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.)