Regular Session - December 28, 1999
7522
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
December 28, 1999
2:31 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
7523
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: The invocation
today will be given by the Reverend Peter
Young, pastor of Blessed Sacrament Church in
Bolton Landing, New York.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
Dear God, as we start this last
legislative session of this millennium, we
take the time to thank You for the gifts that
You have shared with all Your New York State
people. We pray that You grant us the wisdom
to carry out our decisions within Your will.
Bless us as we continue to conduct
Senate business on this final session and with
this dignity and sensitivity for the welfare
and the concerns of our New York State
citizens.
May we ask for Your blessing on all
7524
of our Senate leadership for the challenges in
the year 2000 and beyond. We ask You this in
Your name now and forevermore. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, December 27th, the Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Friday,
December 24th, was read and approved. On
motion, Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time ask for an immediate
meeting of the Finance Committee in Room 123
7525
in the Capitol.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator.
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in Room 123 of the Capitol.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time move to adopt the
Resolution Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
adopt the Resolution Calendar. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
adopted and the calendar is adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
may I suggest that the Senate be at ease
pending the return of the Finance Committee.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 2:37 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 3:25 p.m.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
7526
The Senate will come to order,
please.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
And if we could return to reports
of standing committees, I believe there's a
report of the Finance Committee at the desk.
I ask that it be read.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
We will return to reports of
standing committees. The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As a member of the Capital District
Transportation Authority, Arthur F. Young,
Jr., of Delmar.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
7527
on the confirmation of Arthur F. Young, Jr.,
as a member of the Capital District
Transportation Authority. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Arthur F. Young,
Jr., is hereby confirmed as a member of the
Capital District Transportation Authority.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority, Mary
M. Farley, Esquire, of Gouvernour.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
The question is on the confirmation
of Mary M. Farley, Esquire, as a member of the
Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
7528
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
Board of Directors of the Roosevelt Island
Operating Corporation, H. Patrick Stewart, of
New York City, and Susan A. Whitaker, of New
York City.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of H. Patrick Stewart and
Susan A. Whitaker as members of the Board of
Directors of the Roosevelt Island Operating
Corporation. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
7529
the Advisory Board on Public Work, Daniel J.
McGraw, Esquire, of Clifton Park.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Stafford.
The question is on the confirmation
of Daniel J. McGraw, Esquire, as a member of
the Advisory Board on Public Works. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
Empire State Plaza Art Commission, Mary B.
Buchan, of Rochester; Georgiana G. Panton, of
Rensselaer; and Norman S. Rice, of Albany.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Mary B. Buchan,
Georgiana G. Panton, and Norman S. Rice as
7530
members of the Empire State Plaza Art
Commission. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
hereby confirmed. Thank you, Senator.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
Central New York State Park, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Commission, Stewart F.
Hancock, III, of Syracuse, and Fred A. Reuter,
of Cold Brook.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Stewart F. Hancock,
III, and Fred A. Reuter, as members of the
Central New York State Park, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Commission. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
7531
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Genesee State Park, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Commission, Dawn M.
Keppler, of Medina.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Dawn M. Keppler as a
member of the Genesee State Park, Recreation
and Historic Preservation Commission. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
Long Island State Park, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Commission, Anthony J.
7532
Bonomo, Esquire, of Franklin Square, and Paul
J. Tonna, of Huntington.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Anthony J. Bonomo,
Esquire, and Paul J. Tonna, as members of the
Long Island State Park, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Commission. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Niagara Frontier State Park, Recreation
and Historic Preservation Commission, Jean
Read Knox, of Buffalo.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
7533
The question is on the confirmation
of Jean Read Knox as a member of the Niagara
Frontier State Park, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Commission. All in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Fire Fighting and Code Enforcement
Personnel Standards and Education Commission,
James E. Oare, of Johnstown.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of James E. Oare as a
member of the Fire Fighting and Code
Enforcement Personnel Standards and Education
Commission. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
7534
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Interstate Sanitation Commission, Gerard
Kassar, of Brooklyn.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Gerard Kassar as a
member of the Interstate Sanitation
Commission. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Medical Advisory Committee, Michael C.
Alfano, of New York City.
7535
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Michael C. Alfano as a
member of the Medical Advisory Committee. All
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Advisory Council to the Commission on
Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled,
James H. Bopp, of Garrison.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
The question is on the nomination
of James H. Bopp as a member of the Advisory
Council to the Commission on Quality of Care
for the Mentally Disabled. All in favor
7536
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Mental Health Services Council, William L.
Pollard, Ph.D., of Syracuse.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of William L. Pollard,
Ph.D., as a member of the Mental Health
Services Council. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Citizens' Policy and Complaint Review
7537
Council, Nicholas D. LaBella, of Utica.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
The question is on the confirmation
of Nicholas D. LaBella as a member of the
Citizens' Policy and Complaint Review Council.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Council on Human Blood and Transfusion
Services, Gloria M. Rochester, of St. Albans.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Gloria M. Rochester as
a member of the Council on Human Blood and
7538
Transfusion Services. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As Major General,
New York State Army National Guard, Michael R.
VanPatten, of Schenectady.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The question is on the confirmation
of Michael R. VanPatten as Major General of
the New York State Army National Guard. All
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
7539
THE SECRETARY: As Major General,
New York State Organized Militia, John P.
Bahrenburg, of Poughkeepsie.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of John P. Bahrenburg as
Major General of the New York State Organized
Militia. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
New York State Home for Veterans and Their
Dependents at Batavia, Paul E. Klett, of
Webster, and Cathleen Macinnes, of Walworth.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Paul E. Klett and
Cathleen Macinnes as members of the Board of
7540
Visitors of the New York State Home for
Veterans and their Dependents at Batavia. All
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
Buffalo Psychiatric Center, Jeanne Allison, of
Jamestown; Margaret V. Lombardi, of Buffalo;
and Ellen J. Maternowski, of Lakewood.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The question is on the confirmation
of Jeanne Allison, Margaret V. Lombardi, and
Ellen J. Maternowski as members of the Board
of Visitors of the Buffalo Psychiatric Center.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
7541
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Capital District Psychiatric Center,
Frederike Barker, of Albany.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
The question is on the confirmation
of Frederike Barker as a member of the Board
of Visitors of the Capital District
Psychiatric Center. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members,
Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, Hector J.
Battaglia, M.D., of Centerport, and Christine
Spigner, of Jamaica.
7542
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The question is on the confirmation
of Hector J. Battaglia, M.D., and Christine
Spigner as members of the Board of Visitors of
the Creedmoor Psychiatric Center. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Elmira Psychiatric Center, Wendy Dailey,
of Andover.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Wendy Dailey as a
member of the Board of Visitors of the Elmira
Psychiatric Center. All in favor signify by
7543
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Agnes A.
Violenus, of New York City.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Agnes A. Violenus as a
member of the Board of Visitors of the
Manhattan Psychiatric Center. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
7544
the Middletown Psychiatric Center, M. Lori
Schneider-Wendt, of Middletown.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
The question is on the confirmation
of M. Lori Schneider-Wendt as a member of the
Board of Visitors of the Middletown
Psychiatric Center. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center, John C.
Schwartz, of State Hill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of John C. Schwartz as a
7545
member of the Board of Visitors of the
Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Mohawk Valley Psychiatric Center, Anne M.
Jackson, of Boonville.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Anne M. Jackson as a
member of the Board of Visitors of the Mohawk
Valley Psychiatric Center. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
7546
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the New York State Home for Veterans and Their
Dependents at Oxford, Herman G. Harrington, of
Rensselaer.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The question is on the nomination
of Herman G. Harrington as a member of the
Board of Visitors of the New York State Home
for Veterans and their Dependents at Oxford.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
Queens Children's Psychiatric Center, Mary G.
Holowin, of Rego Park, and Ralph M.
Somerfield, of Floral Park.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
7547
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Mary G. Holowin and
Ralph M. Somerfield as members of the Board of
Visitors of the Queens Children's Psychiatric
Center. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
Richard H. Hutchings Psychiatric Center,
Myrlene M. Jones, of Syracuse; Patricia M.
Okoniewski, of Fulton; and Carol F.
Pushchaver, of Liverpool.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Myrlene M. Jones,
Patricia M. Okoniewski, and Carol F.
Pushchaver as members of the Board of Visitors
7548
of the Richard H. Hutchings Psychiatric
Center. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
Rochester Psychiatric Center, Eileen W.
Farlow, of Pittsford; Pamela S. Frame, of
Rochester; and Edward J. Sardisco, of
Rochester.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Eileen W. Farlow,
Pamela S. Frame, and Edward J. Sardisco as
members of the Board of Visitors of the
Rochester Psychiatric Center. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
7549
hereby confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Rockland Psychiatric Center, Walter C.
Blount, Jr., of Orangeburg.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The question is on the confirmation
of Walter C. Blount, Jr., as a member of the
Board of Visitors of the Rockland Psychiatric
Center. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, I understand there's a report of
the Rules Committee at the desk. Can that be
read at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
7550
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 6182, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to amend Chapter
461 of the Laws of 1999;
Senate Print 6187, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to enact the New
York Health Care Reform Act of 2000;
Senate Print 6188, by Senator
Leibell, an act to amend the Administrative
Code of the City of New York;
And Assembly Print 9094, by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, an act to amend
the Legislative Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept the report of the Rules Committee,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the report of the Rules Committee
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
7551
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The report is
accepted.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Could we at
this time call up Calendar 63, Senate Print
Number 6182.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: I'm sorry,
Calendar 1729.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 1629 -
SENATOR MARCELLINO: 1729, Senate
Print Number 6182.
THE PRESIDENT: -- Calendar 1729.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1729, Senator Bruno moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 9091 -
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Lay it
aside, please.
THE SECRETARY: -- and substitute
it for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1729.
7552
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered. The Secretary will read.
And the bill is now laid aside,
Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Let's stand
at ease momentarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate stands
at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 3:46 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 3:47 p.m.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I believe
there's some substitutions to be made at the
desk, if we could do that at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 9093 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill,
6187, Third Reading Calendar 1730.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
7553
is ordered.
THE SECRETARY: And Senator
Leibell moves to discharge, from the Committee
on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 9092 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number, 6188, Third Reading Calendar 1731.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could stand at ease.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate stands
at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 3:48 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:20 p.m.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could come to order, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
7554
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1729, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 9091, an act to amend Chapter 461 of
the Laws of 1999.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1730, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 9093.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1731, substituted earlier today by the
7555
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 9092, an act to amend the
Administrative Code of the City of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 23. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1732, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 9094 -
SENATOR BRUNO: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time take up the controversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator
Bruno. That completes the noncontroversial
calendar.
The Secretary will read.
7556
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1730, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 9093, an act to enact the New York
Health Care Reform Act of 2000.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
This HCRA 2000 bill that we have
before us is one of the most comprehensive
health-care packages and will be a model for
the rest of this nation, something that all of
us in this chamber can be very proud of. Over
a million people who are presently uninsured
will have the ability to be insured through
this program as the years go on.
There is cost containment in this
bill that accrues to the benefit of counties.
That, coupled with tobacco settlement money,
will actually mean about $700-plus million in
savings to the counties, some of it present
law, some of it flowing through the tobacco
settlement.
The cost of this program on an
average basis is about $80 million a year, for
7557
those that are concerned about the local cost.
So there are dollars there for counties to
help pay for the uninsured Medicaid portion of
this legislation.
And we all know that there are
substantial increases in the aid to rural
hospitals, small hospitals, the HCRA pools,
the charity pools, the teaching hospitals.
This is a bill that takes us out over three
years. It provides stability to the
caregivers here in this state and to the
people who receive that care. It is
critically important.
Something like this is very
difficult to do, very difficult to put
together. There is about $31 billion worth of
resources that are being made available to the
people of this state through this legislation.
It's complex. It's complicated. It has some
aspects in it like a cigarette tax, a 55-cent
per package increase. Do any of us in this
chamber like that? I don't think so.
But if you take a look at the
trade-off, that is funding the uninsured in
this state, people at the lowest income
7558
levels. Small businesses are receiving
support where they can't presently afford
insurance for the lowest-paid people that they
employ. So that's the trade-off.
So we have to ask ourselves, is it
worth it? If we are saving lives, if we are
helping people access medical care and you do
it with that tax, then if there's any validity
for anyone to ever support a tax, it's that -
over a million people receiving help through
what we're doing here today.
So I am proud of the role that the
Governor played in negotiating this. He
personally, I know, spent a lot of time and a
lot of energy to deal with this as an entire
package.
Senator Kemp Hannon, our chair of
Health, spent a lot of time. People on this
side of the aisle, and others in this chamber.
And I want to thank you for your efforts,
putting aside a lot of your own opinions -
and I know that there were opinions -- to
bring together a package that does so much
good for so many people.
And we're concerned with what's
7559
going on with localities, and we're going to
address that. As we go forward, we have a
budget that we will be putting together. We
have programs that we contemplate. And we're
going to address that. We'll address it
together. So that if the municipalities need
relief as they go forward, we're going to
address that and do what we can to provide
that relief. And we'll do that together.
So I'm asking for your support for
this. We all know that HCRA that we passed
three years ago sunsets December 31st. So
it's critically important, because there's a
possibility of losing federal aid if HCRA
sunsets even for a day, and none of us want to
have that happen.
So I'm pleased that we're here.
And that's why we're here, to advance this so
that there's no interruption in providing
medical services to the people in this state
that desperately need that service.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
7560
I will be supporting this bill. I
intend to vote against it [sic]. And the
reasons are many of the whereases that Senator
Bruno covered. Senator Bruno covered the
whereas-it's-a-good-bill portions, and I'm
going to cover the "notwithstanding whatever,
I will vote for it."
You know, notwithstanding, Madam
President, the fact that I think the increase
in the cigarette tax is an invitation to
bootleggers and others, such as on Indian
reservations, who sell untaxed cigarettes.
I five years ago urged the Governor
when we had a very difficult budget in 1995 to
enforce the Supreme Court decision and collect
cigarette sales taxes on cigarettes sold on
Indian reservations to non-Native-Americans.
And at the time they were estimating it was
worth $80 million or $90 million. I've heard
those estimates double. And I daresay after
this tax is effective that the sales will zoom
on those tax-free havens which really aren't
legally tax-free, we just don't collect the
taxes.
By the way, the answer I was given
7561
then by Governor Pataki was, well, there was a
danger of violence in collecting it. I
remember scratching my head -- that's back
when we had four leaders and the Governor at
the meeting -- I guess it was five men in a
room and a budget then. Or five men in a room
and no budget. I think it was that year.
And I said to the Governor,
"Violence from the distributors?" I mean, you
do collect this tax upstream in the
distribution thing.
So I have a grave concern that this
cigarette tax increase will be
counterproductive. The last time we did a
50-cent increase, we actually calculated that
we lost a hundred million dollars in revenue
in this state.
I also have a concern about -- and
I'm privileged to include in my district, for
example, Wall Street, lower Manhattan. We
have some great restaurants in my district,
some of the best in the world. In fact, I'm
proud I represent the best steakhouse in
America, consistently found to be so. And I
see the wealthy young entrepreneurs; it's just
7562
great in Silicon Alley, it's just great to see
these 28- and 30-year-old multimillionaires
that have started a high-tech company and gone
public, and when they go out to dinner and
afterwards, they smoke $20 cigars.
It's nice to know they won't be hit
with this tax, because Lord knows, how would
they afford it, Madam President? How would
they ever afford -- how would they ever afford
to pay a tax on those $20 cigars?
Indeed, seriously, that's a luxury.
Unfortunately, the poor working stiff who's
still addicted to his Camels is going to have
to pay this tax. And the new wealthy
entrepreneur who reads Cigar Afficionado
magazine and fancies a $20 cigar every night
will escape any impact. That doesn't make
much sense to me, Madam President.
The other thing, the whole idea of
a cigarette tax is a confused policy when you
rely on the revenue for other purposes. What
do I mean by that? Well, I think it's the
policy of this state to discourage people from
smoking cigarettes because it's so bad. Isn't
it because it's bad for health? I mean, we
7563
know that. We have antismoking measures. In
fact, one of the good things about this bill
is there will be some money in here for
antismoking campaigns. Not enough, but more
than we've had. And that's what the tobacco
settlement's about.
Now, in theory, to me, I could see,
okay, gee, $1.11 tax on a pack of cigarettes
hopefully will discourage people from smoking.
And if you take the revenue from that and put
it back into antismoking efforts, your goal
actually should be a zero sum. Isn't your
goal that someday no one will be smoking
cigarettes in New York State and there will no
revenue from this tax? That's your goal.
This is a tax you're adopting
where, according to the policy of the State of
New York, you want -- ultimately you want an
ever-shrinking revenue, ultimately right down
to zero. And then all of our kids will be
healthy, nonsmoking marathon runners,
hopefully.
Yet we're depending on financing a
large portion of our citizens' health-care
needs through this revenue. And I don't know
7564
what it is then. Is it when we succeed in
getting cigarette consumption down to zero our
health-care system will collapse, everybody
will lose their health insurance? I mean, I
don't understand the policy rationales that go
into this.
Then we have what I find the
inexplicable, and that is -- and someone just
put the county-by-county costs. It said -
enough to say we have a Governor who
campaigned on the theme, over and over and
over again, of being opposed to unfunded
mandates. That campaign was so successful at
winning the public attention and their votes
that, indeed, many of us on this side of the
aisle, many of us Democrats, became ever more
fiscally conservative, ever more concerned
about local government. We were happy to take
your STAR proposal, the Governor's STAR
proposal, enhance it -- which then got
adopted, much to the credit of the Majority
and the Governor, as the final STAR proposal
to save our counties money. That was a good
thing.
I don't quite understand giving
7565
with one hand and taking with the other hand
back from the counties. I don't understand it
as a matter of policy.
Is it all in the pursuit of good?
Yes. Is this a good bill? It's wonderful to
provide insurance for a million more New
Yorkers. It is good to provide all of the
other goods that are in here. It's good to
have the stability of a three-year plan with
no cuts in Medicaid. It's good to have some
of the cost containment in here. The positive
things in this bill are all very, very good.
The policy message underpinning the
funding, whether it be the increase in the
cigarette tax or the unfunded mandate that's
going to cost some counties literally millions
of dollars, I think is just very confused
public policy, a very confused political,
governmental philosophy carrying forward.
It's just plain sloppy in terms of that
funding. It sends a funny message or a
confused message to the public.
Those of us in our party who have
tried to catch up with this new wave of
concern for fiscal responsibility, respect for
7566
local government, keeping property taxes down
and so on, it leaves us very confused. Just
about when you had our attention, just about
when we were coming your way on these things,
we see a reversal. I suspect some of us
aren't quite ready to embrace that reversal so
quickly.
All that said, for myself, I'm
going to vote for the bill. I think the goods
in it are good. I think the price to be paid
for the bad things in it will be paid
elsewhere than where I sit, Madam President.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Thank you, Madam
President.
A couple of things, just in
general. Because I feel that this is a
landmark piece of legislation. It takes
something that was done in 1996, deregulating
the hospital system, and builds on it. It
strengthens our support for hospitals and
clinics and therefore the health system of
this state. It also happens to eliminate a
burdensome fee that has been borne by
7567
purchasers of lab services.
And it not only gives stability for
3½ years, it ensures something we lost for
part of last year; namely, the containment of
Medicaid costs to the state and to localities.
It continues to do a number of other things.
And I believe it generally helps.
I would rather there not have been
anything on the local governments. But I'd
have to point out to my friend Senator Connor
that he's totally mistaken. I quote, I wrote
down that he's catching up with the new wave
of fiscal responsibility. But unfortunately,
he hadn't read the current legislation we have
in law. The STAR program doesn't give a cent
to people who pay county taxes. It all goes
through only the boards of education, and it
goes to people who pay school taxes. I
realize that's not something you realize
outside the City of New York, but it's very
important to those people.
So we are not taking away from one
hand and giving to the other. In fact, we're
really benefiting to a lot of people. And we
are benefiting everybody in this state by
7568
strengthening the health-care system. Whether
you be rich or whether you be poor, you need
that system strengthened.
It's also our understanding that no
matter what the type of provider there is,
that no future provider cuts in any
health-care sector under the Medicaid program
will be made for the next three years.
My final comments -- and there
could be many. I'm sure that I see my
colleague and the ranking member of the Health
Committee chomping at the bit, Senator
Dollinger. But someone was talking about,
well, you know, you won't get as much revenue
if you raise cigarette taxes. Well, I welcome
that. Because if you don't get as much
revenue, it means people will be smoking less.
And in fact, in the memo from the
American Lung Association in support of this
measure and in support of the increase, they
talk about the amount of decrease in cigarette
consumption that would result from this. And
that's a good thing for the system.
And if someone says, well, you've
built a slender reed of support if you're
7569
going to be using the tobacco settlement as
well as the cigarette revenues for health
care -- well, okay, we're going to have to
find something else to support health care.
It's an essential part of what we do as
governing.
And if we decreased the amount of
people smoking. Smoking is -- you can get
people to stop. If you can get people to
stop, you prevent illness, you prevent death.
Doing things that prevent illness and death is
a good thing.
And I think, therefore, this is
just an illustration of a very complex bill,
certainly one that some people feel is not
something they love totally but on balance
is -- has more to support than not. And it
should be supported by everybody in this room.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will Senator Hannon yield
just to a couple of quick questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
7570
yield?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Let me
preface my comments by saying these are just
three very specific areas that I want to make
sure I clarify, and then I'll address the bill
generally.
First of all, my understanding is
that the Family Health Plus program goes into
effect January 1st of next year; is that
correct?
SENATOR HANNON: No, in
February -- I'm sorry, January 1st of the year
2001.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes.
SENATOR HANNON: So there's at
least 12 months in between now and then when
it takes effect.
And -- and it goes into effect
contingent upon the federal government
granting waivers so that its provisions can
take effect.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Again,
7571
through you, Madam President.
Is there any money in this bill to
advertise the availability of that program? I
know you and I have discussed this issue, and
many members have, that one of the problems we
ran into with Child Health Plus is that there
wasn't enough public information to get people
to apply for the program so that the full
benefits of the program would be utilized.
Is there money in this program
allocated to the kind of now public awareness
campaign that's going on with respect to Child
Health Plus? I know the Health Commissioner
and the Governor are appearing in ads.
There've been other efforts and outreach to
get the message out. Is there money in this
program for advertising to achieve that end?
SENATOR HANNON: I don't know if
it's specifically earmarked, but I'm confident
there is money available for not only Family
Health Plus but the three aspects of the
program that are devoted to private insurance.
So that -- and they would have to be looked at
as also part of what's going to be available.
And I believe that in the monies available to
7572
the Governor that they would be able to
publicize it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. The
second question, again, through you, Madam
President, if Senator Hannon will continue to
media.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hannon,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Under the
prior version of HCRA, we had a requirement
that hospitals produce a report card or that
the Department of Health, in conjunction with
hospitals, produce a report card for New York
State's hospitals. It is my understanding
that that is not included in this version of
the bill. I'd just like to ask why.
And, secondly, the report on
hospital report cards was due, I believe, the
end of this year. Is it anticipated that
we'll actually get that version of the report?
So it's a multiple question, Madam
President, and I apologize for its compound
7573
nature.
SENATOR HANNON: Let me start
with the latter one first, because I can
remember it best.
The members of the commission,
which is the Task Force on Quality Outcomes,
have been working in regard -- on a hospital
report card and have chosen seven or eight
procedures that they feel would be comparable
for which there can be risk adjustment. And
they're trying to -- I just spoke with the
incoming president of the Medical Society,
who's on that commission, and he was somewhat
confident that they were moving forward with
that. And that's consonant with everything
else I know about it. So I'm looking forward
to seeing that soon.
I am not -- one of the things I was
dismayed about at the -- towards the end is
that the funding for that committee of about
$6 million was not continued forward.
Notwithstanding that, I believe the
use of report cards, greater information for
consumers, greater information about
physicians, incentives to have our
7574
institutions do better medical procedures -
we just saw this Institute of Medicine make
some reports using some old New York State
information about the large number of failures
we have -- there is a need to address quality.
We often talk about access,
affordability. The third leg of the triangle
is quality. And we need to do that. And we
need to do it both in terms of practice by
physicians and hospitals and institutions as
well as taking that quality and taking
information and making it accessible to
institutions who buy health care, such as
corporations, making it accessible to
individuals, maybe taking the same type of
information and presenting it in different
ways -- print, Internet, TV, radio, hotlines,
et cetera.
And it should be a major endeavor.
It's not here, but it doesn't mean it's over.
We have a budget, we have a legislative
session. I intend to fully address that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll ask my
final question and then comment on the
chairman of the Health Committee's response,
7575
which I appreciate.
My understanding is there's one
other provision that was contained in the
current version of HCRA. And as I understand
it -- through you, Madam President -- it's a
requirement that HMOs that are seeking to
raise their insurance rates by more than
10 percent a year are required to both give
notice and seek the approval of the Department
of Insurance, and that that provision is not
continued in this version of the bill as well.
Is that correct?
SENATOR HANNON: No. But if I
just left it at no, it would be a misleading
answer.
It's not in the bill, but it never
was in the bill. It was part of this body's
and the Assembly's initiative on individual
market access. It was a requirement that if
you had a rate increase of greater than
10 percent, you must have a hearing.
It was never part of the original
HCRA. It was not part of NYPHRM. It was
something else we did with regard to
health-care insurance. I think, as I best can
7576
understand, it was briefly mentioned in some
of the meetings, but -- or no, not in the
meetings on HCRA, in terms of the course of
the legislative session. And we were
expecting it to be addressed in some
initiatives on insurance by the Executive, but
it is expiring. But it was not part of HCRA.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
the candor and the spirit of the response of
the chairman of the Health Committee.
I guess I look at this as one of
those boxes of chocolates that Forrest Gump
always talked about. You reach in, you're
never quite sure which piece of it you're
going to get, but when you look at the overall
box and you figure it's got some different
wrappings, some different color to it, you
decide you want to keep the box of chocolates
even though you may know that there a couple
of pieces that you're going to bite into that
you're not going to like.
And I guess from my point of view,
the HCRA bill that's been compiled -- again,
through the diligent work of certainly the
chairman of the Health Committee and the
7577
persistence of the Senate President -- I think
comes out worthy of a yes vote.
There are certainly parts of it
that I think I would find -- I find
distasteful, parts of it that taste a little
sour in my mind. Whether it's, as Senator
Connor described it, the unfunded mandate to
the counties -- and I know that Senator Bruno
tells us that in the long run it won't be an
unfunded mandate, or it's going to be offset
by some other resources.
The only thing about that, Senator
Bruno, that causes me concern is that this is
a piece of candy we're offering to the
counties and they're telling us vociferously
that they don't want it, that they don't like
the taste. So we can try to put a different
taste into it and we can try to put sugar or
we can put other confectionery on top of it,
but the bottom line is they don't want it.
And that suggests to me that when
they count up their pocketbook at the end of
the year, that piece of candy is not going to
be something that they're going to be able to
digest or that they want.
7578
I also think, however, that this
bill has a number of good aspects to it. I
actually agree with the chairman of the Health
Committee that an increase in cigarette taxes
in the long run, despite what fiscal
implication it may have to us, in the sense of
whether Senator Connor is correct -- in the
long run, perhaps we expire, the revenues
completely disappear when nobody's smoking.
When that happens, I think our hospitals will
be ecstatic, our health insurers will be
ecstatic, the taxpayer will be ecstatic,
because we won't be paying for all those
smoking-related illnesses. That would be, in
my opinion, the best thing that could ever
happen in this state.
I'll conclude with one other fact.
There were a number of amendments we did the
last time we were here when we did the HCRA
extension. It's good to see that this bill
incorporates most if not all of them. And
it's not so much that they were ideas that
came from this side of the aisle, it's that
they were good ideas. And I think that those
good ideas are incorporated in this bill,
7579
whether it's the Family Health Plus piece that
I talked about, the EPIC increase that Senator
Gentile talked about, additional funds for
small businesses, additional contributions to
allow small businesses that Senator Breslin
talked about. All of those things -- the
rural hospital piece -- those pieces are all a
part of this. And I think that's the way good
government ought to work: ideas get proposed,
they get discussed, and eventually they're
included in the final compromise.
I will close with only one other
thing, Madam President. I hope that the
passage of this bill tonight changes only one
debate that we have every single year in this
chamber. And I know Senator Saland has
carried the bill, Senator Rath has carried the
bill. I think there are a number of members
who have carried the bill. You remember that
bill: the omnibus unfunded mandate bill. We
debate it every year. Every year it's put
forward by the Majority and everybody says no
more unfunded mandates, we'll never do it
again, stop us if we ever even think about
unfunded mandates.
7580
As much sugar as we try to coat
this with, let's recognize that's what we're
doing. We're telling the counties that
they've got to do something that they don't
otherwise want to do. I think there's a
rationale for it, I think there's an
understanding for it. It does parallel the
Medicaid system. It's something we've done
for a long time.
But if the Majority -- if I could
only ask for one thing in this whole new year,
even for the millennium, please, now that
we're doing this, let's not have the unfunded
mandate debate anymore. Let's call it what it
is. Let's pick up that piece of candy out of
the box, let's take a bite out of it and all
agree it's an unfunded mandate but we're doing
to do it anyway.
And maybe next year when the chance
comes for someone to pick that out of the box,
put that old piece of candy out before the
Senate so we can have a debate to fill the
time in March or April, let's put it back in
the box, close the box up and say, gee,
remember when we did the HCRA thing, we
7581
wrapped that box and put that old, stale piece
of candy away forever.
That's all I would ask. I wish
everyone a Happy New Year. I'm going to vote
in favor of this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome,
Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: On the bill,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: As Senator
Dollinger so ably stated, although I'll stay
away from the chocolate analogies, this bill
has so many wonderful things in it for New
Yorkers.
We live in a state where 1 in 5 are
uninsured. In New York City, more than 1 in 4
are uninsured with medical insurance. But now
we have a bill that will increase Child Health
Plus, Family Health Plus, help our rural
hospitals, do the kinds of things and take the
7582
kind of steps that Democrats on this side have
been arguing for for many years.
And I commend Senator Bruno,
Senator Hannon for bringing this bill to the
floor. But as others have said, and as I've
spoken to so many county executives throughout
this state, and even the one in Albany County,
it's an unfunded mandate. And that unfunded
mandate at a time when our counties are
looking for economic development and at a time
where we've cut the sales tax and at a time
when we're telling them in order to get
businesses in their community we have to cut
what's left, and that's the property tax.
This bill doesn't do it. This bill
doesn't do it. And at a time when those
counties are suffering on the Island and down
closer to New York and upstate, we're
suffering for revenues to make sure our
counties can survive. Yet we have an unfunded
mandate when there's more than enough in our
government surplus here to fund that
$400 million that's been placed in there.
Despite this, for all the other
good reasons, for all the other elements that
7583
are contained in this bill, I will vote for
it. But I hope all of us work in this coming
year to eliminate that portion of a wonderful,
wonderful bill and it will be known ultimately
as HCRA without an unfunded mandate.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
There's been a lot of discussion of
counties here. And I think, other than
Senator Wright, that I'm probably the only
member of this body who has actually run a
county government. And so some of the
arguments that my friends and my former
colleagues in county government have made
resonate with me. In fact, they can probably
go back and find some old speeches I made.
And some of you in this chamber may remember
some of the old speeches I made about
Medicaid. And so I've had to weigh a great
deal of things as we approach this issue here
today.
But in this body, recognizing that
this is a large and diverse state, we deal
7584
with that which we are able to get done. And
today what I think we are able to get done is
we are to prevent the expiration of a law
which could jeopardize the availability of
millions upon millions of dollars for our
health-care system. We preserve for several
more years Medicaid cost containment set to
expire at the end of this present fiscal year.
And at a time when counties are
struggling, in partnership with the state, to
pursue welfare reform, we address an issue
that is a big one in terms of getting people
to move from welfare to work. Many people are
reluctant to move from welfare to work, not
because they're lazy, but because to do so
jeopardizes the availability of health care
for themselves and their families. Or if they
go to work in a low-paying job without
benefits, they put themselves in the position,
if there's a catastrophic illness that they
face without health-care insurance, of
literally having to spend themselves back into
severe poverty.
And then there is the feature here
of the assistance for rural hospitals.
7585
And so I find there are a number of
things in this bill that are compelling and
persuasive. But I must say this -- and here I
revert back to my former life. We in this
chamber have to come to grips with the fact
that the rate of increase of the county share
of Medicaid has been increasing around the
state to two and three and, in some counties,
four times the rate of inflation. And
counties pay for those through the real
property tax.
Now, we recognized when we passed
the STAR legislation that the property tax is
the worst and most burdensome and the least
fair of all forms of taxation. We recognized
that and we dealt with it. And now I think we
need to keep an eye on this increasing local
share in Medicaid.
And that is something that as our
leader, Senator Bruno, suggested, that we do
need to look at as we get into next year and
into the budget cycle. Senator Rath and I
have already discussed a number of possible
options and will be preparing legislation, in
cooperation with the Majority Leader, to try
7586
to address just that.
This is legislation which provides
a human necessity to scores upon scores of our
constituents. But as we do that, we need to
be mindful that we will have accomplished very
little if in providing health insurance to the
working poor we place a property tax burden
back upon them and we place the primary burden
of paying for this legislation on those people
it was primarily meant to help.
I'm going to vote for this
legislation, understanding that it has good
and that it has bad, but understanding also
that I think this body has additional work to
do as we move forward.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Meier.
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President.
I also am pleased to see that in
this legislation many of the items that we
brought to the floor two weeks ago, in terms
of amendments, are now part of this HCRA 2000
7587
bill. Particularly in two instances, one the
lab surcharge on blood, urine, and other lab
tests being eliminated, which has been most
bothersome to constituents in my district.
And I've heard that often enough, and
rightfully so, and I'm glad to see that go.
Certainly Family Health Plus, the tobacco
prevention programs.
But also something that's very near
and dear to my heart, the new funding for -
additional funding for the EPIC program. And
although HCRA 2000 does not specifically
increase the eligibility levels for EPIC, I am
confident, with the bipartisan support and the
support of Senator Bruno, that in the year
2000 we will make those eligibilities law.
And this is the first step in that direction.
So I'm very excited and very pleased by that.
However, I must say that any tax
increase is an anathema to me, even if it's an
increase on sin taxes, like we have here with
the cigarette tax. However -- and I believe
the cigarette tax, as Senator Connor has
pointed out, is an unfair burden to a certain
segment of the middle class, when
7588
particularly -- particularly -- we have not
placed that same burden on tobacco sold in the
form of cigars.
But yet I understand that we have
come down to the wire, we are here at this
late date with the expiration of HCRA facing
us several days from now. And so we are
constrained to weigh the benefits versus the
disadvantages. And in that, the advantages of
this bill far outweigh that one disadvantage
that I see.
Hopefully the advocates for the
increase in the cigarette tax are correct in
that it will help the health of New Yorkers
down the road by discouraging smoking. I hope
that's true. I hope that works out. I have a
concern about raising that tax.
Nevertheless, I will vote in the
affirmative because of all the good measures
that are in this bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you,
Madam President.
I would like to know if Senator
7589
Bruno or Senator Hannon would yield to a
question regarding the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BRUNO: It depends on how
hard the question is.
SENATOR ONORATO: I don't think
it's hard.
THE PRESIDENT: That sounds like
a yes.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Bruno,
I'm a little concerned -- I intend voting for
the bill. But I'm very perplexed about the
aspect as to why we are not taxing the cigars
and also we're not taxing loose tobacco or
smokeless tobacco now.
Because it reminds me, back in
World War Two when Lucky Strikes and Camels
went to war and we couldn't get cigarettes
around, we started rolling our own. Now, if
everybody starts rolling their own, we're
going to be losing the revenue that we're
hopeful will pay for a lot of the benefits
that are coming from this.
Do we intend revisiting this bill
7590
again to include cigars, smokeless tobacco,
and tobacco for pipes that you can roll into
cigarettes, which are all cancer-causing
products?
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
it's my understanding that if all of those
things were included it might produce $18
million, $20 million in revenue, which is
substantial. But to collect it, to enforce
it, and to do all the kinds of things that
would be necessary to implement it would take
a lot of that revenue.
And so when this was constructed -
because frankly there were people advocating
to put it in -- that was the answer. And
those advocating against made the case
strongly enough so it was left out by way of
compromise. But that's the answer as to why
it's not in.
Can we revisit that? Certainly.
There are, you know, a number of things that I
think will end up getting revisited as we move
into this coming session and the session
after.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath.
7591
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Madam
President.
Much has been said, and I will not
repeat so much of what has been said about the
good points and the troublesome points. But
Senator Dollinger raised a point that I think
he and I have spoken about over the years.
And Senator Meier spoke as a representative
of -- as a county executive representing a
county government.
And of course I came from county
government, and I think most of us who came
from county government know that we labored
long and hard to attempt to reduce unfunded
mandates, to scale them back, to not have them
happen to us. We looked for bipartisan
efforts at welfare and Medicaid reform. We
struggled mightily with that for years. Sent
resolutions to the State Legislature, don't
know what happened to them.
But I guess we did finally manage
to get the attention of some people who have
certainly, along with the federal government,
managed to get welfare to some extent tamed.
The next phase we are at now, at
7592
the next phase. And it's very troublesome to
county governments when they see us make
suggestions like this. Do they not want to
help the people who are ill and need the help,
the coverage? Of course not. They're good
guys, they're good men and good women. But we
have a very delicate balance, and I don't
think we've addressed that.
And as chairman of the Local
Government Committee, I would say that if
anyone has been remiss, maybe I have been
remiss. Maybe I should have taken on that
tiger the first thing I came into this
legislature six years ago. But I intend to do
it now. I intend to take a look at the
balance between who levies the taxes and
collects them, who provides the services and
who takes credit for the tax cuts.
Because I think therein lies the
rub. Who wants to be the good guy and who
wants to make someone else pay for it while
they're taking credit for being the good guy?
Well, the local governments want to do it, the
state governments want to do it, and I would
even suggest the federal government has been
7593
known at times to dip into that pot.
And so I think we've got to look at
what I consider to be a very important
balance. Because we can't take with one hand
and give away with the other, and we can't
have property taxes so high that businesses
move out. Because then, as Senator Meier
said, people are getting off of welfare but if
the businesses aren't there, where are the
jobs going to be there for them?
It's not a simple process. We've
got a bill here that's going to do a lot of
good things. I will support the bill. But I
will not put, as Senator Dollinger said, that
piece of stale candy back in the box. I
should have been looking at it much more
faithfully and with a lot more determination
earlier.
I intend to join with Senator Meier
and hope that there will be other colleagues
who will want to take a look at what I
consider the partnership between the local
governments and the state government.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
7594
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: So far the
debate seems to be unanimous. Everybody is
voting yes, and everybody doesn't like parts
of the bill.
The difficulty on my part with
respect to this bill is the concept of taxing
a specific industry because we feel that
people should not do a certain thing -- making
policy by taxation. There's just something
basically philosophically wrong with that.
People don't smoke because they love to smoke.
Most of them are addicted to it. And to force
an additional tax in order to change policy,
to change people's minds, I'm not so sure
that's the best way to do things.
For example, we have warnings all
over cigarettes. You could put tumors on
cigarettes and these people would still smoke,
because they're addicted to it. So adding a
tax isn't going to stop them from smoking, in
my judgment, and it's not going to arrive at
the policy that we're really trying to arrive
at.
As far as the revenues that we're
7595
going to generate, we spent years trying to
get rid of the so-called Cuomo tax on real
property, transactions over a million dollars.
Because once it went in, those transactions
almost stopped, and the revenues went down
incredibly low.
With the additional tax, there are
other alternatives -- they'd either go to
Indian nations, buy bootleg cigarettes. One
letter I got showed that every truck that
comes into New York State from Virginia could
make a $65,000 profit because of the savings
in taxes. And don't think that people aren't
going to do that.
So those who are trying to save by
this policy are really not going to be saved
at all. The only losers will be our own
convenience stores, our own stores that have
to pay taxes, unlike some of the other
sources, the bootlegging and also the Indian
nations. So this really bothers me an awful
lot.
Also, we're relying on funds from a
tobacco settlement. We're also relying on
funds from this increase in taxes. I will
7596
guarantee you that neither of those sources of
revenue will be the amount that we're relying
on. There's only a certain point in time that
tobacco companies are going to be able to
continue paying huge settlements without going
bankrupt. Not that that might not be a good
idea from a social standpoint. But the fact
of the matter is the revenues aren't going to
be there that we're relying on, so we're going
to be back to the drawing board again, trying
to fill various holes.
The counties, we've all talked
about the counties, an unfunded mandate.
That's also an important point. But, like
everybody else, you can't just look at one of
these pieces in a vacuum, because they all are
interchangeable. And what's more important,
the policy of having people insured and having
people get health care that aren't getting
health care right now by maintaining hospitals
that are now caring for the poor? I mean,
you've got to strike a balance in each one of
these situations.
And I guess I have to strike the
balance in favor of the bill, and despite all
7597
of these provisions that really bother me for
the various reasons that we've talked about.
The counties get a benefit that has
been mentioned. But I think it's more
significant than has been emphasized. We've
got the cost-containment provisions now for
three years. Last year we had one quarter
when we didn't have cost containment, and they
lost millions and millions of dollars. They
at least have something they can rely on over
the next three years with this bill.
Senator Gentile spoke about the
8.18 percent tax, which is also a big issue in
my district.
But the bottom line is if we're
going to provide health care for people that
can't afford it, if we're going to provide
affordable insurance for people that can't
afford it right now, we've got to do
something, and we're at the 11th hour.
Unfortunately, we're at the 11th hour.
So in balance, as everyone else,
there's parts of the bill that I don't like
one bit. But the benefits from this bill
outweigh the bad aspects of it, and I'm going
7598
to vote in favor of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
A few years ago we had a budget
bill that they called the "Big Ugly." This is
kind of the "Big Ugly." It's a compromise.
It's got all kinds of things that people have
mentioned that are obnoxious in it. The
tobacco tax, I don't think it's going to fund
it. The Canadian experience with raising the
cigarette tax was a disaster; they had to
repeal it. So many things here -- what it's
doing for counties.
But let me just say, this is
something we have to do. We have to step up
and do it. We'll lose hundreds of millions in
federal aid if this isn't done. It's a
compromise. We have to get it done before the
end of the year. Nobody likes voting for
this, but it's something that has to be done.
It has a lot of good in it. It really
addresses a lot. This house and Senator Bruno
has helped a lot of upstate hospitals with
this legislation. There's a lot of good
7599
there. Certainly the Health Care Plus is
very, very significant.
How it's funded, these are things
that we may have to be revisiting. I'm
confident, as Senator Rath and as Senator
Meier said, that this house and this
Legislature is not going to skew the counties.
We're not going to let that happen. That will
have to be addressed, I think, in the near
future. But reluctantly -- but most
importantly, I applaud my colleagues for
standing up and voting for something that has
to be done.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 138.
This act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1732, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
7600
Assembly Print Number 9094, an act to amend
the Legislative Law, in relation to enacting
the Lobbying Act.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
the legislation before us deals with extending
the Lobbying Commission for eight years.
We passed a bill in this house a
couple of weeks ago, and that bill we thought
was more comprehensive than the bill that's
before us -- banning gifts, banning meals,
banning entertainment, with exceptions.
This bill bans all of those things
over $75. This bill also contains increased
penalties, which is a good thing -- a $50,000
fine for anyone that is willful in filing any
false documents, and actually a Class E felony
for anyone that does that twice within five
years. It has an auditing procedure that does
not exist in the present law, which we think
is very, very meaningful in helping this be
realistic.
So, Madam President, the only way
7601
that we can presently extend the Lobbying
Commission, which sunsets December 31st, is by
passing this legislation. With that in mind,
and with the aspects in this bill that are
pluses in terms of the controls that are
perceived as necessary to deal with lobbying
in this state, I am urging my colleagues to
support this.
And I at the same time, Madam
President, reiterate on behalf of our
conference here that we passed a ban on all
meals, all gifts, all entertainment, and we
are going to voluntarily abide by that ban.
So we will have the best of a bill that
extends the Lobbying Commission for eight
years, does all of the things that are good
that are in this piece of legislation, and at
the same time dealing with an issue that has
to do with public perception as relates to
state officials.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Madam President,
the same thing.
(Laughter.)
7602
SENATOR CONNOR: I'll be voting
for the bill for the reasons Senator Bruno put
forth. The simple fact that it's the only
bill that can become law by the end of the
year and keep the Lobbying Commission going.
And as a Lobbying Commission bill,
it's not bad. It has a lot of good features
to tighten up that system.
With respect to the actions this
house took two weeks ago, I will not extend
today, because it is a special session -- at
that time I had noticed a rules change to be
voted on for today. I haven't brought that
forth and won't, because there are a lot of
members missing and obviously it's a special
election. I know a number of members here are
excused, in both houses, that were out of the
country and couldn't get back in time. And I
know some of the ones on this side of the
aisle want to be present for that discussion
and vote.
So I will be, when we return in
January, filing a notice to bring on a rules
change for early in January to embrace
effectively what both conferences have done
7603
voluntarily. And in the meantime, certainly
the Senate Democrats will continue as well as
to observe the voluntary ban on meals, with
the exceptions as set forth in the legislation
that this house passed previously.
So that said, I urge all my
colleagues to vote for this bill before us.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I echo Senator Connor's remarks. I
also want to say that I feel that the
bipartisan bill that was adopted in this
chamber a couple of weeks ago is far superior
to the bill that will be adopted this evening.
Will the sponsor of the bill yield
for a question or two? Thank you kindly.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno, do
you yield?
SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR BRUNO: This, by the way,
is an Assembly Bill. We don't have a sponsor
7604
in this house.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I understand.
I understand.
SENATOR BRUNO: So it's before
us; I will attempt to answer your questions.
And if I can't, we'll call the Speaker.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. And if
he can't?
Just for the process of
elucidation, the original S6184, which has
your name on it, Senator, provides that
nothing in the chapter precludes a locality
from enacting a more stringent set of lobbying
regulations. The A9094 bill deletes this
provision.
Now, aren't we in essence
interfering with local government if the local
government wants to enact provisions in
relation to lobbying that is stronger than
this bill?
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you,
Senator.
They still -- we are not stepping
on the toes of localities. Localities are in
7605
this, they have all of the same powers that
they presently have. And the aspects of this
bill do not become effective for
municipalities over 50,000 till a year from
now. And in the interim, the bill that we
have before us creates a study commission to
study the ramifications on the localities of
this legislation, because it doesn't become
effective for a year.
So if there are any shortcomings,
if there are any problems that we are not
presently aware of, we'll be able to deal with
them within that year.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill,
Madam Chair.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman,
go ahead on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I think that,
as I said before, this bill that we're voting
on late this afternoon, early evening, is
inferior to the bill that we voted on a couple
of weeks ago, which would have been superior
if the Democratic amendments had been adopted.
But we'll go into that, as Senator Connor
said, in the next session.
7606
I feel very strongly that this bill
does not prohibit, to the extent that it
should, the offering of gifts to public
officials. It makes a minor change in that,
and the major change that we sought is absent.
I also believe strongly, following
that line, that if there is no strong gift ban
in any lobbying bill, then it is not really a
strong bill. And it puts me in a very
difficult position, because I would perhaps be
voting against this bill. Because I look upon
this bill not only as a bill to protect us
from what occurred recently with Philip
Morris -- and there will be other Philip
Morrises in the future.
But I also look upon a bill that
relegates lobbying not as a temporary measure
but as a permanent measure. And I made this
point two weeks ago. This temporary
commission on lobbying should be made a
permanent commission on lobbying. And what is
this nonsense of having a sunset provision to
a bill against lobbying? Does this mean that
in five, six, seven, eight years from now
we'll revisit the bill and we'll say it's
7607
permissible to have these lobbyists do what
they are doing now?
And primarily, even though this is
not part of the lobbying bill, I feel very,
very strongly that a strong lobbying bill is a
first step in the direction of campaign
finance reform.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno, do
you wish to be recognized?
SENATOR LACHMAN: And this is not
a first step in that direction.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: It sounded as if
you were asking a question on why we can't
permanentize, and I was just going to answer
that question.
Constitutionally, we cannot make
that commission permanent. It's a
constitutional prohibition. If there wasn't a
constitutional prohibition, we would have made
it permanent in our bill, the Speaker would
have made it permanent in his bill. That's
why we have eight years, and no other reason.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
Senator Bruno, do you continue to
7608
yield?
SENATOR BRUNO: I do, Madam
President.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I just want to
say, Senator Bruno, I'm only an absent-minded
professor, I'm not a legal scholar. But I
have been told by other legal scholars that
there are different interpretations of that
provision. And perhaps if we revisit it in
the next session we can find a loophole in
this area, as we have found loopholes in other
areas, to make it a permanent commission.
At the same time, let me conclude
by saying that I look upon lobbying reform as
a first step towards campaign finance reform.
This is not a first step towards campaign
finance reform. In doing what we're doing
today, we're taking one step backward and a
step and a half forward.
I have no alternative, since this
will go into oblivion, any type of lobbying
bill, at December 31st, but to vote for it.
But I do hope we can revisit several of these
provisions and strengthen it in a bipartisan
fashion in this New York State Senate in the
7609
future.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Lachman. Also for yielding.
Senator Morahan, do you wish to be
heard on the bill?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do, on
the bill.
Madam President, I too want to
express some dissatisfaction with the bill
that's in front of us. And I had hoped that
the bill that we had passed in our last
meeting would have been the one that would
have been sustained through the process of
negotiation between the Speaker and with the
Governor.
It seems to me that the $25 limit
was a good limit to put on gifts and dinners
and that sort of thing. I really don't like
to see it go to $75. I don't like taking the
state agencies out of it. I think perhaps
that would even be more important, to keep
them in.
It's unfortunate that we don't have
the bill that we wanted. But as Senator
7610
Lachman has said, we don't have much choice.
This is the only game in town. This is the
only bill that we'll be able to vote on. It's
hard not to vote for some lobbying bill.
Frankly, I'm not disappointed that
the commission will time out. It will always
give us another opportunity to make a lobbying
law stronger. If it became permanent, we
probably would never see it again. So
notwithstanding the eight years or who will be
here at the time, it will come up again.
I just think we should have had a
stronger law. I like the Senate bill. I will
live by the Senate bill. And I wish that we
could have sustained the battle.
Unfortunately, we didn't, and we have this
bill in front of us. And I'll support it, but
not with my whole heart.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President.
What a curious situation this is.
Just a few weeks ago we had a shining moment
in this chamber when we passed a sweeping and
very thoughtful lobby reform measure. And it
7611
certainly appeared that it would be the bar
that the other house would try to climb in
addressing the issue of lobby reform.
Instead, the Assembly let down the
taxpayers of this state and did a tremendous
disservice to the many advocates of good
government, some of whom are in the chamber
today and have worked tirelessly on this
issue.
What we have in front of us is a
mere watered-down version that really gives
very faint attention to the basic concept of
appearance of impropriety. It's a very simple
issue that we have to face day in and day out
as we do our business: Is there anything that
we are doing that would create even the
appearance of impropriety? If there is, the
activity should be changed.
If it appears that somebody could
ever question our motives when we vote on a
piece of legislation, we should revisit the
circumstances that led to that point in time.
And that obviously includes, most basically
includes, the practice of having meals paid
for by lobbyists. If the public worries that
7612
we might be making a decision because we've
had a friendly dinner with somebody who picked
up the tab, then we should simply not engage
in that activity.
Because in this chamber, and I'm
sure in the other chamber, it is the desire to
serve the taxpayers of this state to the
highest possible level that motivates us to
run for office. We should not be besmirched
by any taint, nor should any future
legislators be besmirched by any taint.
Let's get this behind us. It's
time for the Assembly to understand that we
passed an appropriate measure, and they should
not try to kid somebody that doing any less is
going to still be okay. I'm embarrassed that
this is all we have before us today. I will
vote for it reluctantly. And I note with some
amusement so many of my friends on the other
side of the aisle in the other house have
voted against this same measure because they
were utterly disgusted that this was all they
had, and they wanted the Senate Bill and they
said so.
I call upon the Speaker of the
7613
Assembly to engage in the kind of good-faith
negotiations that he should have when Senator
Bruno first talked with him about this
measure. It was a negotiated bill that we had
in this house. It should have been the same
bill or an even better bill in the other
house. Instead we have a lesser bill today in
order to keep the Lobbying Commission alive.
I will vote aye, but I certainly
hope that we will be back sometime soon with a
meaningful piece of lobby reform.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I agree with Senator Hoffmann,
except -- with everything except the result.
And that is I don't think this bill is worthy
of a yes vote until it has a gift ban included
in it. And I think what we ought to do is
stand up for the principle that we all stood
up for two weeks ago. Senator Bruno went to
the table to get it and didn't get it.
What I think what we ought to do -
and I know it hasn't been done before -- is
7614
simply tell the Assembly they got the wrong
view on this bill, that the right thing to do
is to ban gifts. And frankly, it's consistent
with a message that I've heard in this house
the whole time I've been here, and that is
that we should have personal responsibility.
And it seems to me that if you take
that general principle and apply it to the
integrity of government in the eyes of our
voters, they realize that the process of
influencing government is dependent upon two
things. It's dependent on the conduct of
those who try to influence us -- which is what
this bill does. This bill deals only with the
giver. It doesn't deal with the recipient.
And it seems to me if we want to
restore integrity, what we have to do is what
Senator Hoffmann said, put restrictions on the
givers but accept some restrictions on the
recipients, ourselves, in order to say to the
people that the notion that we meet with and
talk to people who are influencing us,
attempting to influence us on behalf of their
interests, that we can stand up and say we
don't take their gifts.
7615
Frankly, at least in my neck of the
woods, when a stranger gives you a gift, you
should be very, very suspicious of their
motive. And frankly, when someone who wants
to influence you gives you a gift, you should
even be more suspicious of their motive.
And it's unreasonable for us to say
that we have no personal responsibility in
restoring the public's -- "restoring" maybe is
the wrong word -- in maintaining the public's
confidence in us. It seems to me that's what
it's all about. We should take the personal
responsibility and put restrictions on us, the
recipients, the same way we now put those
restrictions on the giver alone.
I would strongly suggest that this
bill only provides half of the equation for
maintaining the public's confidence in us and
the public's confidence in the integrity of
government. I will not vote for this bill
without a ban on gifts to members of the
Legislature. I think Senator Bruno was right
two weeks ago, this house was right two weeks
ago, and to vote for this bill now is wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
7616
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2000.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
is there anything left at the desk that should
be attended to?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there is not,
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Then there being
no further business to come before the Senate,
I would move that we stand adjourned, subject
to the call of the Majority Leader, and take
this opportunity to wish all of you a Happy
New Year and a happy new millennium, and we'll
see you in the year 2000. Be safe.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
7617
Senate stands adjourned until the call of the
Majority Leader, intervening days being
legislative days.
And as president of the Senate, I
wish everyone a Happy New Year and millennium.
(Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)