Regular Session - January 30, 2001

                                                              283







                          THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD









                             ALBANY, NEW YORK

                             January 30, 2001

                                11:08 a.m.





                              REGULAR SESSION







                 SENATOR JOHN R. KUHL, JR., Acting President

                 STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary



















                                                          284



                           P R O C E E D I N G S

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senate will come to order.  I ask the members

                 to find their chairs, staff to find their

                 places.

                            I ask everybody in the chamber to

                 rise and join me in saying the Pledge of

                 Allegiance to the Flag.

                            (Whereupon, the assemblage recited

                 the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    In the

                 absence of clergy, may we bow our heads in a

                 moment of silence.

                            (Whereupon, the assemblage

                 respected a moment of silence.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Reading

                 of the Journal.

                            THE SECRETARY:    In Senate,

                 Monday, January 29, the Senate met pursuant to

                 adjournment.  The Journal of Friday,

                 January 26, was read and approved.  On motion,

                 Senate adjourned.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Hearing

                 no objections, the Journal stands approved as

                 read.





                                                          285



                            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, that brings us to

                 the calendar.  Senator Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President, I

                 believe I have a privileged resolution at the

                 desk.  I would ask that it be read in its

                 entirety and move for its immediate adoption.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will read the privileged resolution

                 by Senator Bruno in its entirety.

                            THE SECRETARY:    By Senator Bruno,

                 Legislative Resolution Number 314, honoring

                 Clarence D. "Rapp" Rappleyea upon the occasion

                 of his retirement after more than 28 years of

                 distinguished service to the State of New

                 York.

                            "WHEREAS, It is incumbent upon the

                 people of the State of New York to recognize





                                                          286



                 and acknowledge those who have made

                 significant contributions to the quality of

                 life within our communities; and

                            "WHEREAS, From time to time this

                 Assembled Body takes note of certain

                 extraordinary individuals it wishes to

                 recognize for their valued contributions to

                 the success and progress of society and for

                 their endeavors; and

                            "WHEREAS, Clarence D. 'Rapp'

                 Rappleyea, a 22-year lawmaker, was first

                 elected to the New York State Assembly in

                 1972; he was chosen to lead the Assembly

                 Republicans on January 3, 1983, and had served

                 continuously in that position until 1995; and

                            "WHEREAS, Throughout his Assembly

                 service, Clarence Rappleyea was a strong

                 advocate of fiscal reform, including reduction

                 of State borrowing, lower taxes, and restraint

                 of State spending; he had long advocated

                 reforms such as consensus revenue forecasting

                 and adoption of recommendations to eliminate

                 waste in government; and

                            "WHEREAS, Clarence Rappleyea served

                 on several Assembly Standing Committees





                                                          287



                 including:  Agriculture, as Ranking Republican

                 Member, Transportation, Insurance, Real

                 Property Taxation, and Cities; he also served

                 on the Subcommittee on Railroads.

                            "In 1977, Clarence Rappleyea was

                 elected Secretary of the Assembly Republican

                 Conference; he later served as Chairman of the

                 Assembly Republican Conference from

                 January 1979 until his election as Minority

                 Leader in 1983; and

                            "WHEREAS, In 1995, Clarence D.

                 'Rapp' Rappleyea was appointed Chairman and

                 Chief Executive Officer of the New York State

                 Power Authority, the nation's largest

                 state-owned electric utility and supplier of

                 one-quarter of New York State's electricity;

                 and

                            "WHEREAS, A lifelong New York State

                 resident with a long record of public service,

                 he is a leading advocate of consumer choice in

                 electricity supply and of a continuing role

                 for public power systems in the emerging

                 competitive electricity industry; he worked

                 successfully to strengthen the Power

                 Authority's efforts to help create and save





                                                          288



                 jobs for New Yorkers; the landmark 'Power for

                 Jobs' program has helped to protect more than

                 260,000 jobs since it began in 1997; and

                            "WHEREAS, In addition to his Power

                 Authority duties, Mr. Rappleyea served as

                 Chairman of the New York State Economic

                 Development Power Allocation Board; he served

                 as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the

                 New York Power Pool; and

                            "WHEREAS, He is a member of the

                 Board of the New York State Energy Research

                 and Development Authority and the Interagency

                 Council on Clean Fueled Vehicles, and he

                 served as Vice-Chairman of the Electric

                 Vehicle Association of the Americas; he also

                 chaired the EVAA's Public Policy Committee;

                 and

                            "WHEREAS, Born and raised in

                 Norwich, in Chenango County, he attended

                 Wagner College on Staten Island and graduated

                 from the State University of New York at

                 Albany.  He was a high school teacher and

                 coach in the South New Berlin Central Schools

                 before entering Cornell University, where he

                 earned his law degree; and





                                                          289



                            "WHEREAS, After graduating from law

                 school, Clarence D. 'Rapp' Rappleyea worked as

                 a trial attorney in Norwich; he has served as

                 Norwich City Attorney and as counsel to the

                 Norwich School District, the Board of

                 Cooperative Educational Services of Chenango,

                 Delaware, Madison and Otsego Counties, and the

                 Norwich Urban Renewal Agency, Planning

                 Commission and Water Board; and

                            "WHEREAS, 'Rapp' raced Formula Ford

                 cars on the Automobile Competition Committee

                 for the United States circuit; he was the 1970

                 Rookie of the Year for New York's Southern

                 Tier; and

                            "WHEREAS, Clarence D. 'Rapp'

                 Rappleyea is a former member of the boards of

                 trustees of Wagner College and Hartwick

                 College; he received the 1995 John F. Deitrich

                 Award from the Associated Medical Schools of

                 New York for his contributions to the

                 advancement of higher education in New York

                 State; and

                            "WHEREAS, Long active in community

                 affairs, he has served as a director of the

                 New York State Tuberculosis and Emphysema and





                                                          290



                 Respiratory Association, the Chenango County

                 Association for Retarded Children, the county

                 unit of the American Cancer Association and

                 the Norwich YMCA; he is a former president of

                 the Chenango County Bar Association and served

                 as chairman of Leadership Chenango; and

                            "WHEREAS, He and his wife, Nancy,

                 reside in Norwich; they have three daughters

                 and six grandchildren; and

                            "WHEREAS, During his distinguished

                 career in New York State government, Clarence

                 Rappleyea served with loyalty, honor, and

                 distinction; now, therefore, be it

                            "RESOLVED, That this Legislative

                 Body pause in its deliberations to honor

                 Clarence D. 'Rapp' Rappleyea upon the occasion

                 of his retirement after 28 years of

                 distinguished service to the State of New

                 York; and be it further

                            "RESOLVED, That a copy of this

                 Resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted

                 to Clarence D. 'Rapp' Rappleyea."

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the resolution.  All those in

                 favor signify by saying aye.





                                                          291



                            (Response of "Aye.")

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Opposed,

                 nay.

                            (No response.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 resolution is adopted.

                            Senator Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President,

                 can we open this resolution up to all the

                 members that would like to join in that.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Are there

                 members in the chamber that would like to be

                 on this resolution?  I see a lot of nods yes.

                            Senator Bruno, can we follow

                 standard tradition of putting all the members

                 on unless they signify to the desk that they

                 don't wish to be on?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    All the

                 members will be added to the resolution as

                 cosponsors unless they do not wish to be on

                 it.  And if you do not wish to be on the

                 resolution, please notify the Journal clerk.

                            Senator Bruno.





                                                          292



                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President, I

                 believe there's another privileged resolution,

                 by Senator Goodman.  I would ask that the

                 title be read and move for its immediate

                 adoption.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will read the title to the

                 privileged resolution by Senator Goodman.

                            THE SECRETARY:    By Senator

                 Goodman, Legislative Resolution Number 315,

                 honoring Archbishop Edward Michael Egan upon

                 the occasion of being elevated to the exalted

                 position of Cardinal.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the resolution.  All those in

                 favor signify by saying aye.

                            (Response of "Aye.")

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Opposed,

                 nay.

                            (No response.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 resolution is adopted.

                            Senator Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President,

                 can we open this, as the previous resolution,





                                                          293



                 unless someone does not want to be on it.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Same

                 procedure.  Anybody who does not wish to be on

                 the formerly adopted resolution by Senator

                 Goodman, please notify the desk.  Otherwise,

                 all members will be added to the resolution as

                 cosponsors.

                            Senator Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    And, Mr.

                 President, can we at this time adopt the

                 Resolution Calendar.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the Resolution Calendar.  All

                 those in favor of adopting the Resolution

                 Calendar signify by saying aye.

                            (Response of "Aye.")

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Opposed,

                 nay.

                            (No response.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Resolution Calendar is adopted.

                            Senator Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President,

                 can we take up the noncontroversial reading of

                 the calendar.





                                                          294



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will read the noncontroversial

                 reading of the calendar.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Calendar Number

                 15, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 208, an

                 act to amend the Penal Law and the Criminal

                 Procedure Law, in relation to term of

                 imprisonment.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Lay the bill

                 aside.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Lay the

                 bill aside.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Calendar Number

                 26, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 437,

                 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to

                 the payment of reparation.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Lay it aside.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Lay the

                 bill aside.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Calendar Number

                 41, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 781,

                 an act to repeal Title 17 of Article 23 of the

                 Environmental Conservation Law.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Lay the bill

                 aside, Mr. President.





                                                          295



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Lay the

                 bill aside.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Calendar Number

                 44, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 859, an

                 act -

                            SENATOR BALBONI:    Lay the bill

                 aside for the day, please.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Lay the

                 bill aside for the day at the request of the

                 sponsor.

                            Senator Bruno, that completes the

                 noncontroversial reading of the calendar.

                 Senator Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President, on

                 the controversial calendar, can we ask for

                 Calendar Number 26, by Senator DeFrancisco.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will read, on the controversial

                 calendar, Calendar Number 26.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Explanation,

                 please, Mr. President.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Calendar Number

                 26, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 437,

                 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to

                 the payment of reparation or restitution.





                                                          296



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, an explanation of Calendar Number

                 26 has been requested by the Acting Minority

                 Leader, Senator Dollinger.

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    This bill

                 passed 61 to nothing last year.  And it

                 basically expands the definition of "victim"

                 to include individuals that -- a person or

                 entity which provides assistance for the

                 prevention or mitigation of damage to person

                 or property caused by an offense.

                            And the concept is to allow the

                 judge to call for restitution by a person

                 convicted of a crime to more victims.  It's

                 another tool for the judges to make victims

                 whole by payment by people convicted of

                 crimes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, will the sponsor yield to a

                 question?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, do you yield to a question?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.





                                                          297



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Would one of

                 the consequences of this bill, Senator, be

                 that there would be insurance coverage

                 available, there would be an ability to get to

                 insurance coverage in certain instances if the

                 defendant had such -- any type of insurance

                 coverage?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    I don't

                 know of any insurance that would insure a

                 person committing a crime to pay the victim's

                 expenses resulting from that crime.  So I

                 can't imagine that there would be any

                 insurance available or anyone would have such

                 insurance.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator,

                 are you asking the Senator to yield to another

                 question?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    If he will,

                 yes, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, do you yield to another question?





                                                          298



                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    What about

                 the situations in which there -- for example,

                 the one that occurs to me right off the bat is

                 criminally negligent homicide, where we create

                 a certain standard of conduct that it isn't

                 intentional, but there's a certain type of

                 either reckless or negligent conduct which

                 would create a criminal liability but

                 nonetheless perhaps also trigger coverage

                 under the Insurance Laws.

                            Would that be involved in any way?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    No, I don't

                 think this is -- the intent of this bill is

                 not to have civil litigation over in a

                 criminal sentencing procedure.

                            The -- this is dealing with

                 instances where individuals, in committing a

                 crime, an intentional crime where the victim

                 may be -- have personal property that was

                 damaged or stolen or clothing that was ripped

                 or various items that are recoverable because

                 of an intentional criminal act.  I don't





                                                          299



                 believe it applies to negligence situations,

                 because in those situations there are the

                 civil courts.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, are you -- excuse me just for the

                 interruption.

                            Senator Bruno, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President, my

                 colleagues, forgive the interruption.  Could

                 we announce an immediate meeting of the

                 Finance Committee in Room 332.  Thank you.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    There

                 will be an immediate meeting of the Senate

                 Finance Committee, an immediate meeting of the

                 Senate Finance Committee in the Majority

                 Conference Room, Room 332.

                            Senator Dollinger, do you wish

                 Senator DeFrancisco to continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator,

                 do you yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.





                                                          300



                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Again, for my

                 edification, Senator, the bill says that this

                 will provide -- a person or entity which

                 provides assistance for prevention or

                 mitigation, they will be considered a victim

                 for purposes of payouts from the Crime

                 Victims' Assistance Board?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    For

                 example, that provides assistance, it may be a

                 police agency, it may be an ambulance company,

                 it may be something that provides assistance.

                            And in the event that the

                 individual who is providing the assistance

                 incurs costs or expenses, then, under the

                 circumstances, there could be this order of

                 restitution.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Again,

                 through you, Mr. President, if Senator

                 DeFrancisco will continue to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator,

                 do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Would this





                                                          301



                 apply in a situation -- for example, in

                 Rochester we have an organization called

                 Alternatives for Battered Women that provides

                 shelter and security for women who are victims

                 of domestic crimes.  Would this allow them to

                 be included, I mean that organization directly

                 to be included in the order of restitution,

                 considering they take on the cost of

                 sheltering and caring for a family that's

                 displaced?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    It's

                 certainly within the purview -- it's in the

                 language of the bill.

                            But the question is normally when

                 you have a criminal offense, it's very

                 unlikely that the defendant is going to have

                 that kind of money to pay those expenses.  So

                 it's a right, it could happen, but

                 realistically it's probably not a realistic

                 expectation that that kind of money would be

                 available from a criminal defendant who may be

                 serving time.

                            However, I think the more realistic

                 types of offenses that would be involved would

                 be where injuries occur and there's





                                                          302



                 out-of-pocket expenses from the people

                 providing the services to that injured person.

                 That would be a much lesser expense, but

                 technically that could apply.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Okay.  Just

                 one final question, through you, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Does this

                 create a right of action on behalf of the

                 person or party that's provided the mitigation

                 or assistance against the Crime Board?  How

                 will that work?  Will they file a separate

                 application in conjunction with the victim

                 who's actually sustained the personal injury?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Well, I

                 think the purpose of this bill, it's not -- it

                 allows a court to order restitution.  And so

                 it's not a private right of action, it's a

                 part of a sentencing procedure.

                            And no question, there would be, I





                                                          303



                 believe, a potential of a private right of

                 action by these groups anyway.  If they could

                 show that there was some loss and there was a

                 civil loss, there would be a civil remedy.

                            But this is -- it's not intended to

                 have a new private right of action.  It gives

                 the sentencing judge, when ordering

                 restitution, the ability to include not only

                 the victim's costs but also the costs of those

                 providing services to the victim.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Okay.  Thank

                 you, Mr. President, just on the bill.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, on the bill.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    I appreciate

                 Senator DeFrancisco's thoughtful explanation

                 of it, and I think this bill does lots of good

                 things, as evidenced by the unanimous vote

                 that this house has passed it previously.

                            I think the critical thing that at

                 least occurs to me is that this broadens the

                 scope of the restitution remedy to include

                 people that wouldn't otherwise necessarily be

                 before the courts.  And my hope is if this

                 bill passes, becomes law, gets through the





                                                          304



                 other house, that there will be a campaign

                 underway to make beneficiaries of this

                 particular provision agencies like the

                 Alternatives for Battered Women, like

                 Sojourner House in Rochester, New York, that

                 provides a halfway house for victims of

                 domestic violence, for violence by partners,

                 and that what will happen is that those

                 agencies will more aggressively seek

                 restitution ordered by the perpetrators of

                 those crimes.

                            Too often the victims of these

                 crimes who need restitution are women, and so

                 often they have to seek refuge in halfway

                 houses and in shelters.  And it seems to me

                 that Senator DeFrancisco's bill opens the door

                 for those shelters to get direct reparations

                 for the time, the money that the consequences

                 of their crime cause.

                            And I would strongly support this

                 bill, Mr. President.  I again thank Senator

                 DeFrancisco and urge its adoption by the

                 house.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane, why do you rise?





                                                          305



                            SENATOR DUANE:    If the sponsor

                 would yield, please.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, do you yield to Senator Duane?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you very

                 much.

                            I notice that in the sponsor's

                 memorandum in support that he states that

                 "out-of-pocket losses sustained by any

                 department which took action to prevent,

                 mitigate, or remedy damages other than a

                 police department."  I'm wondering where in

                 the legislation I could find that.  I don't

                 see it in the bill.

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    You know,

                 your voice trailed off.  Other than what?  I'm

                 sorry.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    "Police

                 department," it says in your memorandum of

                 support.  And I'm wondering where in the

                 legislation I could see that.

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Well, I

                 don't see it.  I don't see it.  There seems to

                 be an inconsistency in the memo and the bill.





                                                          306



                            But on the other hand, it would

                 seem to me it would be logical for police

                 departments to be included as well.  But it is

                 not in the bill.  It's not in the bill.  It

                 must be a mistake in the memo.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, if the sponsor would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Then that means

                 that the police -- a police department could

                 get compensation?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Well, I

                 think so, unless there's something in the body

                 of the bill that already excludes police

                 officers.  The balance of the bill isn't shown

                 in the amendment.  I don't have the actual

                 bill itself that this is amending.

                            Yes, excuse me, I was -- it was

                 just confirmed that there was a mistake in the

                 memorandum and that the memorandum was





                                                          307



                 supposed to be changed and it just fell

                 through the cracks.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Are you

                 asking the Senator to continue to yield,

                 Senator Duane?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I'm wondering,

                 then, what it is that we pay police officers

                 for, if not to actually protect us and be

                 there for us in situations exactly like this

                 one.

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Well, what

                 it -- the intent here is -- and this has

                 happened in my county on many occasions -

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Mr. President, I





                                                          308



                 cannot hear the sponsor.  There's a lot of

                 background noise, ambient noise here.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    If we can

                 get Senator Dollinger to sit down, then maybe

                 we can have the chamber be a little quieter.

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    In our

                 jurisdiction, it's happened many times where,

                 in the course of trying to stop an assault or

                 in the course of trying to apprehend someone

                 who's charged with a crime, where a uniform

                 may be damaged in some way or a vehicle in a

                 high-speed chase may be damaged.

                            And the concept would be it's not

                 that the police officer him or herself

                 receives the money, it's that the department

                 is reimbursed so the public taxpayers are not

                 paying for damage in these types of

                 situations.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, if the sponsor would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The





                                                          309



                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Isn't this what

                 we pay our taxes for, to deal with exactly

                 these kinds of situations?  Isn't that where

                 our tax dollars are supposed to go?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Absolutely.

                 However, if you can recoup -- if the person

                 convicted is convicted and has the wherewithal

                 to reimburse the public for the damages that

                 that person caused, it would seem prudent for

                 government to try to recoup some of those

                 expenses rather than they be at the cost of

                 the taxpayer.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, if the sponsor would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane, excuse me for just a moment.  We do

                 have a number of conversations that are, I

                 think, distracting from your questioning with

                 Senator DeFrancisco.

                            If we could have the members please

                 take their chairs.  If you need to have a

                 conversation other than with the Majority

                 Leader, please take it out of the chamber.





                                                          310



                 Thank you.

                            Senator Duane, are you asking

                 Senator DeFrancisco to continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I am.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator,

                 do you yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you.

                            Is there an Assembly sponsor for

                 the bill?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    No.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    And through you,

                 Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to

                 yield?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Would the cost of

                 going to get counseling through the Crime

                 Victims' Board also be included in this?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    No, this is





                                                          311



                 not an alternative to bringing a civil

                 lawsuit.  It simply is in those situations, in

                 the apprehension or in the assistance of a

                 victim -- in the course of a police agency or

                 an ambulance service or some other agency

                 assisting, that is what the bill is for, so

                 judges can order it.

                            I don't think the judges are

                 intending -- the bill doesn't intend judges to

                 have hearings about damages to the extent that

                 you're talking about.  But if they're readily

                 available, expenses that need to be paid for

                 by somebody, the taxpayer or the defendant,

                 it's -- those are the type of situations that

                 this bill deals with.

                            It happens right now.  Oftentimes a

                 judge will order restitution in certain cases

                 as a part of probation.  It happens now.  But

                 this just broadens it so there's more

                 individuals, not just the exact victim that

                 restitution could be ordered for.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, if the sponsor would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator





                                                          312



                 DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    But due to the

                 trauma of a crime, wouldn't a crime victim,

                 even if they work for an agency or they work

                 for a private company, be eligible to get

                 counseling at the Crime Victims' Board?  I'm

                 talking about counseling, not necessarily -

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    This bill

                 isn't -- doesn't have anything to do with the

                 Crime Victims' Board and their rules and

                 regulations.  It's an additional group of

                 individuals that the judge will be allowed to

                 order restitution for, in a sentencing in a

                 criminal matter.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, if the sponsor would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.





                                                          313



                            SENATOR DUANE:    If not through

                 the Crime Victims' Board, then if a person

                 because of their trauma sought out private

                 psychological or psychiatric help, would that

                 be something that could be reimbursed under

                 this legislation?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    There is a

                 piece of legislation that was enacted in the

                 past that is law that gives the parameters as

                 to what a crime victim, the actual person who

                 is the victim of the crime, can recover

                 through a judge's order on restitution and

                 what they can't recover.  It's the base bill.

                            All this bill does is it expands

                 the individuals who are assisting in the

                 crime.  I find it difficult to imagine a

                 situation where a police agent might be -

                 well, I guess there might be, where a police

                 agent or someone in an ambulance crew would

                 need counseling after performing their duties.

                            But that is not what the bill is

                 intended.  It's just to expand the individuals

                 who may be paid by order of a court during the

                 course of sentencing.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    And through you,





                                                          314



                 Mr. President, a final question, please.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco, do you yield?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    And is it

                 envisioned that it would be both the local

                 police department as well as the State Police

                 that would also be eligible under this?

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    It doesn't

                 define police agency.  Every agency would

                 apply.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Any other

                 Senator wishing to speak on the bill?

                            Hearing none, the Secretary will

                 read the last section.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Section 2.  This

                 act shall take effect immediately.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Call the

                 roll.

                            (The Secretary called the roll.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Announce





                                                          315



                 the results.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Ayes, 57.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The bill

                 is passed.

                            Senator Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President,

                 can we return to reports of standing

                 committees.  And I believe that there's a

                 report from the Finance Committee.  I'm going

                 to ask that it be read at this time.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    There is

                 a report of the Finance Committee at the desk.

                 The Secretary will read.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Stafford,

                 from the Committee on Finance, reports the

                 following nominations:

                            As members of the Advisory Council

                 on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services,

                 Coleman Costello, of Bayside; Philip Gianelli,

                 M.D., of Flushing; and John W. Russell, Jr.,

                 of Staten Island.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the nomination of Coleman

                 Costello, Philip Gianelli, and John W. Russell

                 to become members of the Advisory Council on





                                                          316



                 Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services.  All

                 those in favor signify by saying aye.

                            (Response of "Aye.")

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Opposed,

                 nay.

                            (No response.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 nominees are confirmed.

                            The Secretary will continue to

                 read.

                            THE SECRETARY:    As a member of

                 the Mental Health Services Council, Steven

                 Friedman, of Yorktown Heights.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the nomination of Steven

                 Friedman to become a member of the Mental

                 Health Services Council.  All those in favor

                 signify by saying aye.

                            (Response of "Aye.")

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Opposed,

                 nay.

                            (No response.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 nominee is confirmed.

                            The Secretary will continue to





                                                          317



                 read.

                            THE SECRETARY:    As members of the

                 Advisory Council to the Commission on Quality

                 of Care for the Mentally Disabled, Grace E.

                 Clench, of Brentwood, and Joan E. Klink, of

                 Fishkill.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the nomination of Grace Clench

                 and Joan Klink to become members of the

                 Advisory Council to the Commission on Quality

                 of Care for the Mentally Disabled.  All those

                 in favor of the nominations signify by saying

                 aye.

                            (Response of "Aye.")

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Opposed,

                 nay.

                            (No response.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 nominees are confirmed.

                            The Secretary will continue to

                 read.

                            THE SECRETARY:    As members of the

                 State Camp Safety Advisory Council, Shirley A.

                 Hansen, of Lake Placid, and Robert C.

                 Scheinfeld, of New Rochelle.





                                                          318



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the nomination of Shirley A.

                 Hansen and Robert C. Scheinfeld to become

                 members of the State Camp Safety Advisory

                 Council.  All those in favor signify by saying

                 aye.

                            (Response of "Aye.")

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Opposed,

                 nay.

                            (No response.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 nominees are confirmed.

                            The Secretary will continue to

                 read.

                            THE SECRETARY:    As a member of

                 the Board of Visitors of the Binghamton

                 Psychiatric Center, Gerald Buckley, of

                 Binghamton.

                            As a member of the Board of

                 Visitors of the Bronx Psychiatric Center,

                 Yvonne E. Chappell, of the Bronx.

                            As members of the Board of Visitors

                 of the Brooklyn Developmental Disabilities

                 Services Office, Calvin A. Fischetti, of

                 Brooklyn, and Edwin Mendez-Santiago, of





                                                          319



                 Brooklyn.

                            As members of the Board of Visitors

                 of the Broome Developmental Disabilities

                 Services Office, Mildred Hendry Bengel, of

                 Binghamton; Raymond W. Delaney, of Endicott;

                 and Kathryn M. Paddock, of Binghamton.

                            As members of the Board of Visitors

                 of the Capital District Developmental

                 Disabilities Services Office, Kathe R.

                 Sheehan, of Scotia, and Cheryl Walther, of

                 Hudson Falls.

                            As members of the Board of Visitors

                 of the Central New York Developmental

                 Disabilities Services Office, Robert Lehr, of

                 Tully; Elizabeth Vaught, of Baldwinsville;

                 Shirley Mary Wilcox, of Little Falls; and

                 Thomas Yousey, Sr., of Lowville.

                            As a member of the Board of

                 Visitors of the Richard H. Hutchings

                 Psychiatric Center, Daniel Mancini, of

                 Canastota.

                            As members of the Board of Visitors

                 of the Agricultural and Industrial School at

                 Industry, Robert L. Glover, of Bloomfield;

                 Mark Maxim, of Spencer Port; James H. Norman,





                                                          320



                 of Webster; Teresa Wolfe, of Pittsford; and

                 Robert M. Zinck, of Henrietta.

                            As a member of the Board of

                 Visitors of the Long Island Developmental

                 Disabilities Services Office, Walter Krudop,

                 of Patchogue.

                            As a member of the Board of

                 Visitors of the Manhattan Psychiatric Center,

                 Marlin R. Mattson, of New York City.

                            As members of the Board of Visitors

                 of the Metro Developmental Disabilities

                 Services Office, Mildred Holley-Davis, of the

                 Bronx, and Joan S. Laufer, of New York City.

                            As members of the Board of Visitors

                 of the New York State Home for Veterans and

                 Their Dependents at Oxford, Richard M. Pedro,

                 of Oswego, and Louisa Platt, of Westford.

                            As members of the Board of Visitors

                 of the Staten Island Developmental

                 Disabilities Services Office, Roberta Scott

                 Boatti, of Staten Island, and Polly Panzella,

                 of Staten Island.

                            As a member of the Board of

                 Visitors of the Sunmount Developmental

                 Disabilities Services Office, Margaret





                                                          321



                 Kolodzey, of Moriah.

                            As members of the Board of Visitors

                 of the Taconic Developmental Disabilities

                 Services Office, Joan E. Klink, of Fishkill;

                 Ronald S. Lehr, of Poughkeepsie; and Ralph

                 Vinchiarello, of Wassaic.

                            As members of the Board of Visitors

                 of the Western New York Developmental

                 Disabilities Services Office, Pamela D.

                 Burgoon, of Fredonia; Mary Ellen Murphy, of

                 West Seneca; and Anne M. Ray, of South Dayton.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the nomination of several to

                 many facilities.  All those in favor signify

                 by saying aye.

                            (Response of "Aye.")

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Opposed,

                 nay.

                            (No response.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 nominees are confirmed.

                            Senator Duane, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I had a question

                 on the appointments.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    What is





                                                          322



                 your question, Senator?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Well, my first

                 question is, what does the Board of Visitors

                 do in the developmental facilities?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Velella, would you like to respond to that

                 question?

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Mr. President,

                 could you repeat the question?  What does the

                 Board of Visitors do?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    You don't

                 know?  You're a State Senator and you don't

                 know what the Board of Visitors does at a

                 mental hospital?  Was that the question you're

                 asking me?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    You aren't

                 entitled to a question -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger -- excuse me, gentlemen.  Gentlemen,

                 gentlemen, gentlemen.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Senator

                 Velella's question is out of order.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:

                 Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen.





                                                          323



                            SENATOR DUANE:    Mr. President,

                 the question was directed to me.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane.

                            Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, I believe Senator Velella's

                 question is out of order.  Senator Duane has

                 the floor.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, you are out of order.  There was a

                 question, and there is a response.  So please

                 sit down.

                            Senator Velella, did you respond to

                 the question?

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    I don't mean

                 to -- I just wanted to clear up exactly what

                 part of that.  They do a great many things.

                            You don't know anything about them?

                 You want me to explain everything they do?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, I'll respond.

                            Actually, whether I do or don't

                 know is completely irrelevant.  I want to make

                 sure that our body has on the record exactly





                                                          324



                 what it is that our appointments to these

                 bodies do.  So I believe that the record needs

                 to have an explanation of what these -

                 because in Finance, I don't believe that

                 records are kept.  And I want to make sure

                 that we have it on the record here.

                            So if the respondent -- I don't

                 think he's the sponsor -- can calm down enough

                 to describe that, I'd be most appreciative.

                            Through you, Mr. President.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Mr. President,

                 I will respond.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Velella, to respond to Senator Duane's

                 question.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    For all intents

                 and purposes, and for an explanation, the

                 members of Boards of Visitors in the state

                 institutions which are confirmed by the Senate

                 after appointment by the Governor serve as the

                 eyes and ears of the Governor in these

                 facilities to make sure that the facilities

                 are running according to the law, cleanly

                 facilities, orderly facilities, and to protect

                 the patients in these facilities and be the





                                                          325



                 eyes and ears of the Governor.  That is what a

                 Board of Visitors does, Senator.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, if the member would continue to

                 respond to my questions, yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    If you

                 have a question, Senator Duane.  And we're

                 actually not on a bill or on a confirmation,

                 and I regret that I didn't see you before the

                 vote was taken.  But in order to accommodate

                 your curiosity and trying to get an answer to

                 your questions, do you have another question

                 relative to these confirmations?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I do, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    What is

                 it, sir?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    The question is,

                 is there compensation for the members of these

                 boards?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Velella, would you like to respond to that

                 question?

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.  The answer is no.





                                                          326



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    There is

                 no compensation, according to the Senator.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    And through you,

                 Mr. President, is there a time requirement

                 that the members of the board have to spend at

                 their appointed duties?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Velella.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Mr. President,

                 as needed.  As needed.  The amount of time as

                 needed.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, I didn't hear the answer.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    He said

                 as needed.  As needed.  Time as needed.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you.

                            And a final question, Mr.

                 President.  Are the number of members of the

                 boards set in law?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Velella.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    I believe they

                 are.  I believe there are a number of

                 appointments to each of the facilities.  And

                 when the vacancies occur, the Governor then





                                                          327



                 fills them, or when the term expires.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.

                            On the appointments, I'm glad that

                 I've been able to enlighten all of the members

                 and the members of the public who may have

                 been in the dark about exactly what this was.

                 And I'm very pleased that you were able to

                 elicit those answers, and that they'll forever

                 after be on the record.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane.

                            Senator Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Have we

                 finished -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Yes, we

                 have, sir.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    -- with the

                 nominations?

                            Can we call up -- I think there are

                 two other bills that are on the controversial

                 calendar.  And they are Calendar 15, and can

                 we lay that bill aside for the day.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Calendar





                                                          328



                 Number 15 will be laid aside for the day.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    And Calendar 41,

                 and can we lay that bill aside for the day.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Calendar

                 41 will be laid aside for the day.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Is there any

                 housekeeping at the desk, Mr. President?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Nothing

                 at the desk at this time, Senator.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    At this time I

                 would hand up my motion to amend the Senate

                 rules.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will read the title.

                            THE SECRETARY:    By Senator Bruno,

                 Senate Resolution 316, amending Rule II of the

                 Senate rules, in relation to making the rules

                 gender neutral; Sections 1 and 2 of Rule III

                 of such rules, in relation to the duties of

                 the presiding officer and making the rules

                 gender neutral; Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Rule

                 IV of such rules, in relation to making the

                 rules gender neutral; Sections 3, 4, 6, and 7

                 of Rule V of such rules, in relation to the

                 order of business and making the rules gender





                                                          329



                 neutral; Sections 2 and 4 of Rule VI of such

                 rules, in relation to making the rules gender

                 neutral; Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Rule

                 VII of such rules, in relation to standing

                 committees and making the rules gender

                 neutral; Sections 1, 4, and 6 of Rule VIII of

                 such rules, in relation to passage of bills

                 and making the rules gender neutral; Sections

                 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Rule IX of such rules, in

                 relation to the duties of senators in the

                 senate chamber and making the rules gender

                 neutral; Section 2 of Rule X of such rules, in

                 relation to making the rules gender neutral;

                 Rule XI of such rules, in relation to

                 suspension of the rules; and Section 1 of

                 Rule XIII of such rules, in relation to making

                 the rules gender neutral.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President, I

                 would like to ask for an immediate conference

                 of the Majority in Room 332.  And I believe

                 the Minority would ask for an immediate

                 conference in Room 314.

                            And we will stand at ease,





                                                          330



                 Mr. President, until the conferences return,

                 which I would estimate to be a half hour.

                 Thank you.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senate will stand at ease.  There will be an

                 immediate meeting of the Senate Majority in

                 the Majority Conference Room, Room 332.

                 Immediate meeting of the Senate Majority in

                 the Majority Conference Room, Room 332.

                            Immediate meeting of the Senate

                 Minority in the Minority Conference Room, Room

                 314.  Immediate conference of the Minority in

                 the Minority Conference Room, Room 314.

                            It's an estimated adjournment of 30

                 minutes.

                            (Whereupon, the Senate stood at

                 ease at 11:50 a.m.)

                            (Whereupon, the Senate reconvened

                 at 1:05 p.m.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senate will come to order.

                            I ask the members to find their

                 places, staff to find their places.  Take any

                 conversations you have out of the chamber,

                 please.





                                                          331



                            Senator Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President, as

                 we called our conferences and recessed, I

                 believe we had a resolution on the floor, and

                 I believe -

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Explanation,

                 please.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    -- an explanation

                 was requested.

                            And I would offer, by way of

                 explanation, that we have a list of rules

                 changes that we'll vote on today that will

                 really help the Senate conduct its business in

                 a more efficient and orderly way.  There is no

                 inability to inhibit discussion.  The

                 legislation will come to the floor through the

                 appropriate process.

                            And as we take up bills on the

                 floor here, they often have gone through

                 extensive debate within committee, at public

                 hearings in a public forum, exposed through

                 the media to the pros and cons.

                            The spirit of debate that we have

                 here on the floor will not change as long as

                 the debate is germane to the issue that is on





                                                          332



                 the floor.  And that is critical to

                 discussions that we will be having here.

                            The rules, as you review them, are

                 not unlike the rules that have been used in

                 the Assembly to conduct their business for

                 years and years and years.  They are very

                 consistent with the reforms that we've

                 instituted over the last several years -- with

                 timely sessions, timely conferences, timely

                 committee meetings, trying to be more

                 efficient and more orderly as we do the work

                 of the people in this chamber.

                            I would also point out, Mr.

                 President, that this resolution we would open

                 to all members in the chamber on both sides of

                 the aisle.  So we would welcome your

                 participation and your support.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Connor.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.  Would Senator Bruno yield for a

                 question.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you yield?





                                                          333



                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.  Thank you, Senator.

                            Mr. President, I would like Senator

                 Bruno to explain, there's a new term used in

                 these rules called a "canvass of agreement,"

                 which apparently is a role of members or a

                 sentiment of members to be ascertained on what

                 we used to call a vote on hostile amendments

                 or what is now called a motion to petition to

                 remove a bill from committee.

                            Could the Senator explain what a

                 "canvass of agreement" means?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    I believe I can,

                 Mr. President.  But I think I would better

                 serve my colleagues if I defer to our Deputy

                 Majority Leader, who spends a great deal of

                 his time in the chamber and deliberating here,

                 and I know who has spent a great deal of time,

                 up till probably 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. this

                 morning, studying the rules that we have here

                 before us.  And he will give a much more





                                                          334



                 accurate answer to your question and some of

                 the others that may follow.

                            So I would ask that I defer to

                 Senator Skelos.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Yes, Mr.

                 President, I'd be happy if Senator Skelos

                 would yield.  If I may comment, though, it

                 seems to me he's been spending too much time

                 pondering these rules.

                            But, Senator, you heard the

                 question, I won't repeat it, a canvass of

                 agreement.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Canvass of

                 agreement would basically be that there

                 would -- in order for a motion to petition a

                 bill out of committee, or a resolution, you

                 would need 31 members indicating their

                 agreement.  And that would -- the Senate

                 chamber would be canvassed by the presiding

                 officer as to in fact whether there are or are

                 not 31 members in agreement.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    And is it

                 correct, Mr. President, the same procedure

                 would apply to hostile amendments?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Yes.





                                                          335



                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Now, Mr.

                 President, if the Senator would continue to

                 yield -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Skelos, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    -- how would the

                 chair canvass the members?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    The chair would,

                 very similar to what we have now in terms of a

                 voice vote, would make a judgment as to

                 whether in fact there were 31 members in the

                 chamber raising their hand saying they are in

                 agreement with the petition.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Mr. President,

                 if the Senator would continue to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Skelos, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Yes.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    So is it

                 correct, then, to assume that on a canvass

                 with respect to a hostile amendment that there

                 would be no record kept of how members voted?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    There is a

                 record kept as to whether there are 31 members

                 in agreement.





                                                          336



                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Right.  But, Mr.

                 President, my question is would the individual

                 choice of each member as to whether or not to

                 agree to that hostile amendment be recorded?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    If they wanted

                 to agree, their name would appear as agreeing.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Mr. President,

                 with all due respect to Senator Skelos, my

                 question is, would in the Journal, the

                 official Journal of the Senate, there appear

                 recorded how any or all Senators voted

                 individually?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    There would be

                 a -- in the Journal there would appear the

                 names of the members that were in agreement

                 with the petition.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    And, Mr.

                 President, to follow up, would in the Journal

                 there appear the names of the members who

                 opposed the petition or amendment?  I assume

                 the same procedure.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    In the

                 Journal -- I answered that question -- the

                 names would appear of the individuals that

                 were in agreement with the petition.





                                                          337



                            SENATOR CONNOR:    But my question

                 was, would the names of the members who were

                 not in agreement with the petition -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:

                 Senator -- Senator Connor, are you asking

                 Senator Skelos to yield?

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Yes, Mr.

                 President, if Senator Skelos would yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Skelos, do you yield?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    I believe I

                 answered the question, Mr. President.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Mr. President,

                 on the resolution.  It's rather pointless to

                 ask for explanations when the answer doesn't

                 address the question.

                            What these rules do, as I read

                 it -- and I'm familiar with the Senate rules,

                 and I've been here a long time.  In fact, I

                 was here when Senator John Caemmerer used to

                 stand and describe this body as the greatest

                 deliberative body in the world.  And many

                 other members used to say that.  And frankly,

                 it's because the rules allowed for an open and

                 fair debate.  These rules don't do that.  They





                                                          338



                 go a bit overboard.

                            I might say, though, Mr. President,

                 in view of what occurred earlier today, I do

                 agree with one section.  I think putting in

                 the rules that debates should maintain

                 civility is a good thing.  And I don't think

                 Senators should, by name, call out other

                 Senators and question them about their

                 personal knowledge or how they fulfill their

                 duties.  I think that's inappropriate and

                 uncivil.  And I am glad and I congratulate

                 Senator Bruno for having that provision here,

                 because it would have been useful not an hour

                 ago.

                            One of the things this would do is

                 in the Rules Committee, through which we know

                 much legislation passes -- most legislation,

                 particularly in the closing days of the

                 session -- the ability of a member to propose

                 an amendment to a bill before the Rules

                 Committee is eliminated.  I think that

                 needlessly, frankly, curbs the powers of that

                 committee.  It's a power every other committee

                 has, to entertain a motion from a member to

                 amend a bill.





                                                          339



                            I think what we see here, though,

                 is a specific rule is eliminated, the rule

                 which requires that on any, any question -

                 the old rule said on any question, if five

                 Senators request, the names of the Senators

                 shall be entered in the record as to how they

                 voted, in the Journal, the Journal which the

                 Constitution requires be kept of all the

                 proceedings of the Senate.  That rule is

                 eliminated.

                            And as I read these rules, that on

                 a so-called canvass of agreement -- I think

                 it's significant it's no longer called a

                 vote -- on a canvass of agreement on a hostile

                 amendment, on a canvass of agreement on a

                 motion to petition to remove from committee to

                 the floor a bill or a resolution, it's clear

                 to me the intent of this rule is -- and I

                 don't care what answers, Mr. President, are

                 given here today.  Oh, we'll see it.  We'll

                 see it in the Journal tomorrow after we take

                 up other business today.

                            I think the intent here is to

                 shield the members from disclosing how they

                 vote.  In other words, to keep it from the





                                                          340



                 press and public whether Senator X or Y,

                 whether he or she voted for or against a

                 particular amendment.  That's the clear

                 intent.

                            The other thing that I think is -

                 frankly, when I refer to page 11 of these

                 rules, that's what I was referring to where we

                 remove, we remove a provision that says the

                 names of those who voted for or against any

                 question other than final passage of a bill

                 may be entered alphabetically on the Journal

                 if any five Senators require it.

                            What that leaves is that, frankly,

                 the only recorded vote that can be taken -

                 and I mean, Mr. President, if the intent here

                 is to eliminate the so-called slow roll call,

                 which can be time-consuming, that's one issue.

                 I might not agree with it, but it's frankly

                 not offensive.

                            But if the intent here is to avoid

                 recording how Senators voted, whether it's by

                 a show of hands or however, how they voted on

                 a provision, then the plain political thrust

                 of that is apparent.  It's the Majority wants

                 to do business in this house and not let the





                                                          341



                 public know how they voted.

                            When someone amends the budget,

                 proposes a budget amendment, for example, as

                 the late, great Senator Donovan did -- and I

                 always respected him for this.  I saw him do

                 it at 3:00 in the morning when everybody

                 wanted to get a budget passed and he felt

                 very, very strongly about an issue; namely,

                 Medicaid funding for abortion.  I disagreed

                 with him, but I used to admire his courage

                 because, frankly, I saw him do it when

                 everybody just wanted to go home, including

                 most of his colleagues who agreed with him on

                 the issue, and he would bring up that

                 amendment to the budget, and we would take a

                 recorded vote.  And some years it -- one year

                 it passed, most years it failed as an

                 amendment.  But it got recorded.

                            My constituents knew I opposed

                 cutting off Medicaid funding for abortion.

                 Other constituents of other members knew they

                 supported it.  It got recorded.  As I read

                 these rules, the vote on that wouldn't be

                 recorded.

                            What are we keeping from the public





                                                          342



                 here?  What drives this, Mr. President?  What

                 could drive this?  To keep the public from

                 knowing how their elected representatives

                 voted.

                            I understand the Constitution, and

                 I understand well the court decisions

                 regarding the keeping of a Journal, regarding

                 the keeping of a record of the proceedings.

                 And I understand the courts have given

                 enormous latitude, enormous latitude, to both

                 houses to govern their internal workings.

                            But I suggest if we go so far as to

                 hide the members' votes from going into the

                 public record, we've offended a more

                 fundamental constitutional principle than the

                 independence of a legislative house or

                 anything else.  I suggest we've gone far too

                 far, we have broken -- we have broken that

                 bond with the governed, with their right to

                 know how we voted.

                            Oh, we fought last year about a lot

                 of issues, and we used motions to discharge

                 and amendments.  And then we had elections.

                 Members went out and defended their record,

                 and they won.  They won.  No problem with





                                                          343



                 that, they won.  That's the way it's supposed

                 to be.  Their constituents could evaluate the

                 totality of how they performed, how they voted

                 on particular things, how they did other

                 things that members do for their districts

                 quite legitimately.

                            But to absolutely shield from the

                 public how a member votes on an amendment -

                 and I gave you an example, Mr. President, an

                 example of an amendment that we used to do

                 year after year, sponsored by Senator Donovan.

                 And I think Senator Farley, when Senator

                 Donovan was no longer able -- either through

                 illness or he had passed away -- took up that

                 amendment.

                            Could you imagine not recording a

                 vote on that?  Why would you do that?  So you

                 can tell one group "I was against it" and

                 another group "Oh, I was for it"?

                            Please, Mr. President.  It defies

                 everything that our system of representative

                 government stands for.  We may not have the

                 lowly title of "representative" or

                 "assemblyman" or whatever, we may have the

                 august title of "senator" in the Roman style,





                                                          344



                 but we are elected representatives.  We're not

                 an appointed Senate, we're not a hereditary

                 Senate.  We're elected representatives.

                            And to shield from the very people

                 who vote for us the way you vote on important

                 issues, whether it's to bring a bill up to a

                 vote or amend a bill, is frankly offensive.

                 And it's the ultimate, Mr. President,

                 political cowardice.

                            Stand up for what you believe and

                 let the public know.  And at the point when a

                 majority can't let the public know what it

                 really stands for, I suggest, Mr. President,

                 time is running out on that majority's

                 mandate.

                            If the Majority is afraid to let

                 the people of the State of New York know

                 exactly where it stands, it's a sad day for

                 this Senate and a sadder day for that

                 Majority.

                            Mr. President, the 60-day notices

                 on a motion to move a bill from a committee,

                 frankly, I don't know what it's going to save.

                 We're going to have a lot of motions to

                 discharge next year, because all the bills





                                                          345



                 filed this year, frankly, are going to be in

                 committee more than 60 days by next January.

                 And I don't want to give anybody ideas.  We

                 don't need another amendment to the rules next

                 year.

                            But on a motion to move a bill from

                 committee, we totally silence everybody.

                 Everybody.  A member who moves his or her bill

                 from -- moves to petition it from committee -

                 and by the way, I have seen -- I don't see her

                 here, there's a member on the other side who

                 year after year after year made half a dozen

                 motions to discharge, Senator Hoffmann.

                            And indeed, because I have a

                 memory, in 1978, in February or March, Senator

                 Goodman moved to discharge his bill to abolish

                 city marshals and brought it to this floor,

                 and I remember that.  It took my staff forever

                 to find it.  I finally gave them the month and

                 the year from here, and they found it.

                            So Majority members have used that

                 device when they cared about an issue.  And

                 Senator Goodman cared about that issue then,

                 and he moved to discharge it.  And a number of

                 us supported him.





                                                          346



                            The fact is, those motions only

                 offend the Majority when it hurts.  When they

                 really do want to bring the issue up -- and we

                 saw issue after issue that had been the

                 subject of motions come to this floor and pass

                 last year, to the credit of the Majority.  And

                 indeed I suggest, Mr. President, very much to

                 their credit with the public, based on the

                 results that we saw.

                            To limit it to one a day, who gets

                 to go first, Mr. President?  The rules don't

                 say that.  Who gets to go first?  Who gets to

                 go first that day?  I don't know.  It doesn't

                 address that.

                            I suggest, Mr. President -- and I

                 have no problem with this, no one should

                 interrupt the presiding officer.  But I really

                 question the following.  And we haven't seen

                 this in a few years, but once upon a time the

                 presiding officer of this house was of a

                 different political faith, several of them

                 were, than the Majority.  And our rules are

                 very clear.  The presiding officer, the

                 President of the Senate, only gets to speak in

                 this house when we open a new session every





                                                          347



                 two years.

                            How, then, would one silence a

                 lieutenant governor who decided to get up

                 there one day in January or February and give

                 a 20- or 40-minute speech about his or her

                 beliefs about something or feelings about a

                 bill or whatever?  The only way you make a

                 point of order against another member, and

                 it's appropriate, is you stand while they're

                 speaking and say "Point of order."  The rules,

                 every rule in every house allows that, to

                 interrupt a speaker.

                            But it's not my problem.  It could

                 be your problem, I say to the Majority

                 rhetorically, Mr. President.  I don't know how

                 you would deal with that if you can't

                 interrupt him or her to make the point of

                 order.  I guess you just sit here and get

                 lectured to for 45 minutes or an hour.  Maybe

                 we'll get a "state of the month" speech every

                 month, with these "state of the states" or

                 whatever.

                            But the fact that the names of

                 those who are recorded to vote on motions such

                 as this, to petition, and on motions to amend





                                                          348



                 or suspend the rules or on motions to in fact

                 amend a bill, is frankly offensive.  When we

                 ought to be opening up the Senate, when we

                 ought to be letting people know how we

                 function, we now want to take important

                 legislative matters on which we vote -- we're

                 not going to call it a vote anymore, it's a

                 canvass.  I guess it's a canvass.  They had a

                 canvass in Florida, and a recanvass, Mr.

                 President.  I don't know what a canvass is.

                 "Canvass" means count the votes in this

                 context.

                            Yet it's clear to me the attempt is

                 to avoid constitutional prescriptions that the

                 votes of the members when reported be recorded

                 in the Journal.  And that we're going to

                 operate this Senate and this, the time limits,

                 the constraints on speech -- by the way, when

                 a motion to petition a bill from a committee

                 to the floor is made, the proponent of the

                 motion gets five minutes to speak under these

                 proposed new rules.

                            The committee chair doesn't get any

                 time to explain that the committee studied

                 this and rejected it, that the committee has





                                                          349



                 held hearings on it, that the committee deemed

                 it unwise to go forward.  Absolutely no

                 opportunity to anyone in the Majority,

                 assuming it's a Minority member who brings it.

                            But I think I just pointed out I

                 know at least two members in that Majority who

                 have done this similar thing when it was

                 called a motion to discharge.

                            You get no change to explain, no

                 chance to tell what the committee has or

                 hasn't done or why the committee perhaps is

                 going in a different direction or thinks

                 another bill is better.

                            If you want to gag yourselves, I

                 say rhetorically to the Majority, Mr.

                 President, I guess they can gag themselves.

                            The fact is, with all due respect

                 to the Majority, I agree -- not often -- I

                 disagree with Senator Bruno's statement, Mr.

                 President, when he said often the bills that

                 come out here have been studied and subject to

                 hearings and studied at committee meetings and

                 so on.

                            Mr. President, I would say in my

                 observation in the last few years, "sometimes"





                                                          350



                 is a better word.  Often the bills that we're

                 presented with have been whacked out overnight

                 by three men in a room, and they get on our

                 desk just before we're going to vote.  That's

                 what often happens, with everything from

                 budgets to major legislative proposals to

                 major bills.

                            So to say, well, we have to cut

                 down the ability of your people to make

                 amendments and so on -- and let me say, Mr.

                 President, the one thing I have no problem

                 with, except I know how this place works,

                 amendments now, hostile amendments require two

                 hours' advance notice.  I have no problem with

                 that, none whatsoever.

                            Indeed, I will tell a story.  When

                 we heard that Senator Bruno had noticed this

                 amendment for last week, and then it was put

                 off for coming to the floor, at least one of

                 the members on this side had some rules

                 amendments that he wished to propose, and I

                 told my counsel, "Notice them."  And that's

                 when they first noticed what we call a notice

                 here.  I noticed it was Senator Bruno's notice

                 when it just said, Well, on such and such a





                                                          351



                 day we're going to move to amend the rules.

                 And I said to my counsel, "Where are the

                 rules?"  He says, "Well, we don't get them."

                 I said, "That's an outrage."  And he says,

                 "Well, that's what we've been doing too."

                            And I don't know who started it

                 first, because we traced it back, it's the way

                 it's always been done.  To me, that kind of

                 notice is no notice.  We did the same thing in

                 response, obviously.  But I think a notice of

                 what rules amendment you're going to make on

                 24-hour notice ought to have a copy of the

                 rule you're going to bring, whatever side is

                 bringing it.

                            I would like to make that agreement

                 right now.  I think it's fair.  I mean, to

                 just say "Tomorrow I'm going to stand up and

                 move to amend the rules" doesn't give anybody

                 any notice about whether they ought to care or

                 not care.  And if it was our side that started

                 this decades ago, this kind of short notice, I

                 apologize on behalf of my predecessors.  But I

                 think we ought to go forward and give each

                 other real notice.  It doesn't hurt.

                            So I have no problem with a





                                                          352



                 two-hour notice of a hostile amendment, which

                 apparently applies to the active list that the

                 Majority puts out.  But I do have a problem of

                 we're getting the active list five minutes

                 before session.  Two hours' advance notice is

                 fine if you have something to give notice to.

                 And I don't see anything in these rules that

                 says the active list shall be available at

                 least three hours before the beginning of a

                 session.

                            And it is all very frequent,

                 frankly, that I guess in the interests of

                 expediting things the Majority will call my

                 counsel's office at 6:00 or 7:00 o'clock in

                 the evening and say "Tomorrow morning we're

                 going to do the ban on partial birth abortion"

                 or "Tomorrow morning we're going to do women's

                 health and wellness."  Major legislation about

                 which members in the Minority are quite

                 concerned and do have a legitimate reason to

                 want to offer amendments.

                            In some cases, their bills -

                 women's health and wellness -- that the

                 members on this side of the aisle support in

                 principle, are delighted to have come out, but





                                                          353



                 there is one or the other feature that makes

                 it incumbent upon them to not support it, they

                 get to point that out by the amendment that

                 they bring.

                            For us to conference something like

                 that that we haven't seen and decide whether

                 an amendment has support on this side of the

                 aisle is often very impossible to do an hour

                 before session, because of the notice we're

                 given.

                            I guess there's another answer, and

                 I hate to go there.  I guess we can always

                 make the start of session take two hours so we

                 can give notice and get the two hours done if

                 we don't get it two hours beforehand.  And if

                 this becomes a rule, Mr. President, maybe

                 that's exactly what we'll do.  If we get

                 notice of what's on the active list more than

                 two hours before session and we have any

                 amendments, we'll serve them two hours before

                 the start of session.  If we get notice when

                 session starts, I will give the two hours'

                 notice then and make sure it takes two hours

                 till we get to it.

                            I guess that's what we have to do.





                                                          354



                 It will work if we get notice.  The two-hour

                 notice will work if we get notice.  That's the

                 only thing I can tell.  But we're not going to

                 not bring the amendments.

                            So all these timing things, most of

                 them can be dealt with.  The thing that I urge

                 the Majority to reconsider, if it's their

                 intention, if it's their intention to

                 reconsider, is exactly what do they mean by

                 this canvass of agreement and what is going to

                 be a recorded vote.

                            I note in limiting debate the

                 Majority would exempt from the one-hour limit

                 bills and concurrent resolutions.  That we get

                 a two-hour limit.  I understand that.  I am

                 concerned, though -- it's not clear to me, and

                 maybe someone can enlighten me -- that whether

                 or not on a concurrent resolution, as opposed

                 to a bill or any other kind of resolution or

                 whatever, whether it's a recorded vote at the

                 request of five members, if they so request,

                 that will be taken, or whether -- in fact,

                 perhaps on this point, Mr. President, I would

                 ask if Senator Skelos will be willing to

                 explain:  On a concurrent resolution, is it a





                                                          355



                 canvass of agreement that will be undertaken

                 or a role call vote on the request of five

                 members?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Skelos, do you yield to a question?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Under the

                 proposed rule change, Senator Connor, there

                 could be a slow roll call on a final passage

                 of a bill, nominations, and concurrent

                 resolutions.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Thank you.

                 Thank you, Senator.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Connor, on the bill.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Obviously my

                 concern was concurrent resolutions can indeed

                 embrace things as serious as amending the

                 Constitution of the United States of America.

                 And I'm glad to hear there will be a recorded

                 vote on that.  I think we owe it to the people

                 of the entire nation.

                            But I think we owe it to our

                 constituents to let them know where we stand

                 on amendments on other procedures in this

                 house.  And to preclude a recorded vote,





                                                          356



                 because that's -- it's clear to me, it's clear

                 to me by what's not covered -- it's clear to

                 me in the fact that a bill or a concurrent

                 resolution isn't covered that the intent here

                 is to shield the public from knowing how their

                 elected representatives voted on things as

                 important as that budget amendment on Medicaid

                 abortion.  Important to members of the

                 Majority, Mr. President.  And now we're not

                 going to let the public know how people voted

                 on that.

                            It's a sad, sad day when these

                 rules pass, Mr. President, I think.  And I

                 hear Senator Caemmerer saying "the world's

                 greatest deliberative body."  I guess we're

                 trading that in for the world's fastest

                 legislative house.

                            I oppose the resolution.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The chair

                 recognizes Senator Duane.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.  I was hoping that the Deputy

                 Majority Leader would yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Skelos, do you yield to a question from





                                                          357



                 Senator Duane?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Yes, I do, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you.

                            Mr. President, I was hoping the

                 Deputy Majority Leader could tell me when the

                 public hearings on these rule changes

                 occurred.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    There were no

                 public hearings.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I'm sorry, I

                 can't hear, Mr. President.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    I believe your

                 question was, were there public hearings.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    When did the

                 public hearings occur?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    There were none.

                 I said there were none.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    The Deputy

                 Majority Leader said there were none.  There

                 were none.

                            And through you, Mr. President, if

                 the sponsor would continue to yield, or the





                                                          358



                 Deputy Majority Leader.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Skelos, do you continue to yield to Senator

                 Duane?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.  I'm wondering if the deputy leader

                 recalls the Minority's motions to discharge on

                 clinic access.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Quite frankly, I

                 really don't.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, I'm wondering if he remembers the

                 motion to discharge on hate crimes

                 legislation.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    I remember final

                 passage of the bill.  I don't remember all the

                 motions to discharge.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, I'm wondering if the Deputy

                 Majority Leader recalls the motions to

                 discharge on responsible gun control.





                                                          359



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane, you're asking the Senator to continue

                 to yield?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Yes, I am.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Skelos, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    I continue to

                 yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Then through you,

                 Mr. President, I'm wondering if the Deputy

                 Majority Leader recalls the Minority's motion

                 to discharge on responsible gun control.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Well, I could

                 ask you how you define "responsible."  But

                 I -- yeah, maybe that one I recall.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Mr. President,

                 it's very difficult to hear.  Could I ask the

                 Deputy Majority Leader to repeat his last

                 answer?  Through you, Mr. President.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    I believe I

                 recall that one.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you.

                            I'm wondering if the Deputy

                 Majority Leader could -- again, for our

                 education -- tell us what the stipend is for





                                                          360



                 us to come here to Albany and allegedly debate

                 legislation.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Senator Duane -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane, let me just -- are you asking Senator

                 Skelos to yield?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I am, if the

                 Deputy Majority Leader would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    And was

                 it for the question that you set forth?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Well,

                 what I would remind you, Senator, is that

                 there is a provision in the current laws that

                 talks about germaneness.

                            And we are, as you know, on a

                 motion to amend the rules of this house.

                 There's nothing in the rules of the house that

                 depend or state anything about stipends.

                            So you're very, very close to being

                 ruled totally out of order by this chair.  So

                 I would remind you at this point to keep the

                 debate and the discussion to the rules, the

                 presentations before the house.





                                                          361



                            SENATOR DUANE:    Well, Mr.

                 President, I appreciate that very much.  But I

                 believe my question is germane, and I will tie

                 it all up at some point in my -- when I

                 explain my vote or comment on the bill.  So

                 I'd -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Well,

                 Senator, let me just remind you on that point.

                 Whether or not your questions are germane or

                 not is a determination to be made by this

                 person standing in this position as the chair

                 and presiding officer of this house.  And we

                 may have differences of opinion.

                            So Senator Skelos has indicated

                 that he is willing to continue to yield to

                 your questions, and you can ask the next

                 question.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.  I was wondering if the Deputy

                 Majority Leader could tell us how much the

                 stipend is for coming to Albany to debate

                 legislation.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Mr. President, I

                 think I have to raise a point of order as to

                 the germaneness of that question.





                                                          362



                            SENATOR DUANE:    And I would like

                 to appeal that.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Well, I

                 think the Senator said he's not responding to

                 the question at this point, Senator.  Would

                 you like the Senator to yield again?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.  Would the sponsor continue to

                 yield for another question.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Skelos, do you continue to yield to questions

                 by Senator Duane?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    No, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator refuses to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Well, then, I'll

                 speak on the bill, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane, on the motion.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I'm shocked and

                 appalled that we are being asked to vote on

                 rules changes which would have the impact of

                 making for less sunshine on our deliberations

                 and less democracy for what happens within





                                                          363



                 this body.

                            I was shocked when I first arrived

                 in the Senate to find out, first and foremost,

                 that there are no cameras recording us on a

                 regular basis.  On my television I have two

                 channels of C-Span.  I can see what's

                 happening every day with the federal

                 government, and I have a choice of two

                 different stations to see what's happening

                 with our government, with our federal

                 government.

                            In New York City, we have -- we

                 used to have two stations called Crosswalks

                 which would televise council meetings and

                 committee meetings and what our city planning

                 commission was doing.  Tragically, our mayor

                 gave one of those over to OTB so that people

                 could watch what the horses were doing.  But

                 we do at least still have one station to find

                 out what's happening with city business.

                            That here we have no television

                 coverage of our proceedings is just an

                 outrage.  This is now a new century.

                 Technology has made it so it would be very

                 easy to televise what's happening here.





                                                          364



                            Probably even more bizarre is when

                 you go to a committee meeting here, there

                 isn't even a stenographer to take down what

                 occurs at committee meetings.  There's no tape

                 recording, there's no stenographer.  There is

                 no record of what happens in a discussion at a

                 committee meeting, let alone having hearings.

                 We don't even know what the members are saying

                 to each other during the committee hearings.

                            One of the rules changes that we're

                 expected to vote on would provide that, and

                 this would be the new rule -- as if anybody

                 knew what the old rules were on committees

                 anyway, since there is no record of what

                 happens at the committee meetings.

                            But the new rules would say that

                 each standing committee chair shall decide all

                 procedural issues which arise during meetings

                 of standing committees.  Does that mean that

                 there would be no vote on the procedures of

                 what happens in a committee?  Does that mean

                 there would be no appeal of the rule of the

                 chair of the committee?  Does that mean that

                 committees are now dictatorships?  That's

                 appalling.





                                                          365



                            And not only would they become

                 dictatorships, but there would still be no

                 record, either by a stenographer or a tape

                 recording, of the rules that the committee

                 chair is decreeing the committee must follow.

                 That is wrong.

                            Are we so afraid that New Yorkers

                 would see what's going on here that we don't

                 want to have a recording of what's going on,

                 that we need to give dictatorial powers to

                 committee chairs to not allow New Yorkers to

                 know what goes on in our committees and on the

                 floor of this body?  I don't think that's what

                 New Yorkers sent us here to do.  I think New

                 Yorkers want to know what's going on in this

                 body.

                            I asked how much we're being paid

                 to come here because I think we are sent here

                 to debate legislation which impacts the lives

                 of New Yorkers.  And to limit debate on issues

                 which have an impact on real people, a real

                 impact on the lives of real people, is just

                 wrong.  It's an outrage.  It's wrong.

                            It was said that these rules are

                 similar to the rules which the Assembly has.





                                                          366



                 Does that make it right?  Did we not see a

                 rebellion in the Assembly last year?  Is it

                 correct for anybody to clamp down on debate or

                 the ability of people to have their voices

                 heard in a body?  No, it's wrong.

                            It's wrong to close down debate.

                 It's wrong to shut down democracy.  It's wrong

                 to pull the blinds on sunshine.  New Yorkers

                 need and deserve to know what happens on the

                 floor of this body and in the committees of

                 this body.

                            I asked whether or not people

                 remembered the motions to discharge on clinic

                 access legislation, on hate crimes, and on

                 responsible gun control.  Because I believe,

                 and I think New Yorkers know, that the only

                 reason that the Senate passed that legislation

                 was because the Minority did motions to

                 discharge.  And that showed New Yorkers that

                 we could pass that legislation.  And you know

                 what?  We did pass that legislation.

                            So to take away our ability to have

                 motions to discharge is wrong, because it's a

                 tool that we have to make sure that the voices

                 of New Yorkers are heard.  And in fact, those





                                                          367



                 are majority opinions of New Yorkers.  But

                 even if it was the opinion of a minority of

                 New Yorkers, it still would be completely

                 appropriate to bring those positions to this

                 floor and have us debate them, because every

                 voice in New York deserves to be heard.

                            I believe that no matter which

                 party is in the majority in either house that

                 we will, each and every one of us, be sorry

                 and rue the day that we called for less

                 democracy, less debate, less sunshine on what

                 we're actually doing here.

                            And I think New Yorkers will stand

                 firm with those of us who are opposing this

                 clamp-down on democracy and say, "Yes, we want

                 to open up the Legislature, we want to see

                 what's going on in the Legislature, we want to

                 make sure that every voice is heard."

                            And to reiterate that, to resonate

                 with that opinion, I urge everyone in this

                 body to vote no on these undemocratic,

                 clamp-down, dictatorial rules changes.

                            Thank you.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno.





                                                          368



                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Thank you,

                 Senator Duane, for your observations.  And

                 what is great about deliberations in this

                 chamber is that all the members of the Senate

                 are free to express themselves in whatever

                 ways they wish as long as they are being

                 civil.

                            What we do today, all is in the

                 eyes and ears of the beholders.  You have your

                 perception and we have ours.  Mr. President,

                 let's not lose sight of the fact that the

                 electorate in this state in November spoke.

                 Each and every seat in this chamber that was

                 contested was hotly contested, and the public

                 elected a majority.  And that Majority is

                 every one of the 36 members that sit in this

                 chamber.

                            And why did they elect this

                 Majority?  Because they liked the way this

                 Majority was governing, that's why, and no

                 other reason.  And the electorate out there

                 respects what this Majority has done on behalf

                 of the people of this state, with our great

                 governor, George Pataki.

                            We in this chamber today are





                                                          369



                 relating to efficiency, to order, to

                 procedures that get us to a conclusion.  And

                 yes, this is more open because, with the

                 discussion that take place, we don't inhibit

                 with these rules, if you have studied them,

                 one minute of debate on a bill, on a

                 concurrent resolution, not one minute

                 difference if you understand what we are

                 contemplating.

                            On other motions, yes.  We are

                 making them more responsive to the public.  We

                 are making them more efficient.  And you will

                 see that it will be more orderly and timely

                 and we will discuss the important business

                 that comes before this chamber appropriately.

                            So you can say what you please.

                 That's what freedom is all about.  But it

                 doesn't happen to be so.  It doesn't happen to

                 be right.  And you, Senator Duane, are wrong

                 in much of what you have just related as

                 relates to democracy and whether or not

                 there's freedom of expression.

                            We perceive what we are proposing

                 to be open, above-board, orderly, efficient,

                 and reflects the will of the electorate out





                                                          370



                 there that mandates that this Majority govern.

                 So we are prepared to govern.

                            And I feel badly that you demean

                 the Assembly and their Majority as you did on

                 the floor.  I feel badly about that.  Because

                 we all learn from some of what goes on in

                 other houses, in other states.  And much of

                 what we're doing here is a learning process.

                            So I am proud of what we have done

                 here in the Majority as relates to moving this

                 entire process forward.  We have done some

                 great things.  When you take a look at the

                 reforms that have taken place in the last six

                 years, each and every person in this chamber

                 can be proud, can be proud.

                            So don't look upon this change in

                 the rules as something that is partisan or

                 limiting.  Look upon it as being more

                 expansive, more orderly, more efficient, and,

                 yes, more democratic, in a small D.

                            So I would hope that you might see

                 fit to join us as we go forward in doing all

                 the good things that we are all elected to do

                 on behalf of our mutual constituency.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.





                                                          371



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Thank you,

                 Mr. President.  Will whoever drafted the rules

                 yield to couple of questions?

                            Again, I don't know -- I don't want

                 to direct my questions.  I believe whoever the

                 sponsor is, I guess, is the proper person to

                 ask the question of.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Are you

                 asking the Majority Leader to yield, Senator?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    If the

                 Majority Leader feels Senator Skelos would be

                 the appropriate person, I'd be glad to ask the

                 question of him.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Well, let me hear

                 the question, Mr. President, and then we'll

                 make a judgment on which one of the numbers of

                 people led by Senator Skelos might be

                 appropriate to respond.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Let me start

                 with one, Mr. President.  I call your

                 attention to Section 4 of the rules.  This is





                                                          372



                 an amendment to Rule VII, Section 4.  This is

                 the amendment change.

                            My question is, why do you use the

                 phrase "elected" to describe a member of the

                 Senate?  It's the only place in the rules that

                 you use the adjective "elected" to describe a

                 member of the Senate.  Is there some unelected

                 member of the Senate that these rules would

                 apply to?  Why would you use that phrase?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Because it was

                 the choice of the people that were drafting.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President.  There's no member of the house

                 who isn't elected, and so I would just ask,

                 would you entertain a minor amendment -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, just let me interrupt.  Are you

                 asking Senator Bruno to yield to another

                 question?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I am,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.





                                                          373



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    If it's the

                 case that there's no one in this house who

                 isn't elected, then that word is superfluous.

                            My question is, would you accept an

                 amendment right now to delete that adjective

                 from your proposed rules?  Because it would

                 promote efficiency and clarity and quickness,

                 exactly the thing that you've told us these

                 rules were designed to achieve.  By dropping

                 that adjective, we'd get there quicker.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    No.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, if Senator Bruno will continue

                 to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you yield to another question?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Could you

                 tell me why, in the spirit of efficiency and

                 economy and democracy, that adjective is





                                                          374



                 needed to describe that noun when there's

                 nobody in this chamber who doesn't meet that

                 noun's description?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Well, then, it

                 doesn't make any difference.  We're all

                 elected and we all know it and we're just

                 saying it.

                            And it may be redundant, but that

                 was the desire of we that drafted it, and we

                 don't see any reason to change it.  But thanks

                 for your observations.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Again,

                 through you, Mr. President, if Senator Bruno

                 would continue to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    As I

                 understand this section that deals with

                 amendments, it says that if a bill comes to

                 the floor and we fail to meet the two-hour

                 period, an amendment to that bill would not be





                                                          375



                 in order.  Is that correct?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    That is correct.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    And even if

                 the bill came, there would be a canvassing of

                 members to decide whether the bill passed.  Is

                 that correct?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    The canvass would

                 be on whether or not they agreed to the

                 amendment that had been presented.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Correct.  As

                 I understand Senator Skelos's -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, are you asking Senator Bruno to

                 yield to another question?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    You're

                 absolutely correct, Mr. President.  Will the

                 sponsor yield to another question?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, will you yield to another question?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    According to

                 Senator Skelos's explanation, you would have a





                                                          376



                 canvass but you wouldn't necessarily know who

                 voted for what with respect to the amendment.

                 Is that correct?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    That is

                 incorrect, Mr. President.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, if Senator Bruno will continue

                 to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Given your

                 response, could you explain to me the

                 difference, then, between a canvass of the

                 members and a vote of the members?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    A vote of the

                 members would be on the main bill where we

                 were up or down, yea or nay, on whether or not

                 you were supportive of a piece of legislation

                 that was contemplated for passage in this

                 chamber.

                            A canvass would relate to an

                 amendment where those that agree that that





                                                          377



                 amendment ought to take place would speak in

                 favor or indicate in favor, and that would be

                 recorded.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, if Senator Bruno will continue

                 to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Under those

                 circumstances, the no votes would not be

                 recorded; is that correct?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    There would -

                 there isn't a no vote.

                            And I believe -- you know,

                 sometimes progress -- if you don't mind my

                 adding, progress sometimes is difficult to

                 understand or follow.  But progress is good.

                 You know, change is sometimes good.  So

                 please, don't close your mind.

                            What we're talking about here when

                 we say there will be a canvass of those that





                                                          378



                 support an amendment, we mean exactly that.

                 If you want to amend something that's on the

                 floor, we ask who supports that.  And we

                 canvass, and the president canvasses, and 28

                 people stand or raise their hand or indicate

                 by their sign that they support the amendment.

                 That is recorded.  The amendment would fail,

                 because you need 31.

                            That's fairly clear, I would think,

                 Mr. President.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    If I may,

                 would the sponsor yield to a hypothetical

                 question, so I make sure I understand this?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you yield to a question from Senator

                 Dollinger?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    I will

                 hypothetically yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator hypothetically yields.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, suppose this conference made an

                 amendment to abolish a tax and that amendment

                 was in order and there was then a canvass and

                 the canvass would only show those who voted in





                                                          379



                 favor of the amendment but wouldn't show who

                 voted against it.  Would it be your opinion,

                 Senator Bruno, that that would constitute

                 taxation without representation?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    No.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, if Senator Bruno will continue

                 to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.  Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Under my

                 hypothetical, you would have a tax that

                 continues in effect without knowing who voted

                 to keep the tax in effect, isn't that correct,

                 under the canvassing approach that you use

                 here?

                            You would know who had voted to

                 abolish the tax, the members of the Democratic

                 Conference or the members of maybe perhaps

                 some Democrats and some Republicans.  But you

                 wouldn't know who had voted in favor of the





                                                          380



                 tax, isn't that correct, Senator?  And

                 wouldn't you then have a tax in place without

                 representation, without knowing who voted to

                 keep it there?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    No, Mr.

                 President, I don't believe the Senator is

                 correct.  You would have the original vote

                 that was a matter of record that instituted

                 the tax with the yeas and nays recorded.  So I

                 don't think you're accurate in reflecting the

                 results of what was happening here.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, again, so I understand the

                 amendment procedure.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, are you asking Senator Bruno to

                 continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    I am, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    I will, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.





                                                          381



                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, could Senator Bruno explain to me

                 how the amendment provision applies when

                 there's no active list and the bills that are

                 acted on by the Senate come out of the Senate

                 Rules Committee, as 90 percent of the major

                 bills in this house come out of the Rules

                 Committee in the last ten days.  Will any

                 amendment be in order on those bills?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, if Senator Bruno will continue

                 to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Could you

                 explain to me how, since they won't be on the

                 active list -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, I didn't hear a response.  Excuse

                 me.

                            Senator Bruno, do you continue to

                 yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President, it

                 would simply be a procedure of waiving the





                                                          382



                 rules to allow the amendment.  As we do

                 anytime that something appropriate that we

                 should waive is before the house.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, will Senator Bruno again

                 continue to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Do I

                 understand that the President is saying that

                 when we do amendments to bills that come from

                 the Rules Committee that the provisions of

                 Section 4 will apply but that it's the

                 intention of the Majority of this house to

                 suspend those rules to allow amendments on

                 those bills as a matter of course?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    It would depend

                 on the amendment and the germaneness and the

                 appropriateness and the timing and any other

                 things that the presiding person in the chair

                 would take into consideration.





                                                          383



                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, if Senator Bruno will continue

                 to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Thank you,

                 Mr. President.

                            Senator Bruno, could you tell me

                 one instance in which that's been done in the

                 last eight years as you've described it?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    We have done -

                 we've waived with unanimous consent hundreds

                 of times, maybe thousands of times, when any

                 member could object.  And you've been here in

                 the chamber when that happens all the time.

                 So gratuitously, whether we agree or not, we

                 allow it.

                            So I think there are thousands of

                 examples over these last several years.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, I'll just speak on the bill.





                                                          384



                            Again, I appreciate Senator

                 Bruno -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    -- his candid

                 responses, which I take at face value and

                 which I appreciate.

                            First of all, I guess I have to

                 agree with one comment made by Senator Duane

                 and by Senator Connor.  And that was Senator

                 Bruno's description of our lengthy debate and

                 public hearings and our intensive deliberation

                 on bills before this house.  I would suggest

                 that that may go on in Oz and Shangri-La, but

                 I have very little evidence in the eight years

                 that I've been here in New York that that's

                 actually what we do.

                            I would suggest that the bills,

                 most of the important bills that we passed

                 last year were not subject to public hearings,

                 they were not subject to public deliberation,

                 and frankly they came up at the last second,

                 they were passed quickly.  And the reason why

                 they were passed -- and let's not make any

                 bones about it, the reason why they were





                                                          385



                 passed is because we made motions to discharge

                 and motions to amend bills to include those

                 initiatives.  And they were good for the

                 people of this state.

                            I will agree with Senator Bruno

                 emphatically on one point.  This chamber did

                 lots of good things for the people of the

                 State of New York last year.  As Senator Duane

                 pointed out, we passed a hate crimes bill.

                 Senator Schneiderman worked hard, both on gun

                 control and on clinic access.  We made

                 amendments to the budget that we put before

                 this house that were accepted in the budget

                 process.

                            We think democracy worked darn well

                 last year.  And the problem with these rules

                 is that these rules are a slap in the face of

                 democracy.

                            The provision that talks about

                 canvassing votes quite frankly is what I would

                 expect.  I would expect from a party that

                 didn't want to count votes in Florida that you

                 don't want to count them here on the floor of

                 the Senate either.  And I would suggest that

                 this is classic Republicanism.  We don't want





                                                          386



                 to count the votes of the people, and we don't

                 even want to count the votes of the Senators,

                 because we're afraid somehow, somewhere,

                 somebody's going to stand up and say, "Wait a

                 second, I want to know how my representative

                 voted," and this chamber is going to tell them

                 "We don't know."  We pay you $79,000 a year to

                 come here and hide from the voters.  What kind

                 of democracy is that?

                            I would suggest that everything

                 that Senator Duane said about clamping down on

                 democracy should be weighed against what

                 Senator Bruno said about efficiency and

                 economy and let's move forward with progress.

                 My recollection is that you can wind it all

                 back about a decade and that's exactly what

                 the rulers in China said:  These guys in

                 Tiananmen Square, they're so terrible, they

                 don't want to be efficient, they don't want to

                 be economical.  They're out there standing up

                 saying things like 'We would like a little bit

                 of democracy in our country.'  And a bunch of

                 people stood up in the back of Tiananmen

                 Square, up in some little alcove in the top of

                 a building and said, 'No, no, no, no, no, no,





                                                          387



                 we don't want to listen to those guys, we

                 don't want them to be a part of the process,

                 we don't like that part of democracy, we'd

                 rather have our democracy go forward in

                 another fashion.'

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    A point of order

                 on germaneness.

                            Do we see guns here in the chamber?

                 Are you indicating that somebody is

                 threatening to shoot someone here in the

                 chamber?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    No, what -

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    I think we ought

                 to resent the comments that you are making -

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Is that a

                 question?  If not, Senator Bruno, with all due

                 respect, is out of order.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, just a minute.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    I am making a

                 point of order, a point of order.

                            Is this discussion about people





                                                          388



                 being murdered in China germane to this

                 discussion in this chamber?  Is this germane?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, Senator Bruno raises a good point.

                            And I made the point earlier, and I

                 just would remind you that in fact there is a

                 resolution in front of this house that deals

                 with rules changes.  And that's really the

                 source and should be the focus of debate.  It

                 shouldn't be about foreign policy and other

                 kinds of things.

                            And I don't mean to make a

                 statement, I just want to remind you of that.

                 And I just simply say that Senator Bruno

                 raises a good point.  So if you could contain

                 your discussion to in fact the issue at hand,

                 that would be most helpful.

                            Excuse me just a minute.  Senator

                 Paterson, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Mr. President,

                 I recognize the fact that there may be some

                 disagreement and some poor feeling based on

                 remarks that our colleagues make, and I think

                 on both sides of the aisle we feel this way.

                            But the issue of germaneness I





                                                          389



                 think -- and I'm just asking the chair -

                 relates to the content of the discussion.

                 What I heard from Senator Dollinger were a

                 couple of analogies and maybe a degree of

                 hyperbole which was related to his analysis of

                 the situation.

                            But he's talking about the rules

                 changes.  He's not saying that we're changing

                 the rules to try to put into place the types

                 of government that they have in foreign

                 countries that are dictatorial.  He's just

                 saying that in his analysis, these are certain

                 issues that he's considering.

                            So I just wanted to put my point on

                 the record of what my concept of germaneness

                 was.  Which incidentally was a rule put in by

                 this chamber in 1996, sponsored by the

                 Majority, the germaneness rule, coming from

                 Mason's Rules on Governmental Procedure,

                 Rule 39.  In the same copy of Mason's Rules,

                 it talks about some of the rules that Senator

                 Dollinger is trying to fight from being

                 changed as they're proposed.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson, thank you.  And we don't need to go





                                                          390



                 back and rehash at this point what Senator

                 Dollinger has said.

                            I would simply say to you that

                 Senator Bruno, in his attempt to try to make

                 this a more efficient chamber, could be

                 invoking the calling the question on this

                 issue, but he has not chosen to, to allow you

                 to continue to voice your concern about these

                 rules changes, Senator Dollinger.

                            So I simply say to you, try to -

                 without going into a vote and taking up more

                 time, it's a rather limited time here -

                 please continue, but keep in mind in fact that

                 we're talking about rules changes.  And that

                 should be the focus of your comments.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Absolutely,

                 Mr. President.  I'll finish on two notes.

                            One of the things that we always do

                 in this chamber is we name these acts.  We've

                 got Jenna's Law and we've got Kendra's Law.  I

                 would suggest we give this the title that it

                 deserves, which is "Republican

                 Unaccountability Act."

                            This is an evasion, an attempt to

                 avoid difficult votes.  That's what this bill





                                                          391



                 is, that's what these rules changes are.

                 Let's call them what they really are.  This is

                 the "Republican Lack of Accountability Act."

                            And I'll close with one other note,

                 Mr. Chairman.  It's easy, I guess, when you're

                 cast in the position of opposing oppression to

                 go back to a time when a bunch of people sat

                 in a chamber like this in Philadelphia and

                 talked about what was really important.  And

                 they talked not only about substance, but they

                 talked about procedure.

                            They had a constitutional

                 convention, back even after that, in which

                 they could freely amend the Constitution on

                 the floor, in which they had energetic debates

                 on the floor, in which they spent days hashing

                 out how to put a government together.  And

                 they did the best job you could ever imagine.

                 We stand here 220 years later in awe of what

                 they did.

                            They didn't adopt preposterous

                 rules like this.  They didn't cut off debate.

                 They didn't shield themselves from the

                 consequences of their votes.

                            And I would only go back to the





                                                          392



                 words of William Pitt, who sat in Great

                 Britain and watched it all unfold and said,

                 "We're going to have a terrible problem

                 because we're creating a chain of oppression,

                 the tyranny of intolerable wrongs."

                            You know this is wrong.  Senator

                 Duane was absolutely right.  It's the wrong

                 thing to do in a democracy.  Don't do it.

                            I, Mr. President, put everybody on

                 notice.  With these kinds of rules, I will be

                 one of those who will frequently be looking

                 for ways to avoid them and not abide by them.

                 I cannot, I cannot and will not live under a

                 system that is wrong and unfair.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.

                            When Senator Bruno was talking

                 about adding order and efficiency to the

                 decorum here in the chamber, I think that it's

                 incumbent upon me to cite a change that I

                 think accommodates that, since it might be a

                 little different than what might have been

                 presumed by my wanting to speak on the issue.





                                                          393



                            We are going to, from now on, have

                 motions to petition a bill or a resolution out

                 of committee, one per day in our

                 deliberations -- as opposed to prior, when

                 we've had many motions to discharge, which is

                 the former term, argued in the same day.

                            I think that's a good change, Mr.

                 President.  Because on one occasion we had to,

                 in order to accommodate the deadline -- and it

                 happened in 1995, the deadline was April 11th.

                 So on April 11th, we actually argued 12

                 motions for discharge in the same session.  I

                 don't think that that gave those issues that

                 meant a lot to the members who wanted to get

                 them out on the floor a proper hearing.

                            So I think the idea of having one

                 per day is a good idea.  And I think it not

                 only accommodates order and efficiency but

                 also accommodates the opportunity to be heard

                 on those issues.

                            What I don't understand -- and I

                 would ask if the Majority Leader would yield

                 for a question.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Are you

                 asking the Senator to yield, Senator Paterson?





                                                          394



                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Please.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, would you yield to a question from

                 Senator Paterson?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Thank you.

                            My question is, there is a 60-day

                 period before which motions for discharge can

                 be filed under this rules change.  And what I

                 wanted to say is that I actually think that

                 that has some merit, because the premise for a

                 motion for discharge would be that which

                 assumes that the committee is not giving the

                 bill an opportunity to be heard.

                            So how you could walk into Albany

                 on January 5th and offer a motion for

                 discharge is inherently unfair, is it not,

                 Senator Bruno, because the committee hasn't

                 even had a chance to consider the bill?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    That's correct.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson.





                                                          395



                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Then why -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Are you

                 asking the Senator to continue to yield?

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    I'm sorry, Mr.

                 President.  Would Senator Bruno continue to

                 yield?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Then, Senator,

                 what's not expressed in the rules is the fact

                 that usually we have a second edict, that may

                 not be in the rules but is one that we are

                 following, which sets a limit on when motions

                 for discharge can be argued, usually the

                 second week in April.  That's what we've had

                 for the past few years.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    That's correct,

                 Mr. President, that has been the rule of the

                 house, in both houses.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    So if the

                 Senator would yield, Mr. President.





                                                          396



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    So you see,

                 Senator, that second idea that we follow here

                 also has merit, because we don't want to be

                 debating motions for discharge late into the

                 session at the same time that we're really

                 trying to pass the budget, pass very important

                 pieces of legislation, and hopefully adjourn

                 in a seasonable period.  Is that correct,

                 Senator Bruno?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    You can assume

                 that that's correct, Mr. President.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Then, Mr.

                 President, if Senator Bruno would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The





                                                          397



                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    You see,

                 Senator, my problem is not with either one of

                 those rules individually.  My problem is with

                 the aggregate of the two rules acting

                 together.  Because the only way to accommodate

                 the deadline for motions to discharge, which

                 is now a motion to petition a bill or

                 resolution out of committee, is that it would

                 have to come at a period of time to

                 accommodate this deadline that really isn't

                 fair to the committee.

                            So what I'm asking you to comment

                 on is how we can accommodate this when we have

                 two seeming rules that act in contradiction to

                 each other.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President,

                 our committees shut down late in April, early

                 May, so that we can start to wind down the

                 process.  So I don't think this is any great

                 hardship at all in any way.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Mr. President,

                 if Senator Bruno would continue to yield.





                                                          398



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Mr. President,

                 I apologize if I didn't state the question in

                 a way that would accommodate the Majority

                 Leader's response.

                            What I'm saying is that if we're

                 going to wait 60 days before we file a motion

                 for discharge, we are into a period that's

                 right on top of the deadline.  And it is

                 difficult if we're going to argue all of these

                 motions on one day.  There aren't enough days

                 to accommodate the number of motions.

                            I'm saying you have three different

                 rules:  The 60-day rule, the one motion per

                 day rule, and also the deadline rule.  When

                 the three of them are acting together, you no

                 longer have a real opportunity to put those

                 motions on the floor.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Mr. President,

                 what we're discussing here is identical to





                                                          399



                 what has been going on in the Assembly for

                 years.  And if you'll forgive me, I didn't

                 hear my colleagues, Senator Paterson or anyone

                 else, objecting to the procedures there, which

                 they have deemed to be extremely efficient.

                 So we're learning from our counterparts, just

                 as they learned from us in other respects.

                            So why, I would answer, is it

                 inappropriate in this chamber when it's been

                 happening year after year after year in the

                 Assembly?  This is identical.  60 days, one

                 bill a day, is identical, and it has worked

                 just fine.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Mr. President,

                 Senator Bruno makes a good point.  It would be

                 disingenuous of me to stand up here and

                 criticize the Majority singly, singling them

                 out, if I did not include any other

                 legislative body, whether it be in Albany or

                 anyplace else, that has a system that to some

                 extent, whether by intent or by inevitability,

                 dissuades a full and complete discussion of

                 the issues.





                                                          400



                            I think it was Senator Duane who

                 commented earlier today that the rightness

                 does not -- is not a value that is reserved

                 for Democrats.  He criticized the Assembly,

                 right here in this chamber, if the Assembly

                 practices rules in exactly the same way.

                            So I think that the point is

                 merited.  But I also feel that, having not an

                 opportunity to vote or to speak on what goes

                 on in the Assembly, that the best venue for me

                 to lodge my opinions would be right here in

                 the Senate.

                            And so, Mr. President, on the bill.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson, on the bill.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    I think that

                 Senator Bruno brings us to the actual question

                 that we're really discussing here today, and

                 it is the responsibility and the oath that we

                 take as Senators.  It is the effect of public

                 confidence in our ability to legislate and in

                 our ability to be leaders.

                            Certainly a mandate, certainly a

                 vote, certainly a majority entitles us to

                 certain responsibility and to certain





                                                          401



                 decision-making capacity in any kind of body.

                 What I want to suggest is that it's become

                 excessive.  And I do not want to impugn the

                 reputations or the great work that this

                 Majority has taken.  I think it's just

                 something that's become rampant in our society

                 as it relates to the legislative process.  It

                 really is the access of power and sometimes

                 the inability to control it in a reasonable

                 fashion.

                            Last year this Minority offered 38

                 motions for discharge.  The exact calendar

                 time in the legislative process that it took

                 to debate those 38 motions was 194 minutes,

                 three hours and 14 minutes.  If you divide it

                 by the number of motions that we offered, it

                 came out to actually less than five minutes

                 per motion.

                            But there were some key issues

                 related to hate crimes, gun control, and

                 clinic access that were debated for a period

                 of time.  They were the issues on people's

                 minds.  The public opinion polls that were

                 paid for by consultants to the Majority and

                 the Minority all agreed that these were the





                                                          402



                 issues that were most in the public interest

                 last year.  And so the opportunity to debate

                 them a little longer was there.

                            It is shut down under Rule XI,

                 Section 2, subdivision E, when it confines us

                 to a five-minute discussion and does not even

                 offer an opportunity for debate.  This is an

                 example of power, but in my opinion in a realm

                 that challenges the notion of responsibility.

                            It wasn't that long, three hours of

                 all the time that we have in legislative days

                 to discuss some issues that a minority of

                 Senators and perhaps at the time a minority of

                 people in the state believed in.  But

                 interestingly enough, this Majority and

                 Minority came together at the end of this

                 session to agree that we had all passed

                 legislation to address elements of those three

                 issues.  Maybe had not there been the motion

                 for discharge, perhaps we wouldn't have

                 thought of it that way.

                            That's what I thought public

                 service was.  That's what I thought we

                 sometimes can accomplish here in the chamber.

                            I think the words of Shakespeare





                                                          403



                 are in order when he speaks of power in a

                 sonnet where he wrote:  "They that have power

                 to hurt and will do none/That do not do the

                 things they most do show/who, moving others,

                 are themselves as stone/Unmoved, cold, and to

                 temptation slow."  That was the admonition

                 that Shakespeare gives us about being in the

                 majority, being in power, sometimes having a

                 little more decision-making capacity than

                 those who you actually disagree with.

                            And I think that the words of

                 Abigail Adams, writing to the former president

                 John Adams in 1792, when she admonished him

                 that the Continental Congress had not

                 addressed the issues of women -- she even said

                 in the article that any man would be a tyrant

                 if given the opportunity.  And while I don't

                 totally agree with that, the point is that she

                 was talking about notions of freedom for half

                 of the United States population that at that

                 point couldn't get a hearing in something that

                 we celebrate as part of our original

                 Constitution.

                            She left out the fact that our

                 original Constitution actually designated





                                                          404



                 one-sixth of its population to be three-fifths

                 of a man.  Not even a person, three-fifths of

                 a man.

                            So what I'm saying is in those

                 situations where we find that individuals are

                 in possession of power to the extent that it

                 can become abuse -- not because the

                 individuals are of some desire to be that way,

                 but just that the structure, just that the

                 actual set of rules that are established do

                 not accommodate that very important view which

                 is often the minority view.

                            And Shakespeare speaks to that at

                 the close of Sonnet 94 when he says that "The

                 summer's flower is to the summer sweet/Though

                 to itself it only live and die/But if that

                 flower with base infection meet/The basest

                 weed outbraves his dignity."

                            And he substitutes the word

                 "flower" for "power," because what he's really

                 saying is that that is the growth of power,

                 depending on how it's used.  And when it's not

                 used correctly, he closes by saying "For

                 sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds/

                 Lilies that fester smell far worse than





                                                          405



                 weeds."

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Schneiderman.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    Thank you,

                 Mr. President.  If the sponsor would yield to

                 some questions, please.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, do you yield to a question from Senator

                 Schneiderman?

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Not presently,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator refuses to yield.

                            Senator Schneiderman.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    I guess

                 nobody else is going to yield to a question

                 presently either.

                            Let me speak on the bill, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Schneiderman, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    I hope

                 that after the rule providing for civility is

                 passed, perhaps yielding to questions will

                 return to its usual state.





                                                          406



                            I am in agreement with my

                 colleagues that this is an extraordinarily

                 regressive set of measures.  And I do not see

                 any way to justify them beyond this

                 "1984"-style rhetoric -- that war is peace,

                 slavery is freedom -- which we seem to be

                 into.

                            I do not think the public of the

                 State of New York wants less democracy in this

                 house, and I don't think the public of the

                 State of New York wants rule changes that make

                 it harder to know what their Senators stand

                 for.  I think that this is -- it is

                 incomprehensible, I think, to any reasonable

                 observer how you can impose a rule requiring

                 amendments to be submitted at least two hours

                 before the time for the Senate to convene when

                 the rule that provides for the submission of

                 bills does not require that the bills that you

                 might seek to amend be submitted two hours

                 before the Senate convenes.

                            This is a set of rules that will

                 cause a sting that will not go away easily.  I

                 think that the change from recorded votes to a

                 system of canvass of agreement that is a





                                                          407



                 transparent effort to evade the constitutional

                 requirement that all votes be recorded is

                 disgraceful.

                            I do not see how my colleagues in

                 the Majority can look us in the eye and say

                 these are rules that are designed to increase

                 democracy.  I do not understand how it is more

                 efficient, more responsive to the public, more

                 open and above-board, to quote Senator Bruno's

                 words, to make it harder for the public to

                 know what votes were taken by their Senators.

                            And I don't think that this will

                 increase the efficiency of the house.  As

                 Senator Connor pointed out, and Senator

                 Dollinger, I think this is just going to

                 increase the inefficiency caused by different

                 tactics, different maneuvers, as we make an

                 effort to raise issues the public wants to

                 hear us debate.

                            And I think it's a very sad day for

                 this house if these rules are to pass.  I urge

                 everyone to vote no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    No other

                 Senators having wish to debate on the

                 resolution, Senator Bruno -





                                                          408



                            Senator Onorato, you wish to be

                 heard?

                            SENATOR ONORATO:    Yes, I do, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Onorato, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR ONORATO:    Mr. President,

                 I've been in this chamber now 18 years.  And I

                 am very, very saddened today by these

                 particular rules changes.

                            I thought we all got along very,

                 very well here in this house, with open

                 debates on all issues, whether we were in

                 agreement with them or not.  Senator Bruno

                 indicated that last year was probably one of

                 the most productive years that we've had.  We

                 had 38 amendments in this house, none of which

                 passed.  None of them affected the election of

                 any Republican or Democrat in this house.

                            The rules as they currently exist

                 are not broken.  And, coining their phrase, if

                 it's not broke, there's no need to fix them.

                 By changing these rules, you are doing a

                 disservice to every member of the Minority in

                 this house.





                                                          409



                            Senator Bruno alludes to the fact

                 that the same rules are applying in the

                 Assembly.  If that be the case, it is wrong

                 there and it is wrong here.  Two wrongs do not

                 make a right.

                            What I am asking from my colleagues

                 is to have some consideration.  I can't get

                 bills passed, but the least I can expect from

                 you is to have my voice heard on this floor

                 and that every vote that I take be recorded,

                 not only through a canvass if I'm in the

                 affirmative.  I want my constituents to know

                 that I voted no on a bill as well as yes.

                            And I urge you to reconsider these

                 draconian rules that you are proposing here

                 today to stifle my voice.  I want to hold my

                 head up high and walk in my community and

                 state to them that I have every right that my

                 colleagues on the other side of the room have

                 in proposing legislation, discussing them, and

                 to bring amendments on the floor when I see

                 fit.

                            Ladies and gentlemen, I really urge

                 you to search in your conscience before you

                 pass legislation such as this to stifle our





                                                          410



                 voices.  You've stifled everything else that

                 you've given us before.  Don't take our voice

                 away from us.  Thank you.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Breslin, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR BRESLIN:    On the

                 resolution, Mr. President, briefly.

                            Over the years I've been here, I've

                 listened to my friends in the Majority as

                 they've come from the Assembly.  And they've

                 talked about the process in the Assembly and

                 talked about the light that is contained

                 within this Senate and how democratic it is

                 and how Minority members are able to

                 participate.

                            That changes today.  That changes

                 dramatically today.  It changes in a way that

                 it suppresses the point of view of 25 of the

                 61 Senators here.  Suppresses.  It also allows

                 the Majority to do things in this body without

                 being held accountable.

                            So we have suppression on the one

                 side and no accountability on the other.

                 That's what they do in totalitarian states.

                 It isn't what we should do here in the New





                                                          411



                 York State Senate, when all of the citizens in

                 New York are watching us.

                            I urge everyone to reconsider and

                 think about what you've said, about what you

                 experienced when you were in the other body

                 and what you've experienced in life as a

                 minority member when you have been abused by

                 power, and to let the sunshine continue to

                 flow here in the Senate, where there's an open

                 dialogue and open debate and we accomplish

                 things.

                            And the idea that debate on a bill

                 is sufficient in and of itself, I only have to

                 remind you that in the past four years,

                 there's only been one bill that's been brought

                 to this floor that was voted down.  What does

                 that tell you?  It's determined beforehand

                 what bills get here.  And it's not determined

                 by the 25 Democrats.  We aren't able to pick

                 and choose those bills we debate on.  But up

                 until this point, we were able to pick those

                 items and motions to discharge which we could

                 debate fully which later became part of the

                 law of this state.

                            It's a dark day for all of us.





                                                          412



                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Lachman, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR LACHMAN:    Yes.  I haven't

                 been in the chamber high [ph] years, or 18

                 years, as Senator Onorato has been.  I did

                 arrive one year before Senator Breslin.  But I

                 share their many concerns, as well as the

                 concerns of those speaking before, especially

                 the Minority Leader.

                            I'm not certain that the Majority

                 is completely aware of the impact of this

                 legislation.

                            When I arrived in this chamber five

                 years ago, I was told there is a certain

                 civility in the Senate and there's a certain

                 process that takes place that is different

                 than the other chamber.  And it's true.  I

                 learned in five years that the civility is

                 different, the process is different, and the

                 relationship between Minority members and

                 Majority members are different.

                            James Madison, in the Federalist

                 Papers, wrote about the tyranny of the

                 majority and the tyranny of the minority and





                                                          413



                 how the majority and the minority must respect

                 one another.  And that is why, Mr. Chairman,

                 we have Alaska with two senators and

                 California with two senators, even though

                 California's population is 35 million and

                 Alaska's is just 2 million.  That's why we

                 have an Electoral College that decides who

                 will be president, and not the popular vote of

                 the nation.  It was the consideration given by

                 the large states to the small states of the

                 union, so that they would feel not left out

                 but part of a greater union striving towards a

                 common goal.

                            And I think this is not so much a

                 question or an issue of Republican versus

                 Democratic, but I think it's an issue of

                 majority versus minority.  And I must tell

                 you, I'm not happy at all with what takes

                 place in the Assembly vis-a-vis the Majority

                 and the Minority.  And if this goes through,

                 we will be almost a carbon copy of them rather

                 than elevating them to the position of the

                 New York State Senate.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator





                                                          414



                 Espada, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR ESPADA:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.

                            And I must start by congratulating

                 my colleagues on the Democratic Conference

                 side.  Clearly they have incurred the wrath of

                 the Majority, and this is payback day in part.

                 And I am sure that the Democrats on this side

                 of the aisle have incurred that wrath because

                 finally as an observer, having been away from

                 these august chambers for four years, I

                 noticed a real competitiveness, a real

                 spirited effort to gain the majority, to gain

                 the influence, to talk to the people about

                 what the issues were.

                            I followed very carefully the hate

                 crimes bill.  I was here from '92 to '96, and

                 that couldn't get on the floor.

                            So clearly the ability through

                 procedure to speak to the people, to have the

                 people know what this body stood for, is being

                 swept away today.

                            But you won't get any whining from

                 me.  Most of my problems have not been with

                 Republicans.  I think I've come from a county





                                                          415



                 that has but one, for the moment.  But my

                 problems have been with dictatorial and

                 authoritarian people and bodies and things.  I

                 come from a jurisdiction, the 32nd, that is a

                 protected jurisdiction.  It is federally

                 protected because of institutional bias and

                 prejudice and racism.  And all of that

                 protection came by way of very hard work.

                            These procedures, these new rules,

                 albeit for the sake of efficiency and order,

                 you're doing it to my voters.  You're doing it

                 to the 300,000 or 400,000 people that are

                 protected by federal statute.  And I take

                 offense.  I don't whine about it.  I was

                 trained, as the Majority Leader here, in the

                 art or science of pugilism.  When you're hit

                 with a body blow, you don't whine.  You try to

                 hit back.  And hit back we will.

                            You will not fetter us through

                 procedure, you will not shut us down through

                 procedure, you will not dominate debate

                 through procedure.  You may claim victory in

                 terms of your electoral edge because the money

                 flows a certain way, advantages have been

                 institutionalized and will continue for a





                                                          416



                 while longer.

                            But I take no personal umbrage,

                 because I have been taught to really treat and

                 acknowledge your enemy for what they are.

                 Those that would strike back in this manner

                 have been hurt.  They are to some extent

                 fearful of what has been laid upon them in

                 this past election.  They try to justify it

                 because of what happens on the Assembly side.

                            And let me just say as a registered

                 Democrat, I've been registered as an

                 independent, have even been campaigned for

                 Republican Party policies -- this is not about

                 party.  This is not about procedure.  This is

                 about an act of fear, trying to squash

                 something that's not even there.  There's no

                 rebellion afoot.

                            As Senator Onorato, I served under

                 Senator Ohrenstein, a most gentile person

                 himself.  This is not a body that has been

                 uncivil.  This is strictly about imposition of

                 your will for what happened in this past

                 electoral season.

                            And somehow emulating the

                 Democratic side is also wrong.  My son served





                                                          417



                 in the Assembly.  As a young man of 22, he

                 would come back bragging to his dad about what

                 advantages he enjoyed in the

                 Democratic-Party-controlled Assembly.  And I

                 would caution him, I would caution him about

                 what that said about him as a person, as a

                 man, as a leader.

                            And similarly, I urge people to

                 take caution here about what these measures

                 say about them as persons, as leaders.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Hassell-Thompson, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:    Yes,

                 Mr. President.

                            I am the newest member here in the

                 Senate.  But new or not, 96 percent of the

                 people in my district voted for me.  And they

                 voted for me understanding that even as a

                 freshman, I would not pass bills in this body.

                 But they did have an anticipation and an

                 expectation that through my history, I would

                 voice on this floor their concerns.

                            I see these resolutions as a

                 disenfranchisement of those people who elected





                                                          418



                 me to do this.  I do not see the opportunity

                 here to amend those things that may on the

                 surface appear to be good, may appear to be

                 worthy, but that may put some of my

                 constituents at a disadvantage.  And it does

                 not allow me the opportunity to speak on those

                 issues.

                            We talk about emulating another

                 house.  When I sought this position, it was

                 impressed upon me that I was coming to the

                 upper house, the house that sets the example.

                 I took great pride in that.

                            I'm not sure, as I stand here at

                 this moment, that I take great pride in the

                 act that we are attempting to do.  Anytime the

                 constitutionality is bypassed and you think

                 that what has happened to you warrants that,

                 we take umbrage, certainly.  But I am more

                 fearful of that than anything else that we may

                 do in these chambers.

                            I think that we have a

                 constitutional responsibility as leaders.  And

                 when I took the oath of office to protect the

                 Constitution, I did not do so with any desire

                 to bypass it or to skirt it, but to debate it





                                                          419



                 to ensure that the way in which we interpret

                 the language would be in the best interests of

                 the people that we serve.

                            So therefore, I am voting no.  I am

                 voting no on behalf of the people who sent me

                 to these chambers.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Markowitz, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR MARKOWITZ:    Thank you

                 very, very much.

                            I think of all this time that we're

                 spending when we ought to be spending it on

                 the burning issues that face New York

                 residents, no matter where they may live in

                 the State of New York.  I'd like to spend time

                 talking about affordable housing for our

                 moderate- and middle-income families in

                 New York.  I'd like to talk about the

                 escalating costs of energy.  I'd like to be

                 talking about the need for affordable assisted

                 living for our senior citizens.  And so many

                 other problems -- crumbling school buildings

                 in Brooklyn, lack of certified teachers.

                            However, since we're the Minority,





                                                          420



                 you set the agenda.  I also want to add, if I

                 may, you set how the resources are allocated.

                 And so here I am, here we are, representing no

                 less than you represent.  The folks that we

                 serve are no less important than the folks

                 that you serve, because we're all New York

                 State residents.  Yet when you look at the

                 allocation of funds that you receive to help

                 those that you want to serve and what we

                 receive, you'd understand some of our

                 concerns.

                            Because it's obvious we are not

                 equal here.  Perhaps outside the door, but in

                 this place there's no such thing as equality.

                 Other than the chair I get is basically maybe

                 the chair you get.  But other than that, when

                 it comes to resources to bring home to our

                 constituencies, when it comes to staff

                 allocations in order to serve the same people

                 you serve, the same numbers, there is no

                 equity here.

                            And now we're talking about

                 changing rules to make us even less effective

                 in our ability to represent those who are no

                 less important than the people you serve.  I





                                                          421



                 believe that maybe Brooklyn residents are more

                 important than the people you serve, and your

                 attitude should be the same about the areas

                 you serve.  We all share that pride of the

                 communities, boroughs, neighborhoods that we

                 serve.

                            What we ought to be talking about

                 here is the equal allocation of funds.  Equal

                 allocation of funds.  Majority or minority

                 should not matter when it comes to needs that

                 every one of us are sworn to serve, those that

                 have given us this privilege and honor of

                 being an elected official on their behalf.

                            The New York State Assembly, that's

                 the lower house.  We're the house of the

                 lords.  We're the upper house.  We are the

                 examples, exemplary examples of how

                 legislators, public officials walk around with

                 pride and with dignity.  We follow no one.

                 We're the Senate.  We're proud of this house.

                 And we want to be even more proud of it in the

                 days ahead.

                            Senator Bruno has been a -- in many

                 ways has stamped his personality on this

                 house.  And in many ways he has, I think, and





                                                          422



                 I think we all feel that way, has made some

                 important changes, positive changes in certain

                 ways, in terms of us not working all night,

                 which is wonderful, streamlining some of the

                 processes that help in some ways move

                 legislation forward.

                            But to Senator Bruno, the best

                 leaders are those that treat those that may be

                 in the minority the best.  What you'll be

                 remembered for is how you treat your

                 adversaries.  That's what you'll be remembered

                 best for.  Not those that already support you,

                 but those that may not be among your Majority

                 but those that nonetheless have every right to

                 share in the accomplishments of this Senate.

                            And so I hope that when this is

                 said and done a few minutes from now that

                 cooler minds will prevail, that the dignity of

                 the Senate will be upheld, and that we'll put

                 these proposed changes aside for now and let's

                 go back to our priorities in terms of the

                 major issues facing the residents of our state

                 in every region, represented by any of us in

                 any party.  That should be the goal.  That's

                 our objective.





                                                          423



                            And I hope and pray, Senator Bruno,

                 that you will take on the leadership and help

                 resolve this right now.  And that is to let us

                 move on to other issues.

                            Thank you.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Connor, to close for the Minority.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.

                            I've been in the Senate since early

                 1978.  Do the math.  I've served longer than

                 anyone on this side of the aisle.  Can't say

                 that, Mr. President, about some of the people

                 in the Majority.  But I think I got here not

                 so long after Senator Bruno got here,

                 actually.

                            And I've been the Minority Leader

                 now -- beginning my what is it?  Beginning my

                 seventh year?  Uh-oh.  And my good friend, Mr.

                 President, Senator Velella once said to me,

                 "You have a tough job, being Minority Leader.

                 You have a tough job."  Compared to being in

                 the Majority?  Yeah.

                            I've tried my best.  But I've been

                 here long enough, and I've had an interest





                                                          424



                 before I came here in this institution.  And

                 I've watched this institution.  And as a new

                 member here, Mr. President, I spent time as a

                 young member giving a ride home to one of my

                 Assembly members, the late, great Bill

                 Passannante, who served in this Legislature

                 for over 40 years, I guess.  And I also in

                 Kings County talked to some judges who had

                 served here 30 and 40 and 50 years ago, to try

                 and get a sense of this institution that I was

                 joining.

                            And I also have my own experiences.

                 Mr. President, in my first full session as a

                 freshman Minority legislator, I passed 19

                 bills into chapters.  And they were not local

                 bills.  And it was not unusual for members of

                 this side of the aisle who spent the time

                 talking to committee counsels, talking to

                 committee chairs, and working legislation.

                            What happened to this institution,

                 Mr. President?  What happened to it?  I

                 remember making a speech as a freshman on the

                 floor and getting a phone call back into

                 that -- we used to have the phones back in the

                 fireplaces.  And a voice said, "Do you know





                                                          425



                 who this is?"  And I said, "Senator Anderson?"

                 And he said, "Yes.  I liked your speech, and I

                 agreed with you," not the committee chair who

                 I was debating against.  Who also became a

                 good friend of mine, who's no longer with us.

                            What happened to this institution?

                 What have we all done to it?  And I'm not

                 pointing at one side or the other.  But

                 something's happened.  We've lost something.

                            And incidentally, Mr. President,

                 something we all know never happens anymore

                 that's wrong with it.  I got some of the those

                 bills out of committee because I used to go

                 out to dinner with the committee chair and

                 we'd hang out together evenings after session.

                 Nobody does that cross-party anymore.

                            What's wrong with this?  What's

                 wrong with this institution?  Some of these

                 old-timers who served here 50 and 60 years ago

                 and 45 years ago in chatting would say to me,

                 "We always had a deal.  We always split

                 everything 60-40 with the Minority."  Staff,

                 resources, and so on.  And I said, "Oh,

                 really?"  "Yeah, because you never knew when

                 it would change.  And we had the attitude" -





                                                          426



                 pardon the expression, this was an old pol -

                 "everybody's got to eat.  And if we lose this

                 majority, we got to eat too."

                            And I don't remember -- go back in

                 this century.  This Legislature achieved great

                 things.  Great things.  It took the lead in

                 the nation on things like rights of working

                 men and women, safety, child labor.  Go back

                 throughout this century.  This Legislature led

                 the nation.  This Legislature wasn't the last

                 state east of the Mississippi to do stuff, the

                 way we were with hate crimes.

                            What has happened to this

                 Legislature?  And I say Legislature.  What

                 hurts me is what's happened to this house.

                 And the other house's business is the other

                 house's business.  But the fact is, we did a

                 better job for the people we all served then.

                 And we weren't afraid of ideas and where the

                 ideas came from and we weren't afraid to -

                 and no one felt the necessity to suppress

                 ideas.  What's happened?

                            You know, people said to me after

                 this last election, "Gee, you raised a lot of

                 money."  I did.  And Senator Velella said it,





                                                          427



                 boy -- as he once said to me, it's hard, it's

                 awful hard when you're in the Minority to do

                 that for candidates who are challenging

                 long-standing, respected legislators.  It's

                 awfully hard to do that.

                            And we fought.  And people say, oh,

                 the top of your ticket won by more than Lyndon

                 Johnson won, or whatever.  Well, what's

                 changed since 1974, when -- the last time a

                 house changed hands, the other house.  And it

                 was awful close here, those of you who are

                 historians.  Within less than 5,000 votes

                 spread over six districts cumulatively in the

                 Majority.

                            What's happened is this house and

                 the other house have refined the most perfect

                 incumbency protection system.  And a lot of

                 that, frankly, was under the guise of reforms

                 that many -- my predecessor, who I supported,

                 pushed and all.

                            We did things -- you know, in 1964

                 or 1974 there were no district offices.

                 Staffs were very small.  There were no member

                 items, pork barrel, big funds of whatever you

                 call a three-way, governor-and-two-houses





                                                          428



                 split.  There were no newsletters paid for by

                 the public or bulk mailings.

                            You know what?  We all thought in

                 the beginning, great, we're going to have

                 newsletters, district offices, it will help

                 the people, we'll serve the people better.

                            I've come to a conclusion after all

                 these years, Mr. President, all we've done is

                 enhance the existing power structure, and it's

                 not good.  And I say it's not good not because

                 it's Republican in this house.  I say it's

                 just not good for the people to not have

                 change.  You know, as Thomas Jefferson said, a

                 little revolution is good every now and then.

                            You know, the reality is -- and I

                 don't expect to anybody to throw up their

                 hands and surrender, Mr. President.  Lord

                 knows in this Majority we don't have quitters

                 here, we have people who went out and fought

                 hard.

                            I've learned some lessons from

                 those old-timers.  And, you know what, I'm

                 privileged to have young children.  I have an

                 11- and a 13-year-old.  And I learn lessons

                 from them, Mr. President.  The first thing I





                                                          429



                 learned is sticks and stones will break my

                 bones, but names will never hurt me.  We ought

                 to remember that.  We can learn from children.

                 We can learn from children.

                            I also am privileged to have gone

                 to more soccer games and basketball games and

                 baseball, Little League games in the last six

                 or seven years than I thought I ever would,

                 and at my age it's been a joy.  And I learn

                 things, because we want to teach our kids at

                 these things.

                            Oh, my kids aren't going to be

                 pros.  None of the kids they're playing with

                 are going to be pros.  One kid in a zillion is

                 going to be a pro, and he's frankly not a

                 middle-class kid playing in a Little League,

                 he's out there playing all night because he

                 can't go home.  And that kid will make the

                 pros, and God bless him.

                            But I learned something we try and

                 teach.  And we've had problems where we've

                 asked coaches not to do it anymore, because

                 they didn't understand what it was about, or

                 parents not to come anymore because you don't

                 throw things at the umpire.  And I hear the





                                                          430



                 kids, and they're all fired up before the

                 game:  "We're going to kill them, we're going

                 to kill the other side.  We're going to murder

                 them."  And they get in there and they play

                 hard.

                            And boy, when they win, they

                 high-five each other and they cheer.  And we

                 give them about two minutes of that, and we

                 say, "Okay, now calm down and give a cheer to

                 the people you just beat, and respect how hard

                 they played, and line up and shake hands."

                            We could learn from little

                 children, Mr. President.  We can learn from

                 little children.  We could really learn.  The

                 public doesn't need us carrying on these

                 fights after the fight's over.  If I were one

                 of the victors in some of those hard-fought

                 races, I'd be proud and I wouldn't be angry.

                 I'd be proud and happy.

                            To clear up the record, the

                 Assembly, these rules may seem similar to what

                 the Assembly did in that they put time limits

                 on motions and so on.  It's different in one

                 important respect that goes to the heart of

                 it.  In the Assembly, you still record votes





                                                          431



                 for amendments and motions to discharge.  You

                 record them when 15 members ask to have them

                 recorded.  Fifteen, comparable to five here.

                 They're not quite three times as large as this

                 house.  You record those votes because you

                 understand, at the end of the day, the public

                 has rights.

                            And you understand something else

                 that I'm always trying to teach my children.

                 Just because you can do something, just

                 because you want to do it doesn't mean you

                 should do it.  It doesn't mean you ought to do

                 it.  It doesn't mean it's right.  And that's

                 what it's about.  It doesn't mean it's right.

                            I understand wanting to do it.  And

                 I understand in a legislative body the

                 Majority can run roughshod if it wants to.

                 But the real question is, you shouldn't do it.

                 And you always have to ask yourself that.

                 Don't we ask ourselves all the time that

                 question?  There's lots we can do, there's

                 lots we want to do.  And a lot of those things

                 we shouldn't do, and hopefully we don't do

                 them.

                            And that's really the message about





                                                          432



                 this rule, Mr. President.  The Majority can do

                 it, and I understand all or some of them want

                 to do it, but they shouldn't do it.  And they

                 shouldn't need the Minority to raise that

                 question about whether you should do it or

                 not.  You should sit back and think before you

                 do things like this and say should we really

                 do this.

                            Should we really take something

                 like my example, Senator Donovan's motion to

                 cut off Medicaid funding for abortion as an

                 amendment to the budget, and mask and hide

                 from the public how people voted on that?  Of

                 course you shouldn't do that.

                            And it's not about will it hurt you

                 or help you politically.  We all take votes

                 hopefully all the time because of what we

                 believe in.  Yeah, you're always influenced by

                 what your constituents want and how it will

                 play.  That's part of the process.  But in the

                 end, you do what you think's right.  And

                 you're accountable for that.

                            If you can't explain what you're

                 doing, I give you Harry Truman's famous

                 saying:  "If you can't take the heat, get out





                                                          433



                 of the kitchen."  We're all in the kitchen.

                 You should be able to take the heat.  Lord

                 knows, Mr. President, we've seen members over

                 and over again take a tough vote, explain it

                 to their constituents, and I haven't seen a

                 whole lot of people losing their seats at the

                 end of the day.

                            I'm against this resolution not

                 because the Majority can't to it, not because

                 they don't want to do it, I'm against it

                 because it shouldn't be.  It shouldn't be the

                 rule in this house that used to be far, far,

                 far different when we all knew how to get

                 along.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Bruno, to conclude for the Majority.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Thank you very

                 much, Mr. President.

                            And thank you, Senator Connor, for

                 your observations and your remarks, and for

                 your passion.  And I understand passion.  And

                 you're right.  In the words of Senator Truman,

                 if you can't take the heat, get out of the

                 kitchen.





                                                          434



                            We're here governing.  We are here

                 governing.  And that's exactly what this is

                 all about.  Your perception, as you have

                 shared it, isn't necessarily the right

                 perception.  That is your perception.  And you

                 have a right to your perception.  And we have

                 a right to our perception.

                            And our perception is, as I opened

                 the discussion on this issue, that we are

                 constantly and continually going to relate to

                 improving the order in this chamber, the

                 efficiency of this chamber, so that we can

                 produce a result in a more orderly way.  And

                 that, Mr. President, will be exactly what

                 happens as we enact the rules that are before

                 us today.

                            So what you fear is beyond me.

                 Because we are in a legislative process.  And

                 threats don't cut it.  And, Senator Espada, I

                 hear you very clearly.  And frankly, I don't

                 think it's appropriate to be threatening, by

                 innuendo or in any other way, in this chamber.

                            If you can't take the heat, get out

                 of the kitchen.  I agree with you, Senator.

                 And what we're doing here today we feel will





                                                          435



                 bring order and efficiency to the process.

                            And just for correctness, you talk

                 about a five-minute discussion.  Senator

                 Paterson talked about 38 amendments, three

                 hours-plus discussion, five minutes per.

                 Well, that's exactly what we have before us.

                 We took it exactly from your division.  So

                 what is the argument?  That's what we had

                 before, that's what we will have now, by your

                 own division.  We didn't just make this up.

                            All votes in this chamber will be

                 recorded for the record, Mr. President.  So

                 because it's said doesn't make it so.  So I am

                 suggesting that people relax, be flexible, and

                 learn as we go along that we are in a changing

                 world.  Wouldn't it be sad if we were

                 stagnating in this world, if there was no

                 progress.  So you perceive these rules as a

                 step backward, we see them as a step forward.

                            And, Mr. President, I submit again

                 that everything that has happened in this

                 chamber accrues to the benefit of our mutual

                 constituency, because the more efficiently we

                 relate and debate, the more efficient the

                 process, the more orderly the process, the





                                                          436



                 more that we can get done.

                            So I see the clock is ticking to

                 the two-hour limit, and so I will ask for your

                 support for this resolution, which will

                 improve the process in this chamber.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the resolution.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Slow roll call.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Are there

                 five members who request -

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Senator

                 Espada has been standing, Mr. President,

                 asking to be recognized.  I believe he's

                 entitled under the current rules -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, you are out of order, number one.

                 You haven't been recognized, so please sit

                 down.

                            And I have seen Senator Espada

                 right where he is.  The Minority Leader

                 requested time to close, the Majority Leader

                 requested time to close, debate on this issue

                 is closed.

                            There is a slow call about ready to

                 be requested.  It's being honored.  And





                                                          437



                 Mr. Espada, Senator Espada will have an

                 opportunity to make a statement, two minutes

                 is the limitation on that, if he wishes to do

                 so.

                            Let's stick with the rules of the

                 house.  A slow roll call has been requested.

                 There are five members who have signified that

                 they request a slow roll call.  So the

                 Secretary will call the roll slowly.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Alesi,

                 excused.

                            Senator Balboni.

                            SENATOR BALBONI:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Bonacic.

                            SENATOR BONACIC:    Yes.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Breslin.

                            SENATOR BRESLIN:    No.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Brown.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    No.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Bruno.

                            SENATOR BRUNO:    Yes.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Connor.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Connor, to explain his vote?

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    To explain my





                                                          438



                 vote, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Connor, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    I heard what

                 Senator Bruno said about recording votes.  My

                 concern is with this new device called canvass

                 of agreement.

                            And I think I read the rules

                 correctly, and I listened very carefully to

                 the answers I got.  And it appears, yes, if a

                 majority of the members are in agreement, it

                 will get recorded and the amendment will go on

                 the floor and to the bill.  But if it fails,

                 as I read them, there will be no recorded

                 vote.

                            The proof will be in the pudding,

                 Mr. President, when we see the Journal from

                 later today.  Because I'm no naif, and I know

                 this rule will pass.  And there are other

                 rules amendments that I guess we'll take -

                 what are they called again? -- canvass of

                 agreements on rather than votes, and we'll see

                 whether they're in the Journal for today or

                 not, as recorded.

                            And secondly, just let me say in





                                                          439



                 addition to that issue, I think when the desk

                 on unanimous consent moves to discharge from

                 committee such and such and such bill and

                 substitute for whatever, there will be a point

                 of order.  Because as I read the rules, there

                 is now no such thing as a motion to discharge.

                            So I guess the desk, in doing that

                 housekeeping, will present the house with a

                 petition to whatever it is and will canvass

                 agreement about it.  It might take a while,

                 Mr. President, but we'll get the hang of it

                 probably by next year.

                            I vote no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Connor will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator

                 DeFrancisco.

                            SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:    Yes.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator

                 Dollinger.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, to explain his vote?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, to explain my vote.





                                                          440



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, I think this is not only a dark

                 day, as Senator Breslin called it, I think

                 this is a sad day.  It's a sad day whenever

                 any voice in any hall, in any chamber, in any

                 institution that stands up and talks about

                 change is in any way stifled.

                            I quoted William Pitt earlier

                 because I just finished a wonderful book

                 called The Lexington Alarm, and it's this

                 fabulous book about meetings in little

                 churches and little halls all throughout -

                 well, anything within about 60 miles of

                 Boston, Massachusetts, between 1773 and 1775.

                 And people got up and without any rules at

                 all, without a single rule -- they had one

                 presiding officer -- and they talked about the

                 importance of liberty, the importance of

                 freedom, the importance of founding a country

                 that was built on institutions that believed

                 in both of those critical things.  They did it

                 all with virtually no rules at all.

                            And here we are 225 years later





                                                          441



                 layering on the rules to do just the opposite.

                 Those patriots who gave their lives to start

                 this country if they were in this chamber

                 would tell you that this is silliness, that

                 it's contrary to what they gave us, the

                 precious gift to express our thoughts, to be

                 accountable for our votes.  And we stand here

                 today laughing in derision at what they did.

                 I think it's a disgrace.

                            I would say, as I've said before,

                 this is the "GOP Lack of Accountability Act."

                 It's going to become law.  And I'll quote,

                 with another man who fought against tyranny in

                 every form:  If this majority lasts for

                 another 40 years, this will be their saddest

                 hour.

                            I vote no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Duane.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    To explain my

                 vote, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane, to explain his vote.





                                                          442



                            SENATOR DUANE:    People much wiser

                 than I said this much better than I'm going to

                 be able to.  But it's clear that democracy is

                 a very lengthy and messy and inefficient way

                 to rule.  The only thing it has going for it

                 is it's better than any other way we have.

                            To limit the kind of discussion

                 that we can have in this body is just plain

                 wrong.  I'm voting no on this.  But I also am

                 very concerned about what the future holds.

                            It's my understanding that under

                 the rules, if a person's name is cited who's

                 on the floor, that person is allowed to

                 respond.  I think it's wrong to not allow a

                 person whose name has been raised to use a

                 point of personal privilege to respond.  I

                 hope and I pray that that's not what the

                 future holds for this body.

                            Thank you.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    How do

                 you vote, Senator Duane?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    No.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.





                                                          443



                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Espada.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Espada, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR ESPADA:    To explain my

                 vote, Mr. President.

                            I just want to go back to the

                 comments that I made on the motion that's

                 being voted on.  I spoke about the principles

                 of openness.  I spoke about my district as one

                 of the poorest districts in this state, that

                 is a protected jurisdiction under the federal

                 Constitution, that, through procedure and

                 through other institutionalized methods, have

                 been kept oppressed.  Through formulas, its

                 children have been denied an education.

                            And it is these kinds of procedures

                 that don't add any vote, any weight, any

                 measure of advantage that I talked about for a

                 couple of minutes.

                            I've trained myself only to take

                 the floor here on rare occasions when I feel I

                 have something to say.  Let me just say I

                 thank the members of our conference, because

                 clearly this is political retribution.

                 They've earned that, brave souls that they





                                                          444



                 are.  We'll keep marching on, unfettered by

                 these procedures.

                            I also indicated -- through

                 metaphor, mostly -- but it's a shared

                 experience that I know the Majority Leader has

                 training in the sweet science of boxing, and

                 so do I.  And he or I, when we practiced that

                 art, that science, would take to the ring in

                 the most violent ways -- there was civility

                 there.  You would not tie your opponent's arms

                 behind their back, knock them down and

                 proclaim yourself a champion.  That is no

                 champion, sir.

                            Thank you very much.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Espada, how do you vote?

                            SENATOR ESPADA:    I vote no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Espada will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Farley.

                            SENATOR FARLEY:    Aye.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Fuschillo.

                            SENATOR FUSCHILLO:    Aye.





                                                          445



                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Gentile.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Gentile, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR GENTILE:    Mr. President,

                 I speak with a heavy heart today in

                 anticipation of the vote we are about to take.

                            Obviously, as you've heard, this

                 issue is not about what happened in the

                 Assembly and the rules of the Assembly,

                 although many of those members on the other

                 side have lived under those rules.  It is not

                 about that.  It is not about efficiency in

                 this house.

                            We all know that it's about

                 stifling ideas and stifling debate.  And that

                 is not what many of us here on this side have

                 come to do.  We have come to introduce those

                 ideas, to debate those ideas.  And we feel

                 confident in debating those ideas that if the

                 ideas on the other side are as equal or

                 superior, then those ideas will win the day.

                 But let's debate those ideas.  I believe that

                 this rule change, these rule changes, will

                 stifle that debate.

                            And one other thing.  As I look





                                                          446



                 across this room today and I see the young

                 people who are sitting right behind you, many

                 of those interns right there, I ask you to

                 think, is this the vote you want to take and

                 have those young people and the young people

                 that sit behind us here today leave this

                 chamber with this thought, that this house has

                 now moved to stifle debate, to stifle

                 democracy?

                            Is that the impression we want to

                 leave on all these young people that are here

                 today, that are up in that gallery, that are

                 looking through that TV camera?  I don't think

                 so.  I don't think so.

                            This resolution is abhorrent to

                 every democratic bone in my body.  It should

                 be abhorrent to every democratic bone in your

                 body, in the bodies of those interns and all

                 the young people that are watching us today.

                            I vote no, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Gentile will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Gonzalez.

                            SENATOR GONZALEZ:    Mr. President,





                                                          447



                 to explain my vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Gonzalez, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR GONZALEZ:    I think that

                 these rules changes, or this resolution, what

                 it does is, in my belief, disenfranchises the

                 people who elected me to represent them in

                 this body.  So therefore I vote in the

                 negative.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Gonzalez will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Goodman.

                            (No response.)

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Hannon.

                            SENATOR HANNON:    Yes.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator

                 Hassell-Thompson.

                            SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:    No.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Hevesi.

                            SENATOR HEVESI:    Mr. President,

                 to explain my vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Hevesi, to explain your vote.

                            SENATOR HEVESI:    Thank you.





                                                          448



                            Mr. President, I have a great deal

                 of respect for Senator Bruno, our Majority

                 Leader.  But please hear my words today.  The

                 failure of a powerful man to wield a judicious

                 sword shall in and of itself, and in the

                 course of time, relieve that individual of the

                 burden of leadership for which he is so wholly

                 unprepared.

                            I vote no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Hevesi will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Hoffmann.

                            (No response.)

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Johnson.

                            SENATOR JOHNSON:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Kruger.

                            (No response.)

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Kuhl.

                            SENATOR KUHL:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Lachman.

                            SENATOR LACHMAN:    No.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Lack.

                            SENATOR LACK:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Larkin.





                                                          449



                            SENATOR LARKIN:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator LaValle.

                            SENATOR LAVALLE:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Leibell.

                            SENATOR LEIBELL:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Libous.

                            SENATOR LIBOUS:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Maltese.

                            SENATOR MALTESE:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator

                 Marcellino.

                            SENATOR MARCELLINO:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Marchi.

                            SENATOR MARCHI:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator

                 Markowitz.

                            SENATOR MARKOWITZ:    No.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Maziarz.

                            SENATOR MAZIARZ:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator McGee.

                            SENATOR McGEE:    Yes.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Meier.

                            SENATOR MEIER:    Yes.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Mendez.

                            SENATOR MENDEZ:    No.





                                                          450



                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator

                 Montgomery.

                            SENATOR MONTGOMERY:    No.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Morahan.

                            SENATOR MORAHAN:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Nozzolio.

                            SENATOR NOZZOLIO:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Onorato.

                            SENATOR ONORATO:    To explain my

                 vote, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Onorato, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR ONORATO:    I'm explaining

                 my vote, hopefully that it will be my last

                 opportunity to change somebody's mind.

                            Senator Bruno indicated that these

                 rule changes were a step in the next century,

                 that it was a move forward.  To me, it's

                 probably the most advance-to-the-rear motion

                 that this body has ever engaged in, again, to

                 stifle my vote and my voice for the 300,000

                 that I represent in my district.

                            I hope clearer minds in the future

                 will revisit this draconian rule change and

                 get back to the real 20th century where truth,





                                                          451



                 honor, and debate will go forward.

                            I vote no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Onorato will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            SENATOR STAFFORD:    Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Stafford.

                            Please call Senator Stafford's

                 name.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Stafford.

                            SENATOR STAFFORD:    Aye.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Continue

                 to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator

                 Oppenheimer.

                            SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:    No.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Padavan.

                            SENATOR PADAVAN:    Yes.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Paterson.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Mr. President,

                 to explain my vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator





                                                          452



                 Paterson, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    I'm sure that

                 you will agree with me that Senator Bruno is a

                 very dynamic and highly intelligent leader.

                 He is very wily.  And I must admit I admire

                 the clever way in which he took my argument

                 and made it his argument.

                            My argument was that right now, if

                 you divided the time of the motions for

                 discharge, it probably falls within the

                 five-minute limit.  And Senator Bruno very

                 capably answered that what's the difference,

                 that's what we're actually doing.  We're just,

                 in a sense, codifying it.

                            What I said was that the current

                 system actually complies with order and with

                 efficiency.  We're not taking that much time

                 on motions for discharge.

                            But there were three areas last

                 year that commanded more time:  Hate crimes,

                 campaign finance, and gun control.  And we

                 spent a considerable time on those three

                 motions.  Almost all of the elapsed time was

                 on these three motions, because they were the

                 issues of the day.  And they did lead to





                                                          453



                 passage of vital laws by this body sponsored

                 by Majority members.

                            So I still feel that we have order

                 and we have efficiency now.  But we are not

                 accommodating the opportunity to address

                 important issues.

                            Finally, Mr. President, in voting

                 no, I turn your attention to Article 3 in

                 Section 14 of our State Constitution that says

                 that on votes by the Legislature, the ayes and

                 nays will be recorded in the Journal.

                            It's my opinion that this

                 canvassing procedure that we're putting in

                 really is an attempt to have a vote but call

                 it something else, call it a canvass.  And in

                 that way, it allows people to, in a sense,

                 escape any real notice or any real view by the

                 public of the positions that they're actually

                 taking.

                            And because of that, I think that

                 this rules change must be defeated.  Because

                 calling it a different name is not changing

                 what it is.  It's a vote, it's a vote taken by

                 this body, and I think the public has the

                 right to know.





                                                          454



                            We can stand the heat.  We'll stay

                 in the kitchen.  We'll keep fighting, but

                 certainly with greater restrictions and what I

                 think is an obfuscation to the true leadership

                 that I think that some very capable people

                 here are capable of.

                            I vote no, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Rath.

                            (No response.)

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Saland.

                            SENATOR SALAND:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Sampson.

                            SENATOR SAMPSON:    To explain my

                 vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Sampson, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR SAMPSON:    Mr. President,

                 I understand the importance of order and

                 efficiency and change.  Change is good.  But

                 to lose respect in the process of such change

                 is unacceptable.

                            You know, these rule changes, to





                                                          455



                 me, are the ultimate act of disrespect.  We

                 can't pass a bill on this side.  Now you're in

                 the process of limiting our time in which we

                 can debate our bills, which is basically

                 telling our constituency we really don't

                 matter.

                            And sometimes I sit here and say,

                 What purpose, then, do I have in coming up

                 here in Albany, basically perpetrating a fraud

                 upon the constituencies in my district.

                            But, you know, as Senator Bruno

                 said, if you can't take the heat, get out of

                 the kitchen.  But I look at it as a lawyer,

                 I'm trained as a lawyer.  And my thing is once

                 you have a set of rules, you always try to

                 find the loopholes in those rules.  So it's a

                 challenge to us to find the loopholes in the

                 rules to make sure that our constituency

                 doesn't lose their right, as they gave to us,

                 for them to hear these debates and debate

                 issues that are of utmost importance to them.

                            But as Senator Connor said, what's

                 wrong with this institution?  What's wrong

                 with it is we have lost respect for one

                 another.  You know, the Majority beat us in





                                                          456



                 the street.  But now we're taking from the

                 street, now we're taking it to right here in

                 these chambers.  But, you know, you have to

                 deal with the punishment that is dealt.  But

                 at some point in time you may be in the

                 position, as Senator Espada said, to throw

                 back that body blow.

                            Thank you very much, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Sampson, how do you vote?

                            SENATOR SAMPSON:    I vote no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Sampson will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Santiago.

                            (No response.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Schneiderman.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    Mr.

                 President, to explain my vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Schneiderman, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    I think

                 that we've made our positions clear on both

                 sides on this.  And I think this is an





                                                          457



                 extremely unfortunate move for our

                 constituents, for the people of the State of

                 New York.

                            The only thing I have to say to

                 Senator Bruno, who I have respected and I've

                 understood to be a man of temperance and

                 moderation, someone who restrains the people

                 like me on his side of the aisle -- maybe not

                 as much as I would like -- is that we're all

                 in the same kitchen.  And if the kitchen is

                 lit on fire, we all suffer.  And I'm not sure

                 you're not lighting the kitchen on fire with

                 this move.

                            I vote no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Schneiderman will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Seward.

                            SENATOR SEWARD:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Skelos.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator A. Smith.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Smith, to explain her vote.

                            SENATOR ADA SMITH:    Thank you,





                                                          458



                 Mr. President.

                            I believe that most of us ascended

                 to this august body because of our outspoken

                 advocacy for open government.  And inherent in

                 that premise is that we would be opposed to

                 any measure which would limit the ability of

                 the people of the State of New York to obtain

                 information, information about our positions

                 on issues that affect them.

                            I've always been led to believe

                 that information is power, and especially as a

                 minority.  And I certainly today believe in

                 power to the people.  And therefore, I vote

                 no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Smith will be recorded in the negative.

                            The Secretary will continue to call

                 the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator M. Smith.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Smith, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            I know what I have to say to this

                 body may not matter much, but just allow me to





                                                          459



                 say it.

                            When I got elected, I was probably

                 one of the happiest individuals, at least in

                 my neighborhood, because it was something I

                 had wanted to do for quite some time.  I was

                 very moved when I first came here and I was

                 greeted by the Minority Leader, by the

                 Majority Leader.  And I felt as though once I

                 began to get involved in the process, speaking

                 to my colleagues on that side of the aisle, on

                 this side of the aisle, that I thought that

                 much would be able to be done and that I had

                 the ability to raise my voice on different

                 issues and effectuate certain changes.

                            Today what I think I'm being told

                 is there is basically some sort of verbal

                 slavery being developed here today.  And I

                 have some difficulty with that.  I have

                 difficulty only because who and what I began

                 to respect about the distinguished individuals

                 sitting around this room for some reason is

                 beginning to change.

                            I thought -- and I've talked to

                 many individuals, on both sides of the

                 aisle -- that while there were differences of





                                                          460



                 opinion, differences of philosophy, we all

                 would always respect one another as it relates

                 to our right to present our cases.

                            And I can tell you, from an

                 individual who comes from an ancestral

                 background of slavery, it is difficult to

                 accept the fact now that I've got to be in a

                 position now where verbal slavery is being

                 placed upon me as I sit here as an elected

                 individual to this body.

                            I am going to vote no today.  But I

                 would also hope that as we move forward and

                 present other rules and other rule changes,

                 that we take the same type of deliberation,

                 the same type of thought to understand what we

                 do today is basically going to send us down

                 somewhat of a slippery slope.

                            And I would hope that we are mature

                 enough to understand that it is necessary for

                 us to be able to debate and have differences,

                 but also move to a point where we can take

                 care of the business at hand.

                            Because as we sit here today, I am

                 not at a hearing dealing with one of the most

                 contentious issues today facing this body, and





                                                          461



                 that's education.  I am, rather, here talking

                 about whether or not I can speak at a

                 particular time.  And I think that's a

                 travesty.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Smith will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Spano.

                            SENATOR SPANO:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator

                 Stachowski.

                            SENATOR STACHOWSKI:    Mr.

                 President, briefly, to explain my vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Stachowski, to explain his vote.

                            SENATOR STACHOWSKI:    In the years

                 I've been here, I've grown to care about this

                 institution.  And because of that, I'm really

                 disappointed today, because I don't see the

                 efficiency in this motion.

                            I think that one of the things that

                 government has always stood for is a free

                 exchange of ideas.  And to limit the exchange

                 of ideas is not exactly enhancing government.





                                                          462



                            You know, in Washington, no matter

                 how contentious it gets, no matter how close

                 the majority is to the minority, like it's now

                 even, they don't change all the rules so that

                 they can more easily push ideas through.  They

                 don't try to cut down on the debate.

                            Debate is good, it's healthy.  It's

                 good to exchange ideas.  No, we don't all

                 agree on everything.  Like there's a lot of

                 things none of us agree on.  And the fact is

                 that it has never hurt anybody to have to sit

                 and listen to the other person's opinion or to

                 have to vote sometimes on something that they

                 find distasteful to vote on.

                            The fact is, we're elected to make

                 those kind of decisions, and we should take

                 that election and this office very seriously.

                 The fact is, it seems to me like we're doing

                 these rules because we want to spent less and

                 less time here.  And quite frankly, I don't

                 care how long we're here, just so we do the

                 best job we do, that we work long and we work

                 hard, because that's what we were elected for,

                 to represent people, to take as long as it

                 takes to get the best job done.  And to be





                                                          463



                 able to do it quicker doesn't make it better.

                            I vote no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Stachowski will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Stavisky.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Stavisky, to explain your vote?

                            SENATOR STAVISKY:    To explain my

                 vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Stavisky, to explain her vote.

                            SENATOR STAVISKY:    We've heard

                 analogies here about heat and in the kitchen.

                 And certainly Senator Connor, who has a

                 reputation of being an excellent cook,

                 certainly knows that there are times when, to

                 get a better product, we turn down the heat.

                 It seems to me that this is one of those

                 times.

                            As I read the proposed changes, I

                 was struck by the phrase "members are expected

                 to uphold the highest standards of civility in

                 dealing with other members."  Civility I think

                 takes several -- has several faces.  We have





                                                          464



                 not only verbal civility, but we have also

                 civility in terms of intellectual civility and

                 intellectual freedom.  And to impose the

                 so-called gag rule I find very troubling.

                            I am very proud to represent a

                 district in Queens County that is probably the

                 most culturally diverse district in the entire

                 state of New York.  My district has

                 approximately 40 percent Latinos, 30 percent

                 Asians, 15 percent African-Americans, and

                 about 20 percent or so non-Hispanic whites.

                            How do I go back to these people

                 and say to them I have been told I cannot

                 rise, my vote cannot be recorded, when these

                 people came to Flushing and Elmhurst and

                 Jackson Heights from other parts of the world

                 seeking the opportunity for a better life?

                            It seems to me that we're setting a

                 very, very unfortunate example.  And, Mr.

                 President, I vote no.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Stavisky will be recorded in the negative.

                            Continue to call the roll.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Trunzo.

                            SENATOR TRUNZO:    Yes.





                                                          465



                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Velella.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Yes.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Volker.

                            SENATOR VOLKER:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Wright.

                            SENATOR WRIGHT:    Aye.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will call the absentees.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Goodman,

                 excused.

                            Senator Hoffmann.

                            (No response.)

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Kruger.

                            (No response.)

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Rath.

                            SENATOR RATH:    Aye.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Senator Santiago.

                            (No response.)

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Announce

                 the results.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Ayes, 33.  Nays,

                 22.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.





                                                          466



                 President, I believe at the desk yesterday I

                 gave notice of an intention to amend the rules

                 as well, and there were six items that were

                 amendments.  I assume they're in order now,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, excuse me just one minute.  We have

                 a correction on the last vote count that the

                 Journal clerk would like to announce.

                            So could we have the announcement

                 of the roll call on the last vote.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Ayes, 33.  Nays,

                 23.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 resolution is adopted.

                            Now, Senator Dollinger, you are

                 correct, at the desk there are six proposed

                 resolutions that -- we have them numbered.  I

                 think that they were numbered by your staff

                 one through six.  Are you intending to take up

                 all six this evening?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.  I'll take them up in the order in

                 which they were labeled by the staff.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    That





                                                          467



                 would be fine.

                            Senator Dollinger, you now have the

                 floor for the opportunity to explain your

                 Resolution Number 1, as we have it here at the

                 desk.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Thank you,

                 Mr. President.  This is Resolution Number 1 in

                 the -- I guess the first resolution in the

                 first item of business under the new rules,

                 Mr. President.

                            This is a proposed change in the

                 rules that does something we now do, and

                 simply transforms it into the body and text of

                 the rules under which we operate this chamber.

                 And I'm going to name this -- I named the last

                 set of rules that we made and talked about

                 what they were all about.  But this rule I'm

                 also going to name after someone who made a

                 significant contribution to it.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, excuse me just a minute.  It's

                 pretty noisy in here.  I see that there are

                 members talking with staff or whatever, or

                 members who are up out of their seats.

                            So could the members please take





                                                          468



                 their seats, staff take their seats, take any

                 conversations that are necessary out of the

                 chamber, so that we may hear Senator

                 Dollinger's explanation of his proposed rules

                 change, Resolution Number 1.

                            I think we have a little more quiet

                 now.  Senator Dollinger, thank you.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Thank you,

                 Mr. President.

                            This rule I'm going to actually

                 name after someone who was a former resident

                 of this chamber, someone who stood here

                 through endless debates right around this time

                 of year, and always waved that big book -

                 remember Senator Leichter's big book about

                 congressional accounting?

                            And he actually got something done.

                 He convinced the Majority of this house after

                 a long debate, after debating a number of

                 times about things that were important in the

                 rules, he convinced this house to create a

                 biennial -- twice a year -- accounting of the

                 fiscal expenditures of the Senate, which is

                 now published by the Senate.

                            This is one of the innovations that





                                                          469



                 Senator Bruno brought to this house.  It was a

                 good thing.  It told the taxpayers how we were

                 spending their money.  And it was the right

                 thing to do.

                            Now, what this rule simply does is

                 incorporate into the permanent rules of this

                 chamber the requirement that there be a

                 twice-annual explanation of the expenditures

                 of the Senate.  Much as it's done now.  We

                 take this practice which we now have, and we

                 incorporate it into our rules.  We take all

                 the good things that Senator Bruno has tried

                 to accomplish through this semiannual

                 accounting, and we incorporate it into the

                 rules.  We make it a part of our statute, a

                 part of our law, and we require that any

                 future Senate, regardless of its majority

                 leader, Democrat or Republican, would have to

                 comply with the requirement for the biennial

                 release of financial information regarding the

                 Senate.

                            So this is something that Franz

                 Leichter worked on for years.  He never saw it

                 come about into law.  He never saw it become a

                 part of the rules of the Senate.  But





                                                          470



                 everybody over there knows it's the right

                 thing to do.  Senator Bruno has warmly

                 embraced the idea, after Senator Leichter's

                 years of hectoring, to have it done.

                            And so all I'm asking, through this

                 change -- it's a very simple change.  It

                 simply says that the semiannual accounting

                 expenditures will now be required by rule in

                 this body, and under those circumstances that

                 any future Senate will be bound by that rule.

                 I called this the Leichter rule.  Franz

                 Leichter would be, I think, smiling if he were

                 here, that this is something we could honor

                 him, a colleague from the Bronx, from

                 Manhattan, a colleague who had done all the

                 work to make this happen.

                            My suggestion is to this Majority,

                 let's adopt this rule, let's tell the people

                 of this state that we're firmly committed to

                 accountability in our financial

                 expenditures -- maybe not in our votes, but in

                 our financial expenditures.  We are willing to

                 be held accountable, we will enact a rule that

                 benefits the members of this house and

                 benefits the taxpayers in this state because





                                                          471



                 they will know how the $80 million or

                 $90 million that they pay to maintain the New

                 York State Senate, they will know how it's

                 spent and that it's spend prudently.

                            Mr. President, I recommend to the

                 members of this house an amendment to Rule II

                 adding a new section which will require the

                 Temporary President of the Senate to provide a

                 semiannual accounting of all Senate

                 expenditures and to make such accounting

                 available to the public.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the resolution.  All those in

                 favor signify by saying aye.

                            SENATOR HEVESI:    Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Hevesi, you wish to speak on the resolution?

                            SENATOR HEVESI:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Okay.

                 Senator Hevesi, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR HEVESI:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.

                            I want to commend Senator Dollinger

                 for bringing this proposed amendment to the





                                                          472



                 Senate rules.  This is a commonsense amendment

                 that would really provide a great public

                 service.  Which is, in addition to the

                 tangible benefits that it directly provides by

                 giving an accounting of the, by some

                 estimates, $80 million or $90 million that it

                 costs to operate this institution, I believe

                 it would go a long way -- and we're going to

                 see some other amendments today that go a long

                 way -- towards restoring the confidence that

                 the public should have in its institutions and

                 most notably in the Senate.

                            The money that this house spends is

                 taxpayer dollars.  It's not our money because

                 we happen to get elected to the State Senate.

                 We have oversight on it, we have discretion as

                 to how it's going to be spent.  That's our

                 responsibility.  But it's not our money to the

                 extent that we should have the privilege of

                 obscuring from the public exactly where it's

                 being spent.

                            And I run the risk here of

                 implying, which I'm not, that the money is

                 being spent in some nefarious or wasteful way.

                 It may not be.  But the public and every





                                                          473



                 member of this house and every staff member

                 and everyone should have every assurance, by

                 being able to go and examine the documents,

                 that every single penny of taxpayer money that

                 we obligate the people of this state to pay is

                 being accounted for to the dollar.

                            And what it does is it enables

                 everyone who is involved with the process to

                 know, in case they weren't keenly paying

                 attention to this, that people are going to be

                 watching.  And when you have that assurance

                 that people are going to be watching, that

                 somebody is minding the shop, you tend to make

                 decisions that are more appropriate than you

                 would if you knew that the decisions you were

                 making were never going to be exposed to

                 public scrutiny.

                            And that type of openness, that

                 type of disclosure is absolutely essential in

                 an institution such as the New York State

                 Senate.

                            I urge all of my colleagues to

                 support this amendment.  And again, I commend

                 Senator Dollinger to bring this amendment to

                 the floor.  It wouldn't cost anything to do





                                                          474



                 this, or hardly anything to do this, and it

                 would go a long way towards doing the right

                 thing, restoring confidence in government, and

                 letting all of us have the peace of mind of

                 knowing where every single penny that this

                 body spends, where it goes and for what

                 purpose.

                            I support the amendment.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Yes, thank you,

                 Mr. President.

                            I want to commend Senator Dollinger

                 on this terrific rules change.  I can't

                 imagine how anyone in the State of New York

                 would not be pleased to know that we were

                 doing everything we possibly could to fully

                 and completely disclose the finances of this

                 body.

                            It doesn't seem particularly

                 onerous to me at all that we would provide

                 such an accounting every six months.  Most

                 corporations do that sort of thing on a

                 quarterly basis.  And I think that it would do

                 us well to start with a semiannual accounting





                                                          475



                 and at some point go to quarterly.  And with

                 computers, I see no reason why we couldn't do

                 this on a monthly basis.

                            But slowly but surely, we should

                 phase in this kind of accounting procedure.  I

                 think it would be certainly a good example to

                 other people in government and other bodies

                 across the state, that we're doing that with

                 this body, which probably, outside of the New

                 York City Council in the state of New York,

                 probably spends the most money.

                            I think it would be a terrific

                 example for people whose legislation we -- for

                 whom we pass legislation to see that we are

                 being as responsible as we possibly can be in

                 accounting for every dime that we spend in

                 this body.

                            I don't mean in any way to imply

                 that there's any waste or mismanagement in how

                 we spend funds in this body.  But we do hear

                 often from pundits and reporters and good

                 government groups that they question how it is

                 that we spend money in this body.

                            So if we have nothing to hide, and

                 I assume that we don't have anything to hide,





                                                          476



                 then the right thing to do would be to put

                 this forward and show everyone exactly where

                 it is.  In fact, the expression "put our money

                 where our mouths are" comes to mind on this.

                 Or maybe we should say put our accounting

                 where our money is.  Or put our accounting

                 where our money should be?  Something like

                 that.  But you get the drift of what I'm

                 saying.

                            Eventually I think we could put

                 this information on the Internet as well, so

                 that people could get a good look at it and

                 see how it is we're spending money.  That

                 would certainly open the process.  There might

                 be more efficient ways for us to spend our

                 money.  And if the public got to have a

                 regular look at how we spent our money, they

                 may come up with terrific suggestions on how

                 we could be even more efficient in how we

                 spend money, and those funds could either be

                 expended in different ways, or maybe we

                 wouldn't need to spend so much money.

                            I mean, this is just really -

                 Senator Dollinger, you've really presented us

                 with a win-win here, and I must commend you





                                                          477



                 for it.  And the time has come for us to

                 really step forward and show the world how it

                 is that we spend our money.  Thank you from

                 the bottom of my heart, Senator Dollinger.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Any other

                 member wishing to speak on the resolution?

                            Senator Schneiderman.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    Thank you,

                 Mr. President.  Would the sponsor yield to a

                 question?  Through you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I do.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    Thank you,

                 I was just checking.  Thank you, Senator

                 Dollinger.  I appreciate your yielding to my

                 question.

                            I cannot imagine why we wouldn't do

                 this.  I feel as though the rules that were

                 just passed earlier, the refusal to pass this

                 rule is so contrary to the clear public

                 opinion and the clear direction of our

                 country.  T.





                                                          478



                            Hose of us who have been in the

                 private sector have learned that transparency

                 is essential is the effective operation of an

                 enterprise.  We have to have transparency.

                 People have to be able to see what's

                 happening.  We are now moving in the opposite

                 direction.  We are moving to shroud in secrecy

                 the proceedings of this body, to prevent the

                 public from being able to see what we do.

                            Providing a basic accounting, this

                 is a minimum.  This is a minimum.  As some of

                 my colleagues have mentioned, we should have

                 this on the Internet.  We should have instant

                 reporting.  We should have transparency.

                            We are moving contrary to the will

                 of the public.  And I think that because we

                 still do have something of a functioning

                 democracy in this state that we do that at our

                 peril.  I urge everyone to support this

                 amendment and our other amendments to open our

                 body up for the scrutiny of the public that

                 elected us.  And I really do not understand

                 the urgency of this effort to move us in the

                 opposite direction.

                            Thank you.





                                                          479



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Any other

                 member wishing to speak on the resolution?

                 Hearing none, the question is on the

                 resolution.

                            Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Can I just

                 rise for a point of order, Mr. President, so

                 that I understand the current rules?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Yes, sir.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Is a slow

                 roll call in order on this?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Under the

                 new rules, no.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    And if I

                 asked for a slow roll call, what would be the

                 opinion of the chair be?  Would that be

                 denied?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Well, I

                 just probably wouldn't recognize you as being

                 in order, Senator.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Well, then

                 you would rule me out of order, Mr. President,

                 is that correct?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    No, not

                 necessarily.





                                                          480



                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Well, if I

                 then appealed the ruling of the chair, would

                 the appeal of the ruling of the chair be in

                 order?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator,

                 I recognized you for the purpose of speaking

                 on the resolution.  If you'd like to speak on

                 the resolution which is before the house,

                 that's fine.  We haven't really reached

                 anything at this point.

                            So to maintain proper order, which

                 is my job in this chair, I simply would say,

                 would you like to make a statement on the

                 resolution or are you ready to move to a vote?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    No, Mr.

                 President, I actually rise for a point of

                 order.  I'm simply asking if a slow roll call

                 request is in order on this bill.  And the

                 answer was no, it is out of order.

                            My question then, Mr. President, is

                 another point of order.  If the chair rules

                 that we're out of order asking for a slow -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    That's

                 not a proper point of order, sir.  That's not

                 a proper point of order.





                                                          481



                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Well, but Mr.

                 President, my question, my point of order is

                 if you rule this out of order -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator,

                 my point to you very simply is I'm not in a

                 position, nor are you, to enter a dialogue

                 over the rules and a prospective

                 interpretation of the rules by this presiding

                 officer.

                            We're at the point where we are

                 either going to take a roll call on this

                 resolution or we're not.  So you have the

                 opportunity to speak on the resolution, or you

                 have the opportunity to make some request

                 further on down the line.  Do you wish to

                 speak on the resolution?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    No, Mr.

                 President, I'll yield to Senator Brown.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Brown.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    Yes, Mr.

                 President, would the sponsor yield for a

                 question?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you yield?





                                                          482



                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    Senator

                 Dollinger, I think that this is a fine

                 measure.  I would ask, how would the public be

                 able to access the printing of these

                 accounting records?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Currently -

                 through you, Mr. President -- the rules -- or,

                 excuse me, the current practice of the Senate,

                 Senator Brown, is to furnish a book that's

                 about two or two-and-a-half inches thick which

                 constitutes the biennial report of Senate

                 expenditures.  And my understanding is that

                 that book is made available to members,

                 there's a single copy made available to

                 members, and there are copies posted in the

                 Legislative Library.

                            Other than that, I don't know that

                 there's any other distribution of that

                 document.  And I don't know how many copies

                 are printed or where they end up.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, would the sponsor yield for another





                                                          483



                 question?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator,

                 do you yield to another question?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I do,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    Now, with these

                 books that are printed, would a member of the

                 public be able to request, through a Freedom

                 of Information Act, access to these financial

                 records?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, I believe the answer to that

                 question is yes.  But I don't know.  I don't

                 maintain these records.  They're maintained, I

                 believe, by Senator Bruno's office or by the

                 Legislative Library.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, would the sponsor yield for another

                 question?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you yield to another question?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I do,

                 Mr. President.





                                                          484



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    With these

                 published financial records that we would all

                 have access to, are members of the public able

                 to come into our offices and review these

                 documents?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, I assume that if the document is on

                 the shelf of a member that any member of the

                 public, at your sufferance, could come into

                 your office and examine the expenditures, your

                 expenditures as well as those of Senator

                 Marcellino's or Senator Connor's or anyone

                 else.

                            That document is in the public

                 domain.  Although it's, at least from my point

                 of view, not readily available to the public.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    On the amendment,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Brown, on the amendment.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    I too would just

                 like to join the other Senators that have

                 commended Senator Dollinger on sponsoring this





                                                          485



                 amendment.  I think anything that we can do to

                 make our finances more open and available to

                 the public is a very positive measure, and I

                 certainly will wholeheartedly support this

                 amendment.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Any other

                 Senator wishing to speak on the resolution?

                            Hearing none, the question is on

                 the resolution.  All those in favor signify by

                 saying aye.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Is this a vote?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    This is a

                 vote.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Party vote in

                 the affirmative.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Party vote in

                 the negative.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will call the roll.

                            (The Secretary called the roll.)

                            THE SECRETARY:    Ayes, 25.  Nays,

                 33.  Party vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 resolution is lost.





                                                          486



                            Senator Dollinger.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Mr. President,

                 I'd like to explain my vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    There is

                 no opportunity to explain your vote under the

                 new rules, Senator Duane.

                            Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Can I appeal

                 that?  I'd like to appeal that.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    No, I

                 didn't make a decision.  I'm just telling you

                 by way of information, Senator Duane.

                            Senator Dollinger.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I'm appealing

                 your decision, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The chair

                 is not recognizing you, Senator Duane, so

                 please sit down.

                            Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, just on a point of order so I can

                 make sure I understand the new rules.

                            Are you saying that Senator Duane,

                 when he asks to explain his vote on a matter

                 of the debate that we just had and the vote we





                                                          487



                 just had, is no longer in order to do that?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    That's

                 correct.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Could you

                 cite the section of the rule that applies, Mr.

                 President, with all due respect?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    That's my

                 ruling, Senator Dollinger.

                            Why do you rise?  Are you asking to

                 take up the next -

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I appeal that

                 rule.  I appeal it, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, as a point of order, could you

                 explain the section of the rule?  Could you

                 provide a citation of the section of the rule

                 that gives the President that authority?

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    Mr. President.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Point of order.

                 I'm appealing the rule, Mr. President.  I'm

                 appealing the rule.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane, you're not being recognized.  Would you





                                                          488



                 please sit down, because you are -- you are

                 out of order, Senator Duane.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Point of order,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Skelos, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Everyone sit

                 down.

                            SENATOR SKELOS:    I think we can

                 clarify this.  You can explain your vote other

                 than on a canvass.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Skelos has taken the position, and the chair

                 will recognize that he was mistaken.

                            So, Senator Duane, would you like

                 to explain your vote on the prior resolution?

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.

                            I want to reiterate my affirmative

                 vote on this really terrific rule that Senator

                 Dollinger put forward.

                            And I'm struck that if we did put

                 our finances forward every six months in this

                 way, there would be no confusion such as the

                 terrible confusion we just underwent because





                                                          489



                 of the new rules changes.  If in fact these

                 expenditures were published, as Senator

                 Dollinger has called for, there probably would

                 be no need for that kind of confusion about

                 where our money is going.

                            So I could not be any more

                 enthusiastic about this rule change and the

                 way that I voted yes on it, except you might

                 see equal enthusiasm to other rules changes

                 which I believe we will be seeing in the very

                 near future.

                            But from the bottom of my heart,

                 once again, Senator Dollinger, thank you for

                 this wonderful proposal.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will announce the results.

                            Senator Brown, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR BROWN:    I rise to explain

                 my vote, Mr. President.

                            I would also like to explain that

                 we just, in the last series of rules changes

                 that passed, we talked about the spirit of

                 efficiency.  And in the spirit of efficiency,

                 I'm voting in favor of this measure because I

                 think it is efficient to give the public the





                                                          490



                 opportunity to be able to see our finances and

                 review the expenditures of this body.

                            And I would again, just as Senator

                 Duane has done, commend and congratulate

                 Senator Dollinger for putting forth a measure

                 that gives us the ability to give the public

                 an open and efficient way to review the

                 finances of this body.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will repeat the roll call results.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Ayes, 25.  Nays,

                 33.  Party vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    And the

                 motion is lost.

                            Senator Dollinger.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, I appreciate the presiding

                 officer's indulgence as we work through the

                 new rules.  So I'll work through them, as I'm

                 sure the presiding officer and his successors

                 will as well.

                            Mr. President, I have a second

                 amendment to the rules at the desk that I ask

                 to have considered by the house.





                                                          491



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Is this

                 the one that you have numbered Number 2 that

                 you're addressing now?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Correct, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The chair

                 recognizes you for the purpose of explaining

                 it.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, this is a small change, a very

                 small change, that augurs a significant change

                 in the future of this house.  This is an

                 amendment to Rule Number II, Section 7, to

                 require the Legislative Library to maintain a

                 collection of videotapes and videodiscs of

                 televised Senate proceedings.

                            The reason why this is in the rules

                 is because it's part of a four-part package we

                 will eventually get to that discuss and that

                 pertain to the videotaping and the video

                 broadcasting of the Senate proceedings.  And

                 this too is another area where we are going to

                 march down a path putting into law things that

                 Senator Bruno has already partly marched us

                 down the path towards.





                                                          492



                            I was astounded today to hear

                 Senator Markowitz in stereo in the Senate.  I

                 sat in the room outside and listened to my

                 staff in Rochester, New York, put the phone

                 next to the computer and listened to the audio

                 broadcasting of Senator Markowitz's remarks.

                 And when the door opened to the Senate

                 chamber, I could hear him live in the Senate

                 chamber.

                            So I got to hear Senator Markowitz

                 talk not only here in Albany, live, but on

                 about a two-second delay I heard his voice on

                 the Internet from my office in Rochester,

                 New York.

                            The audio broadcasting of the

                 Senate proceedings is the first step down a

                 path to provide the sunshine that we think is

                 oh so important in government, to bring it

                 right here into the Senate chamber.  What this

                 rule simply requires is that we will keep a

                 library of videodiscs and videotapes of all

                 the video broadcasts that the later changes in

                 the rules will require.

                            In the Legislative Library, as

                 described in the Senate rules, we require the





                                                          493



                 Legislative Librarian to maintain the records

                 of the Senate.  And it seems to me if we are

                 going to march down the road to video

                 broadcasting, we should require that the

                 Senate archive all the video images in this

                 chamber.

                            I would suggest that New Yorkers

                 would be very well informed about what

                 happened today if they could review the

                 videotaped images of Senator Bruno's defense

                 of the rules, Senator Connor's discussion -- I

                 think oh so appropriate discussion -- about

                 what you have the power to do and what you may

                 want to do but what you don't do because it's

                 not the right thing to do, Senator Hevesi's

                 words, Senator Schneiderman's words, Senator

                 Duane's, all those who spoke.

                            I think it would be a wonderful

                 thing for the people of this state to be able

                 to look at them as part of a video library so

                 that the images of this Senate in operation

                 would be captured in perpetuity.

                            The first step in doing that is to

                 require that the Legislative Librarian keep

                 and maintain those tapes.  Under the current





                                                          494



                 rules, we give directions to the Legislative

                 Library staff on what are the official records

                 of the Senate.  This amendment simply requires

                 that the videodiscs, if we can record them in

                 disks, or the videotapes, would be kept and

                 maintained as part of the Legislative Library.

                 I think it would behoove the Legislative

                 Library.

                            Senator Bruno has so often talked

                 about his rules marching us into the 21st

                 century.  Well, I think his rules, my personal

                 opinion is that they slid us back to about

                 1214, that time before the signing of the

                 Magna Carta.  But this rule will clearly march

                 us into the 21st century, and maybe turn the

                 Senate around from the direction the last set

                 of rules took it to the new direction and the

                 better direction that this rule augurs for our

                 future.

                            I recommend it to the house.  It's

                 the first of a series of amendments dealing

                 with video broadcasting.  This is the first

                 place to start, and I encourage the house to

                 accept it.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator





                                                          495



                 Paterson.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.

                            I want to commend Senator Dollinger

                 for offering this rules change.  I think it

                 would be good to publicize, as much as

                 anything, what goes on in this chamber so that

                 the voters get a fair opportunity and that the

                 residents of the state know what government is

                 doing.

                            So, for instance, when Senator

                 Dollinger gets up and he mentions all the

                 Senators that spoke, the fact that he left out

                 his friend who sits next to him is fine, but I

                 can get up and speak for myself and the

                 residents around the state will know how I

                 feel about things.

                            What's particularly important about

                 this rules change is that the system that

                 Senator Connor described -- and I don't know

                 if I ever really thought about it to the

                 extent that I did when he described it, where

                 he talked about the changes some 25 years ago

                 where we now have district offices, we now

                 have newsletters, there's greater contact





                                                          496



                 between each individual Senator and the voter.

                            Constituents come to our offices,

                 they appreciate what we do, and sometimes when

                 they get helped by our offices they leave and

                 they say something like "Tell the Senator I'm

                 going to vote for him."  But the funny thing

                 is whether it had been the incumbent or the

                 insurgent, whoever is in the Senate office

                 probably would have helped their constituents

                 when they came to the office.  But because of

                 that assistance, it has an almost de jure

                 political interpretation, that this is a good

                 person, we should help them.

                            Well, the other side doesn't get a

                 chance to give an opinion, and it's actually

                 public money that sponsors our district

                 offices and sponsors our newsletters.  But to

                 a certain degree, they are our view, they are

                 one-sided regardless of which district they

                 cover.

                            So what Senator Dollinger is

                 offering us is an opportunity to hear both

                 views, all through the different regions and

                 parts of the state, and I think it's a great

                 idea.





                                                          497



                            Thank you.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you.  Would

                 the sponsor yield?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, will you respond to a question from

                 Senator Duane?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you.

                 Through you, Mr. President, I'm wondering

                 whether the Legislative Library would also be

                 required to supplies copies of these tapes to

                 other libraries that requested them.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, there's nothing in this rule

                 that requires the Legislative Library to

                 provide copies of that.

                            But I would hope that if the Senate

                 gave direction to the Legislative Library to

                 maintain the collection, that one of the

                 things they would also think about doing is

                 make copies of the videodiscs or the tapes.

                 Ideally we would do in this digitized format,





                                                          498



                 therefore making the copying of this much

                 cheaper.  And if we did, then the Legislative

                 Library would make those available on request.

                 Ideally, either through the Freedom of

                 Information Act or on its own.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, if the sponsor would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    I will, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    If one of the

                 libraries at the SUNY campuses requested a

                 copy, would you be supportive of us doing a

                 budgetary add-on so that they could afford to

                 purchase these copies and have them at each of

                 the SUNY libraries that might ask for them?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    I would.

                 Through you, Mr. President, in response, I

                 would.

                            I think that it would be an

                 enormous education to college students and





                                                          499



                 graduate students in this state to see the

                 debate that just occurred.  It might be a

                 fascinating opportunity to see how government

                 really works and to see how those lofty

                 principles of democracy that drive so many

                 young minds toward government, what happens

                 when they actually get there, and how minds

                 who have been in government for a long time

                 deal with things like legislative debates and

                 attempts to stifle that debate.  I think that

                 would be the kind of education that we should

                 make available to our students throughout the

                 state.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    And through you,

                 Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue

                 to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I do,

                 Mr. President, thank you.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I'm wondering if

                 the sponsor has thought this through enough to

                 tell us whether or not he envisions this being





                                                          500



                 in black and white or color.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, living color is the only way to

                 record these.  I come, of course, from Eastman

                 Kodak company -- country, I should say, and we

                 believe in color film and color digitizing as

                 well.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you.  Mr.

                 President, if the sponsor would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Would you

                 envision that the audio part of the tapes

                 would be available in mono as well as stereo,

                 or do you think they'll just be in mono?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, I would encourage them to be

                 digitized and hopefully in full spectrum

                 sound.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    And through you,





                                                          501



                 Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue

                 to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I do,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    DVDs are really

                 coming into their own right now, and I was

                 wondering whether or not you envisioned that

                 the tapes would also be available to those

                 New Yorkers who have a DVD home entertainment

                 system.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, I would leave that up to the

                 Legislative Librarian.  This amendment simply

                 requires the collection to be maintained.  But

                 I would encourage as wide a distribution of

                 these tapes as possible.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, if the sponsor would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?





                                                          502



                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President, I will.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I'm not accusing

                 the sponsor of being slippery on this issue,

                 but maybe I should clarify it and say, would

                 the sponsor support a budget item to make it

                 possible for DVD copies to be distributed to

                 libraries and universities?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Again, Mr.

                 President, I would leave that up to the

                 discretion of the Legislative Librarian on an

                 annual appropriation basis.  I personally

                 would support it, but I would leave that to

                 the usual budget process.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    And through you,

                 Mr. President, if the sponsor continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.





                                                          503



                            SENATOR DUANE:    What about those

                 poor New Yorkers who bought Betamaxes,

                 Senator?  Do you also believe that they're

                 entitled to see a record of what happens in

                 our body, or should they be discriminated

                 against because they bought technology which

                 they had no way of knowing would soon become

                 obsolete?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, I would leave it to the

                 Legislative Library staff if they wish to have

                 other forms of recording.  I would leave that

                 up to the imagination and the technology

                 choice of the Legislative Librarian, who has

                 good judgment in these areas and whose

                 judgment I respect.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you.

                 Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor

                 would continue to yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President, I do.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I'm wondering if

                 the sponsor could tell me for how long the





                                                          504



                 library would be required to keep these tapes

                 available, and where -- I'll just go on,

                 because I'll ask a couple of questions at one

                 time, if I may -- where the prior-year tapes

                 would be stored, under your proposal.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, the Legislative Librarian

                 maintains, I think, historical records from as

                 far back as the early 19th century, if not

                 further back, that deal with the archives of

                 the Senate.

                            And my intention would be that once

                 these documents are stored, they would be

                 stored in perpetuity, as long as the disks

                 survive.  Which to our best understanding,

                 given current technology, is several hundred

                 if not thousands of years.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, if the sponsor would continue to

                 yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I do,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The





                                                          505



                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    In light of the

                 colorization which happened with movies when

                 Turner bought many of those old movies, I'm

                 wondering if there might be a budget line

                 available for those of us who might need some

                 retouching on the videotapes.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, I'm not sure.  Again, I leave that

                 to the Legislative Librarian.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    And through you,

                 Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue

                 to yield.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Let me preface my

                 next question by saying how very much I

                 appreciate the indulgence of the sponsor of

                 this legislation for my questions.  It's

                 really a breath of fresh air, Senator.  Thank

                 you.

                            I just finally wanted to ask

                 whether or not you would expect that there





                                                          506



                 would be a lending fee for the general public

                 if they wanted to borrow one of these

                 videotapes.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    I would leave

                 that up -- through you, Mr. President, I would

                 leave that up to the Legislative Librarian to

                 determine those kinds of costs and expenses.

                            But I do believe that this is the

                 first step to making them widely available.

                            And the other advantage would be

                 that ideally, Senator, at some point what the

                 Legislative Librarian could do is simply take

                 a Freedom of Information request over the

                 Internet, put the disk in the machine, and

                 then, through e-mail or some other device,

                 e-mail to the requester the portions of the

                 Senate videotape that they wished.  All of

                 which could be done through e-mail.

                            That technology, I think, will be

                 readily available through the next decade.

                 And it would certainly help people who are

                 doing analysis of the proceedings, who are

                 doing historical reviews of the work of the

                 Senate, scholars looking who are at the Senate

                 debate and the passage of legislation.  You





                                                          507



                 could simply download this stuff from the

                 Legislative Library directly into your home

                 computer and, who knows, maybe someday attach

                 it to your thesis, make it a part of your

                 thesis.

                            That kind of information dispersion

                 is going to be a part of the next decade, and

                 the Legislative Library ought to be at the

                 forefront of it.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Thank you.  On

                 the bill, Mr. President.  On the rule, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    It's a

                 resolution, Senator Duane.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    On the

                 resolution.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Duane, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    I really have to

                 commend Senator Dollinger for really the

                 breathtaking vision which this particular

                 amendment has brought before all of us.  I'm

                 just struck at just the vast universe of

                 possibilities for the use of this really

                 invaluable documentation of what goes on in





                                                          508



                 our body.

                            I am almost but not quite

                 speechless with how really terrific this is,

                 and I have to urge everyone to vote in the

                 affirmative on this.  Thank you so much.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Connor, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Mr. President,

                 in support of Senator Dollinger's -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    We would

                 be taking you out of order, Senator.  I assume

                 that your colleagues don't mind.  Senator

                 Breslin and Senator Espada have both indicated

                 a desire to speak on this resolution, so if

                 that's permissible with them.

                            SENATOR BRESLIN:    I'll be more

                 than happy to yield to -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    I thought

                 maybe.  I thought maybe.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.  But I encourage them to go after

                 me.

                            I just wanted to say I support

                 this.  And it raises, as Senator Duane

                 suggested, whole new possibilities.  And I





                                                          509



                 think probably when we get to the next

                 amendment we can talk about methods of doing

                 it, because I think people do have a lot of

                 concerns about how one would televise Senate

                 sessions.  Particularly because we don't have

                 a podium the way Congress does.  And I think

                 everyone agrees that it would only be fair to

                 film the presiding officer, members that have

                 the floor or share the floor.

                            So I think in the next one Senator

                 Dollinger will inform, I hope, the body the

                 way he has me of things that can now be done

                 in videographing which will not scan the

                 chamber but will be able to focus before

                 there's a picture on the person that has the

                 floor.

                            I would just caution the members,

                 I'm sure decades ago actors were very, very

                 excited when they heard, oh, they're going to

                 film my play, or, gee whiz, they're going to

                 preserve my film and isn't that nice.  Never

                 realizing that, you know, decades later it

                 would be played on TV for profit.  So I hope

                 if this passes, we then have a subcommittee to

                 look at residuary rights for former





                                                          510



                 senators -- because it wouldn't be appropriate

                 while you were still in office -- in case

                 something you said on the floor ends up being

                 a hit on Home Box Office years after you've

                 left office.

                            But I do think this is a good way

                 to preserve our record.  People with an

                 interest in history can learn a lot more, I

                 think, from this kind of technology than,

                 frankly, the dry words of minutes tell you.

                            I would love to be able to see, for

                 example, one of my predecessors, Senator

                 Wagner, the original Senator Wagner before he

                 was a U.S. senator, as well as one of the

                 Speaker's predecessors, Al Smith, when -- if

                 you've seen that documentary on New York City

                 and you see what a pivotal role they played

                 actually on the floor of these houses in

                 dealing after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory

                 fire with labor rights and workers' rights in

                 their investigations.  You can read all about

                 it, but I'd love to be able to see them

                 actually on the floor, and their other

                 colleagues of the day, addressing these issues

                 with such force and passion and weight of





                                                          511



                 facts behind them.

                            So I think we'd do the public a

                 service if we went ahead with something like

                 this.  And someday, you know, when I'm old and

                 retired and run out of bait and beer, I

                 wouldn't mind kicking back in the evening,

                 maybe, and being able to watch some of these

                 great debates that we're going to have in the

                 coming year or two.

                            So I support this, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Breslin.

                            SENATOR BRESLIN:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President, briefly on the resolution.

                            I too join with my fellow Senators

                 in commending Senator Dollinger for

                 figuratively and literally turning on the

                 lights on this body, in his first resolution

                 dealing with our finances, which went down to

                 defeat because there's so many excesses in

                 that area, and now we have one that would

                 allow the people of the State of New York

                 historically and currently to view what we do

                 here, so they'd be able to look and see who's

                 here when we take attendance and find out





                                                          512



                 philosophically which way we're driven.

                            They'll find out the process,

                 whether it be flawed, open or not.  And I'd

                 suggest that it would be a rude awakening for

                 those people who view what we do here in this

                 body.

                            And remember, when we show the

                 people what we do here, it will be reflected

                 in what they do in terms of returning us here.

                            So I commend Senator Dollinger.  I

                 commend Senator Dollinger prospectively for

                 the resolutions that we'll be hearing about

                 later, and I urge both sides of the aisle to

                 come across and join with us in keeping the

                 lights on.

                            Thank you very much, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Espada, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR ESPADA:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.  I too would like to join the

                 chorus of praise and adulation for Senator

                 Dollinger's resolution.

                            However, I do have a concern that

                 may keep me from supporting it, and I'd like

                 to ask the sponsor to yield for a question.





                                                          513



                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President, I'll yield to a question from

                 Senator Espada.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger yields to a question.

                            SENATOR ESPADA:    Of concern to

                 me, Senator Dollinger, is the matter of

                 whether the transmissions will be in Spanish

                 simulcast or whether we'll have translations

                 throughout the city and state.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, I think, the way I understand

                 digital technology, is that that could be one

                 of the tremendous advantages of video

                 broadcasting and of maintaining a videotape

                 collection.

                            And that advantage is that in order

                 to get to broadcasting, which we'll talk about

                 in a couple of minutes in Rule Change Number

                 5 -- but with respect to the preservation of

                 the disks, those disks could be preserved in

                 other languages.

                            They could be interpreted either at

                 the time of recording or at the time of

                 putting them on the permanent disk, when





                                                          514



                 they're actually put on the disk, and they

                 could be interpreted at the point of

                 memorializing them in the disk.  And

                 therefore, you could have a Spanish

                 translation or other language translation at

                 the time of the creation of the disk.

                            And I also believe it's possible

                 that we will get to a technology, Senator

                 Espada, which in the future will be able to

                 interpret the disk and the audio portion

                 instantaneously when it's played in a DVD

                 player.  In other words, you can take an

                 English-speaking disk, put it into a

                 projector, into a machine that will show the

                 image, and at the same time you will have a

                 simultaneous translation occur via the

                 machine.

                            I don't believe that we are that

                 far away from developing a machine that will

                 be able to interpret the language from a

                 videodisc and will be able to make almost an

                 instantaneous conversion from English to

                 Spanish to French and German and back.

                            So I would hope that the first step

                 is to preserve it in its English form as we





                                                          515



                 recite it here, but the other advantage would

                 be it could be simultaneously translated.  I

                 would suggest if we're going to really

                 broadcast to the major portion of New Yorkers

                 who are not English-fluent that we should

                 certainly consider doing that.

                            But I think that it holds other

                 advantages in the long run.  Since we're by

                 this rule requiring that the tapes be

                 maintained, we're opening the door to a

                 technology in the future that could do

                 translation to make it available to everyone.

                            SENATOR ESPADA:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, I thank Senator Dollinger for that

                 concise and timely and rather ingenious

                 explanation.  I'm a nontechnocrat, but I

                 understood perfectly that this would certainly

                 advance our cause, advance the ability for us

                 to communicate, and, most importantly, for the

                 public at large to have an exchange with us,

                 an exchange that perhaps has been limited

                 today but no doubt, through this kind of

                 creativity, would be expanded in the future.

                            Therefore, I would support this

                 measure.  Thank you.





                                                          516



                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Smith, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Thank

                 you, Mr. President.  Would my distinguished

                 colleague from Rochester yield for a question.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    I was

                 looking around to find the distinguished

                 colleague, but -- I know there's more than one

                 person from Rochester here.

                            But are you asking Senator

                 Dollinger, I guess I probably should say, to

                 yield?

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Yes.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.  Senator Alesi not being available

                 in the chamber, I will yield.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger yields.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Yes,

                 through you, Mr. President, is there a

                 particular amount of time in which this video

                 will be running, or will it run for the entire

                 session?





                                                          517



                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, it's my intention -- as I'll

                 explain actually in the next amendment where

                 we talk about the official videographer how it

                 would work.

                            But this tape would be of from the

                 moment we gavel in during the live debate

                 portions, when there are members in the

                 chamber who are actually speaking and engaged

                 in the debate or the advancement of bills.

                 The times when we're in conference and doing

                 other things would not be part of the video

                 record.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Through

                 you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I do,

                 Mr. President.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Would

                 this document be copyrighted as well?  Would

                 this be copyrighted also?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    No, Mr.

                 President, it's my understanding that the

                 proceedings of this chamber are not





                                                          518



                 copyrighted, they're not owned by the Senate.

                 They are reproduced by the Senate and

                 available to the public for a cost.  But I

                 don't believe there's any copyrighting.

                 Certainly the speeches that we all give

                 suddenly become the public's words and can be

                 reproduced without our authority.  And

                 oftentimes, at least in the press, may often

                 be.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Through

                 you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I do,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator continues to yield.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Based on

                 the new rule, this canvassing, would this

                 videotape be running during the canvass?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, I assume it would be done

                 through the canvassing, but we haven't really

                 probed what canvassing means yet under the

                 rules.





                                                          519



                            And I know, Senator Smith, like

                 you, I await that day when we figure out what

                 canvassing really is.  And I assume Senator

                 Kuhl or whoever is in the chair will describe

                 it for us and we'll figure out what it really

                 is.

                            But my guess is that the camera is

                 running during the canvassing, whatever that

                 may be.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    On the

                 resolution.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Smith, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    I'd just

                 like to join all my colleagues as well in

                 commending Senator Dollinger.  He has

                 continued, in my eyes, to dazzle me with his

                 verbal and intellectual insight from the day

                 that I was elected.

                            And I would just want him to know

                 that, in the spirit of cooperation, I would

                 hope that he would continue to formulate his

                 legislative resolution in the same vein.

                            Thank you very much.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator





                                                          520



                 Brown.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Why do

                 you rise?  Do you want to speak on the

                 resolution?

                            SENATOR BROWN:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, I'd like to ask the sponsor to

                 yield for a question.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    I think, Mr.

                 President, this also raises another point.

                 Could it be possible for there to be some

                 positive fiscal impact of this resolution to

                 the State Senate in that these videotapes or

                 videodiscs might be requested by members of

                 the media, might be requested by movie houses

                 and other agencies that might seek to utilize

                 some of these proceedings in some way that

                 they might pay for the use of such?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, I think that's entirely





                                                          521



                 possible.

                            I think as Senator Brown knows, in

                 an age of exploding video displays and use of

                 videotape, these would be owned by the public,

                 they would be owned by the Senate.  If they

                 were going to be reproduced, I'm sure we could

                 charge a fee for the reproduction, much as we

                 charge, I think, for the transcript of

                 proceedings to outsiders from time to time.

                            So I believe there could be a

                 financial reward at some point.  And I would

                 just suggest, Senator Brown, that there was a

                 time in this chamber when, if we'd had the

                 video on, we would have gotten videotapes of

                 two United States presidents that might be

                 priceless.  And I would suggest as we look

                 around the room that there may be a United

                 States senator and, who knows, maybe even a

                 future president of the United States for whom

                 videotape at some point may be significantly

                 valuable.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    Through you, Mr.

                 President, would the sponsor continue to yield

                 for a question.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator





                                                          522



                 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    I know that when

                 we discussed the proposed rule changes that

                 previously passed, Senator Markowitz raised

                 the question of the inequity of resources.

                            And in the case of the ability to

                 sell these videotapes or videodiscs, if those

                 resources were to accrue to the benefit of the

                 Senate, what would you propose for the

                 equitable distribution of these resources so

                 all members could utilize those resources for

                 the benefit of our constituencies?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President.  Senator Brown, if you're

                 suggesting that somehow our value or the

                 wisdom and skill of the speaker would have

                 some correlation to how much money we bring

                 in, and therefore it would inure to the side

                 of the house from which that wit and wisdom

                 originates, I think that's a brilliant idea.

                            That would probably suggest,

                 however, that it dooms the idea, because I

                 think that would suggest that most of the





                                                          523



                 revenue would actually come to this side of

                 the chamber.

                            But my sense is that, on a

                 realistic note, that whatever money comes in

                 through the general fund would inure to the

                 benefit of the Senate and perhaps additional

                 resources for staff for all of us, especially

                 those of us who desperately need it and for

                 those of us who, in comparison to some of our

                 colleagues, don't have a sufficient amount.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    On the

                 resolution, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Brown, on the resolution.

                            SENATOR BROWN:    I too would just

                 like to lend my voice to the chorus of others

                 who have risen to commend Senator Dollinger on

                 this excellent piece of legislation.  And

                 certainly I would urge my colleagues on both

                 sides of the aisle to join me in voting for

                 its passage.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Velella.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Mr. President,

                 under Rule IX, subdivision 3(d), the time





                                                          524



                 allotted to the Minority has expired on this

                 resolution.  And I would like the rules to

                 take effect and the matter to proceed to a

                 vote, please.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 question is on the resolution.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Mr. President.

                            SENATOR HEVESI:    Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson, first, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Mr. President,

                 just a point of order.

                            Would either you, or perhaps we

                 might be enlightened by the Acting Majority

                 Leader, tell us what the time period was?  I'm

                 just not sure.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Would you

                 like to explain your point of order, Senator

                 Velella?

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Mr. President,

                 under the Rule IX, subdivision 3(d):  Debate

                 on motions or resolutions other than

                 concurrent resolutions shall be limited to one

                 hour, with one half hour allocated to each

                 conference.





                                                          525



                            In the interests of expediting the

                 matter, we will waive our half hour.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Is that

                 sufficient an explanation of the point of

                 order that was raised by Senator Velella,

                 Senator Paterson?  It just simply requires a

                 yes or no, Senator.

                            SENATOR HEVESI:    Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Why do

                 you rise, Mr. Hevesi?

                            SENATOR HEVESI:    Point of order,

                 Mr. President.  I would like to speak on this

                 amendment, and so I would like the chair to

                 rule as to whether or not we have exceeded our

                 allotted time, in accordance with what Senator

                 Velella just -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    You are

                 out of order, Senator Hevesi.

                            SENATOR HEVESI:    Thank you, Mr.

                 President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will call the roll.

                            (The Secretary called the roll.)

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Party vote in

                 the affirmative.





                                                          526



                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Party vote in

                 the negative.

                            THE SECRETARY:    Ayes, 25.  Nays,

                 33.  Party vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 resolution is lost.

                            Senator Dollinger.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, I believe there's an amendment

                 which has been demarcated as Number 3.  I

                 would waive its reading and ask to be heard on

                 the amendment to the rules.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 reading of the proposed amendment to the rules

                 is waived.  You are now afforded the

                 opportunity to explain.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Mr.

                 President, I'll be very brief.  I would

                 anticipate some questions from my colleagues

                 to perhaps explain what happens in this

                 proposed amendment.

                            This is an amendment to create the

                 position of official videographer of the

                 Senate.  What I wanted to do was just describe

                 how the videotaping of the Senate could be





                                                          527



                 done with absolutely no disruption to the

                 chamber and do it exactly the way we do our

                 audio broadcasting currently.

                            The easiest way to do it is to

                 simply mount a small camera in all four

                 corners of the chamber, probably 15 to 18 feet

                 above the Senate floor.  And then what would

                 happen is the official videographer would sit

                 next to the official microphone guy -- I don't

                 know the gentleman's name there, but he's the

                 guy who runs the microphones.  He's got a big

                 board, and on that board he's got a bunch of

                 the keys so that he punches it in and this

                 little light goes off when he punches it in.

                            What would happen is the four

                 cameras would be synchronized to cover a

                 certain number of seats in the chamber.

                 Probably somewhere between a grouping of about

                 eight or ten seats would all be projected from

                 the camera up to the president's left.  It

                 would be held up on the wall up there.  That

                 camera would then be triggered by the official

                 videographer to focus on the chair of the

                 member who's speaking.

                            One of the concerns about the





                                                          528



                 presentation of the Senate on videotape or

                 video broadcasting is that, frankly, the

                 situation we have right now.  We're late in

                 session for the day, a lot of the members

                 aren't in their chairs, and there's a

                 concern -- I think it's a legitimate one -

                 that the Senate chamber shouldn't be projected

                 and having -- leading the public to conclude

                 that the other members don't care.  There are

                 other issues that take Senators out of the

                 chamber, especially during a long session like

                 this, one that will get longer.

                            And it seems to me that that's a

                 reasonable thing to do, not to expose members

                 to the potential that there will be videotape

                 pictures of their empty chairs and that

                 somehow someone in a campaign would run that

                 photograph and say "Senator Dollinger is not

                 in his chair during a vital debate."

                            We don't think that's fair, we

                 think that's an improper use of videotaping.

                 And therefore, the way to do it is to do it

                 exactly the way we do it now, which is to set

                 up a system under which the video cameras from

                 the rear would be projecting to the president





                                                          529



                 and to the clerks, so that those would all be

                 part of the video broadcast.  And the cameras

                 that are both on the front of the chamber

                 would then have the ability to show the

                 members whose seats are in the back portion.

                            Those on the back corner would be

                 projected across the vision of the chamber and

                 show the members -- Senator Libous, who sits

                 in the front, Senator Duane, who sits in the

                 front.  Those would be both subject to

                 projection from the cameras from the rear.

                            That would be the job of the

                 official videographer.  It would be a position

                 appointed by the Senate President.  Much as

                 the Democratic Minority in this house does not

                 have much of a role in either the Secretary of

                 the Senate or the other appointments, this

                 would be an appointment for the Senate

                 President.  I'm willing to give Senator Bruno

                 the ability to make this appointment.  It

                 seems to me that's the right thing to do, he's

                 the right person in the house to do it.

                            And I would suggest that we appoint

                 an official videographer, we put him right

                 next to the guy who runs the microphones.  He





                                                          530



                 can sit there with his little videotape,

                 monitor the tape, we can set up a little

                 projection screen which will show what is

                 being video broadcast to the people in this

                 state.

                            And I would conclude with one other

                 notion.  If we can audio broadcast by

                 computer, we can clearly video broadcast as

                 well.  Those who would suggest to you that the

                 only way we can do this is through some

                 massive television network, they're absolutely

                 incorrect.  Those who are telling you that we

                 need to spend $30 million are absolutely

                 incorrect.  We need to simply wire this

                 chamber so, as Senator Bruno told us two and a

                 half hours ago, it's ready to welcome the 21st

                 century.

                            I would say one of the reasons that

                 we've argued so loudly for sunshine today is

                 because we want the chamber to be bright

                 enough so that they can see every smiling face

                 when we video broadcast.  Let's amend the

                 rules to create the position of a

                 videographer, an official videographer for the

                 Senate, as the next step in bringing that





                                                          531



                 process to reality right here in this chamber.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Mr. President,

                 I rise in support of Senator Dollinger's

                 motion.

                            And as you all know, in the last

                 two days New York lost its opportunity to be

                 the home of the world champions of baseball

                 and football.  And the most significant play

                 in the game that caused New York to lose was

                 the interception run-back for a touchdown that

                 was called back because of a holding penalty.

                 Nowhere in the rest of the broadcast, in spite

                 of all of this publicity about how CBS had

                 these ways of covering the Superbowl, did they

                 show the holding penalty.  They showed the

                 interception, but if you think about it, they

                 never showed the holding penalty.

                            Now we know that if Senator

                 Dollinger were there, we would have had that

                 situation addressed.

                            So perhaps we should use his camera

                 angles and his thoughts and implement them.

                 There are many other reasons, but at this hour





                                                          532



                 this was the one I wanted to cite to you.

                            I'm in favor of it, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Velmanette Montgomery, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR MONTGOMERY:    Yes, Mr.

                 President, I would just like to rise to

                 support Senator Dollinger's amendment.

                            And I think it's more than even

                 having sunshine and having the public view

                 what we do.  I think it's also an opportunity

                 for our citizens to understand a little bit

                 more in depth what the legislative process is.

                 It's an opportunity to educate the public, to

                 educate young people, to hopefully engage them

                 more in wanting to be part of their own

                 government and to really being more involved

                 citizens as it relates to the democratic

                 process with a small D.

                            So I thank you, Senator Dollinger.

                 I think this is an excellent proposal.  And we

                 certainly should be considering it, because

                 it's so important to maintaining a foundation

                 of our democracy.

                            Thank you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator





                                                          533



                 Hassell-Thompson.

                            SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:    Thank

                 you, Mr. President.

                            I too would like to congratulate my

                 colleague.  I am always fascinated by people

                 who are truly creative, but not only in

                 government but in the other areas of their

                 lives.  And when they can translate those two

                 and put them together, I'm awed.  And very few

                 things awe me.

                            One of the things that I like about

                 Senator Dollinger, just in the short time that

                 I've been here, is that when he begins to

                 speak on issues, no matter what questions you

                 ask him, he is very fluent.  And I always have

                 a sense of comfort when he proposes something,

                 as I do now, that the idea here is a good one.

                 No matter which questions he's been asked,

                 he's been able to, at a moment's notice, be

                 able to draw on tremendous experience.

                            And I think that we would do

                 ourselves a disservice to lose the advantage

                 of the opportunity that he offers us to

                 enlighten our public and certainly to review

                 ourselves in retrospectiveness.





                                                          534



                            And I think that perhaps in that

                 perspective, it will teach us something about

                 our behavior here.  When we talk about how we

                 behave, we're not always as conscious of

                 ourselves through the eyes of someone else.

                 But I have found that through videography,

                 when you see yourself, it has to give you

                 pause.  And I think that that is something

                 that we should always consider.

                            Again, as we stand here and as we

                 present things, my concern is that we always

                 provide the kind of leadership as we go

                 forward that allows the people who elect us to

                 know that we're doing the very best we can,

                 even if it doesn't always translate into the

                 things that they want to see happen.

                            So I am in total support and I

                 continue to applaud my colleague, Senator

                 Dollinger.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Schneiderman, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.  I want to ask, through you, if the

                 sponsor will yield.

                            I do hope that recognition is taken





                                                          535



                 in terms of your own position and compensation

                 for the newly difficult role you will be

                 playing in the weeks to come, Mr. President.

                 But I would like to ask for the sponsor to

                 yield.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I will,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields, Senator Schneiderman.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    Senator,

                 my question to you is, American history is

                 full of examples of the creation of a

                 position, as you seek to do here, that's had a

                 tremendous impact on politics and public

                 policy.

                            Certainly at the outset of this

                 great venture in democracy, which has taken

                 some hits today but moves forward nonetheless,

                 the creation of the offices of attorney

                 general, secretary of the treasury, things

                 like that, great innovations that were made,

                 had a great impact.

                            In your effort to create the

                 position of official videographer, I'm

                 wondering if it has occurred to you or if





                                                          536



                 you've had any thoughts about how this fits in

                 with the tradition set down by the founding

                 fathers.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President.  That strikes an interesting

                 chord, given my particular interest in the

                 history of technology, its interaction with

                 government, its interaction with society

                 generally.

                            You may recall that one of the

                 first positions created in the new government

                 of the United States was the position of

                 postmaster, because of the complete dependence

                 of the government on the transportation of the

                 mail, which at that time was done almost

                 exclusively by horse.

                            Subsequent to that, of course, in

                 the midpart of the last century -- and a

                 fascinating book, if you get a chance to read

                 it, is Steven Ambrose's recent book about the

                 building of the intercontinental railroad,

                 which gave birth to the ICC and the Federal

                 Railroad Commission.  These were all things

                 created by government to recognize the advance

                 of technology, the rapid growth of the





                                                          537



                 railroads in the United States and really

                 between 1825 and 1865, the end of the Civil

                 War.  And then of course the explosive growth

                 that's occasioned with the merger of the

                 Central Pacific and Union Pacific Railroad.

                 In addition to that, the Internet itself has

                 been created by government, largely for

                 military purposes.

                            And so what's happened is the

                 government has always been, I think, a step

                 behind the technology.  But while they're a

                 step behind, they're also an important

                 ingredient in driving the technology forward.

                 Because it's the government's recognition of

                 the capabilities that technology offers that

                 oftentimes triggers an increased utilization

                 and a blossoming of the technology.

                            Which is why our creation of the

                 position of official videographer, it seems to

                 me, would be the step that says this is the

                 new technology, the New York State Senate is

                 accepting that technology and we're prepared

                 to drive this technological vehicle forward -

                 all in the interests, I would suggest, of

                 achieving the goal of the founding fathers,





                                                          538



                 which was to get people more involved in their

                 government and make sure, as Abraham Lincoln

                 said, this is a government of the people, by

                 the people, and for the people.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    Thank you,

                 Mr. President.  On the resolution.

                            I cannot state more strongly than

                 my colleagues have already my appreciation for

                 Senator Dollinger.  My appreciation for the

                 Senator is second to none in this house.

                            I think that it is incumbent upon

                 us to adopt this resolution and to move

                 forward to implement something that our own

                 Majority Leader said he favored some years

                 ago.  And I think by failing to adopt these

                 resolutions we're really standing in the way

                 of opening the Senate up to televised

                 proceedings, which I know Senator Bruno has

                 publicly stated he supports.  Our leader of

                 our conference supports it.  So I think we

                 should get to it.

                            Technology is changing.  Technology

                 is requiring us to move with the times.  And I

                 also think that, as Senator Connor stated,

                 this is something that can benefit people in





                                                          539



                 this state tremendously and can benefit us.

                 Someday after, you know, one or another of us

                 has left the hot kitchen, we may want to tune

                 in and see our other colleagues.  And I know

                 that, you know, if one of us had to go away,

                 they would like to watch what's going on.

                            It's a natural.  It's easy to do,

                 it's done everywhere else.  It's done in the

                 New York City Council.  We don't want to be

                 behind the New York City Council, for

                 goodness' sake, since we had to miss their

                 lunch today.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Brunch.  It's

                 brunch.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    But I urge

                 everyone to vote for this and support this

                 resolution, and that we move forward to

                 endorse all the other resolutions on the issue

                 of -- I'm sorry.

                            SENATOR DUANE:    It's brunch.

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    Do you

                 want to -

                            SENATOR DUANE:    Would you yield?

                            SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:    I would

                 yield.  Senator Duane is correcting me, it was





                                                          540



                 brunch.  I apologize, Senator.  No point of

                 order required.

                            But I urge a yes vote on this and

                 the other parallel resolutions.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Smith, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Well, I

                 will yield to Senator Stavisky.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Smith, did you wish to be recognized on the

                 resolution?  I guess not.

                            SENATOR STAVISKY:    I'm Stavisky,

                 that's Smith.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    I

                 understand that.  I was addressing Senator

                 Smith as to whether he wished to be talking on

                 the resolution.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Yes.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    You do.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Yes, but

                 I would yield to -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Okay, you

                 were next on the list.

                            So, Senator Smith, I recognize you

                 for discussion on the resolution.





                                                          541



                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Okay.

                 Through you, Mr. President, would my

                 distinguished colleague from Rochester,

                 Senator Dollinger, yield for a question.

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, Mr.

                 President.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Through

                 you, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Dollinger, do you yield?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Yes, I do,

                 Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senator yields.

                            SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:    Has my

                 distinguished colleague given some thought to

                 the cost or the salary for this particular

                 individual?

                            SENATOR DOLLINGER:    Through you,

                 Mr. President, I assume that the official

                 videographer would be compensated comparable

                 to the official stenographer.  I don't know

                 what that cost is.  It may be done on a basis

                 of hourly rate or per page or per disk or some

                 rate.  I'm sure, Senator, that we could





                                                          542



                 clearly establish an acceptable rate for the

                 official videographer.

                            And through you, Mr. President, can

                 I call for a quorum?

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    I've

                 never had a quorum called.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Page 23.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Paterson, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Mr. President,

                 I thought maybe I could be of help.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator,

                 this has been such a taxing moment that I had

                 to get some nourishment to make it through the

                 next speaker.

                            But I'm more than happy to

                 entertain your conversation at this point

                 before we move to the request that was made

                 just previously by Senator Connor.

                            SENATOR PATERSON:    Well, on page

                 23, Mr. President, I think it states pretty

                 clearly -- and this is not a rule we adopted

                 today, this has been in the rules for a number

                 of years -- that every hour there's an

                 opportunity for a quorum call.





                                                          543



                            And I just thought that I would

                 enlighten the chair of that so that perhaps we

                 could ring the bells and see if any of our

                 colleagues care to join us.  So I thought you

                 might wish to hear some advice about the

                 rules.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    I

                 appreciate that.  And I found that section in

                 the rules, Senator.  And I never did take that

                 speed-reading course that I should have, and

                 so it takes me little while to work through

                 each one of these sections.

                            And this is -- unfortunately, I

                 don't have the distinguishedness of a senator

                 in this chamber from Rochester, nor the

                 ability to be honored and recognized by all my

                 colleagues as he has been done so well today,

                 so it does take me a little longer to work

                 through these things.  And if you'll just have

                 some patience, I will be more than -

                            Senator Velella, why do you rise?

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Mr. President,

                 after reviewing the rules and in order that we

                 be fair with everybody, I would just like the

                 chair to note that 15 minutes expired on





                                                          544



                 Senator Dollinger's third proposed amendment.

                 So that that will be of record in the event we

                 see that proposal again.

                            And at this time, on behalf of the

                 Majority Leader, I move to adjourn.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Mr. President,

                 may I ask Senator Velella a question.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    If the

                 Senator wishes to entertain that.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    I move to

                 adjourn until Monday, February 5th, at

                 3:00 p.m., intervening days being legislative

                 days.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Objection.

                 Objection, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Connor, the motion to adjourn, as I have been

                 reviewing the rules here, does take precedence

                 over everything at this point.

                            So the motion to adjourn is before

                 the house.  It takes precedence over an order

                 or a call of the Senate for a quorum.  So we

                 will have a roll call on that motion at this

                 moment.

                            The Secretary will call the roll.





                                                          545



                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Mr. President,

                 under the new rules, party vote in the

                 affirmative to adjourn.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Well, we'd like

                 a fast roll call, Mr. President.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Party vote, Mr.

                 President.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Point of

                 inquiry, Mr. President.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Senator

                 Connor?

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Point of

                 inquiry.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Point of

                 inquiry.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Senator Velella

                 very fairly noted for the record that only 15

                 minutes had elapsed on Senator Dollinger's -

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    Excuse me

                 just one moment.  Give me just one moment.

                            Senator Connor, thank you for that

                 indulgence.  I had a phone call.  It's one of

                 those from home that you never want to get,

                 you know, that you always answer.  So thank

                 you for that.





                                                          546



                            We are on a roll call.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Mr. President,

                 I would move to suspend that briefly so that

                 we may recognize the fact -- the Minority

                 Leader has asked that we put on the record the

                 fact that 15 minutes has elapsed on Senator

                 Donovan's -- I'm sorry, Senator Dollinger's

                 resolution, and that we will take that up

                 again in the future.  The 15 minutes will be

                 deducted from it and there will no need to

                 serve further notice, they'll be carried over.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    On that and his

                 other ones that are pending.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    On the other

                 ones which we have a record of at the desk.

                 Any which we just have a notice of will have

                 to be filed.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    With that

                 acknowledgment, then we're moving to a slow

                 roll call -- a fast roll call, I meant to say,

                 a roll call on the resolution.

                            SENATOR VELELLA:    Party vote in

                 the affirmative to adjourn.  Party vote to

                 adjourn.

                            SENATOR CONNOR:    Party vote in





                                                          547



                 the negative.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Secretary will record the party line votes and

                 announce the results on the motion to adjourn.

                            (The Secretary called the roll.)

                            THE SECRETARY:    Ayes, 33.  Nays,

                 25.  Party vote.

                            ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:    The

                 Senate stands adjourned until Monday, at

                 3:00 p.m., with intervening days to be

                 legislative days.

                            (Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the

                 Senate adjourned.)