson, page 45, 964 -
that's the Calendar Number -- Senate Print
2649A;
By Senator Fuschillo, on page 21,
Calendar 589, Senate Print 3720;
By Senator Skelos, on page 10,
Calendar Number 280, Senate Print 1023.
And, Mr. President, I ask that
these bills retain their place on the order of
the third reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
amendments accepted, and the bills will retain
their place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yeah.
Mr. President, are there any substitutions at
the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, Senator, we do.
The Secretary will read the
3853
substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 12,
Senator Lack moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 7265A
and substitute it for the identical Third
Reading Calendar, 346.
And on page 35, Senator McGee moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6547A and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar, 824.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
I ask that we return to motions and
resolutions.
I believe there is a privilege
resolution at the desk from Senator Larkin.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Do
you wish to have it read?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I ask that the
title be read and move for its adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Larkin, Legislative Resolution 1674,
3854
commending Sister Peggy Murphy upon the
occasion of her designation as the recipient
of the 1999 Dr. Milton Ash McQuade Community
Service Award, June 10, 1999.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
in favor of the resolution signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
I believe there is a privilege resolution at
the desk from Senator Hevesi. I ask that it
be moved and adopted, unless there's a debate.
It's not there?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: We
do not have that at the desk right now,
Senator.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Do you have one
from Senator Kruger? I believe there is a
privilege resolution up there from Senator
3855
Kruger.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: We
are just receiving, I believe, Senator
Hevesi's resolution. Whichever one you'd like
to do first, Senator Hevesi or -
SENATOR MORAHAN: Senator Hevesi,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Hevesi, Legislative Resolution honoring Edward
J. Cleary, President Emeritus of the New York
State AFL-CIO, upon the occasion of his
designation as recipient of the "Humanitarian
Award" by the Harry Van Arsdale Jr. Memorial
Association.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
in favor of the resolution signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
resolution is carried.
3856
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
I believe you have another privilege
resolution, by Senator Kruger. I ask that the
title be read and that it be moved and
adopted.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Kruger, Legislative Resolution Number 1662,
honoring Dorothy Turano upon her retirement
from Community School Board Number 18.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
in favor of the resolution signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
there being no further business, I move we
adjourn until Monday, June 7th, at 3 o'clock,
3857
3:00 p.m., intervening days being legislative
days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senate will stand adjourned until Monday at
3:00 p.m., intervening days to be legislative
days.
Have a good weekend.
(Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)