Regular Session - March 13, 2001
1963
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 13, 2001
3:05 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1964
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: It is my great
honor and privilege to tell you that the
invocation today will be given by His Eminence
Edward Cardinal Egan of the New York State
Archdiocese.
Cardinal.
ARCHBISHOP EGAN: Before I start
the invocation, I want to be sure to thank you
for the honor of being here in this august
Assembly. I truly feel privileged, and I feel
that you've been extraordinarily good to this
New York citizen of only eight months. I'll
try to live up to this honor which you've
accorded me.
Could we place ourselves now in the
presence of our God.
O mighty and eternal Father, today,
1965
with great confidence, we seek Your loving
care for those in our state government who
serve us and all of our fellow citizens. May
our Governor and our Lieutenant Governor and
all of the administration which serves our
people with them, they are Senators and the
members of our Assembly, and their staffs and
our judiciary, all be granted the grace of
being women and men of justice and compassion,
of honor and righteousness.
May we give them the respect, the
understanding, and the support they deserve as
servants of the public. May we have the
courage and wisdom to place before them our
needs and our concerns.
May together, officials and
citizens alike, may we protect the
defenseless, care for the needy, defend the
worker, guide and educate our children, attend
to the needs of the sick and the elderly and
all in our midst who are hurting.
Bless our leadership, O Lord.
Bless our fellow citizens. Make us an example
to the nation and to the world of a people who
are unashamedly committed to goodness,
1966
nobility, wholesomeness of life. This is Your
will for us. We beg with confidence that You
make of us the people we should be, here in
the Empire State, the great State of New York.
Make us, O Lord, good and holy, in
Your holy name, now and forever.
Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, March 12, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, March 11,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
1967
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I believe I have a privileged resolution at
the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: You do, Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would ask that
it be read in its entirety and move for its
immediate adoption.
And customarily, members would rise
and speak to the resolution. But out of
deference to His Eminence Cardinal Egan's
time, and the bishops', I would respectfully
request that the members not speak to the
resolution.
Because I know, Cardinal, I speak
for this entire delegation in that each and
every one of the 61 members here would like to
add to and say anything and everything that
might be appropriate for this ceremonious
occasion.
But we are just as happy as we can
be that you are here to join us, and thank you
very, very much for your prayer.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
1968
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Legislative Resolution Number 684,
congratulating Edward Cardinal Egan, Theodore
Cardinal McCarrick, and Avery Cardinal Dulles
on their recent elevation to the august
position of Cardinal.
"WHEREAS, It is the longstanding
tradition of this Legislative Body to
recognize and commend individuals who provide
social, health and spiritual guidance to the
citizens of their community and play a vital
role in the development of the moral fabric of
a responsible citizenry; and
"WHEREAS, On Wednesday,
February 21, 2001, Archbishop Edward M. Egan,
Archbishop Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, and
Jesuit Theologian the Reverend Avery Dulles
were elevated to the College of Cardinals by
Pope John Paul II; and
"WHEREAS, Edward Cardinal Egan was
ordained a priest on December 15, 1957,
following studies at the Seminary of our Lady
of the Lake in Mundelein and the Pontifical
Gregorian University in Rome. He returned to
the United States and spent the next two years
1969
in administrative posts in the Archdiocese of
Chicago; and
"WHEREAS, Edward Cardinal Egan
returned to Rome in 1960 and obtained a
Doctorate in Canon Law and served as the Vice
Rector of the Pontifical North American
College. He was appointed an Auditor of the
Tribunal of the Roman Rota on November 20,
1972, and taught at the 'Studio Rotale' and at
the Pontifical Gregorian University; and
"WHEREAS, Edward Cardinal Egan was
appointed Auxiliary Bishop of New York in
April 1985 and was consecrated in Rome on
May 22, 1985, by Cardinal Bernardin Gantin,
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. He
was made Bishop of Bridgeport on November 5,
1988, and then Archbishop of New York on
May 11, 2000; and
"WHEREAS, Avery Cardinal Dulles was
raised a Presbyterian and claimed to be an
agnostic when he entered Harvard in 1936. In
1940, he converted to Catholicism; and
"WHEREAS, Avery Cardinal Dulles
served in intelligence in the Naval Reserve.
He was decorated with the 'Croix de Guerre' in
1970
1945 for his work in communication with the
French Navy; and
"WHEREAS, Avery Cardinal Dulles
joined the Jesuits in 1946. He was ordained a
priest for the Jesuits in 1956 at Fordham
University, New York, by Francis Cardinal
Spellman; and
"WHEREAS, Avery Cardinal Dulles
joined the faculty of Fordham University in
1951 as a professor of philosophy. Since
1988, he has been the Laurence J. McGinley
Professor of Religion and Society at Fordham
University, and he is currently a consultant
to the Committee on Doctrine of the NCCB, an
author, and a lecturer; and
"WHEREAS, Theodore Cardinal
McCarrick was ordained on May 31, 1958,
following studies at St. Joseph's Seminary.
He obtained a Master's Degree in History and a
Doctorate in Sociology from Catholic
University of America; and
"WHEREAS, Theodore Cardinal
McCarrick was President of Catholic University
of Puerto Rico from 1965 to 1969. He was made
Secretary Adjunct for Catholic Education in
1971
the Archdiocese of New York and worked in Most
Blessed Sacrament Parish from 1969 until 1971;
and
"WHEREAS, Theodore Cardinal
McCarrick served as Secretary to New York's
Terence Cardinal Cooke before being named
Auxiliary Bishop of New York in 1977. He was
appointed the first bishop of the new diocese
of Metuchen, New Jersey, in 1981; and
"WHEREAS, Theodore Cardinal
McCarrick was made Archbishop of Newark in
1986 and was also made Superior of the Sui
Juris Mission of Turks and Caicos. He was
appointed as Archbishop of Washington, D.C.,
in November 2000; and
"WHEREAS, New York State is blessed
to have connections with three such
illustrious Princes of the Church; and
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this
Legislative Body that when individuals of such
noble aims and accomplishments are brought to
our attention, it is appropriate to commend
them for their many benevolent deeds as they
enter a new and challenging experience; now,
therefore, be it
1972
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to
congratulate Edward Cardinal Egan, Theodore
Cardinal McCarrick, and Avery Cardinal Dulles
on their recent elevation to the august
position of Cardinal; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to Edward Cardinal Egan, Theodore Cardinal
McCarrick, Avery Cardinal Dulles, the
Archdiocese of New York, and the Bishops of
the Dioceses of Albany, Brooklyn, Buffalo,
Ogdensburg, Rochester, Rockville Centre, and
Syracuse."
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we open the resolution up to all the
1973
members of the Senate for cosponsorship.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall,
Senator.
All members who -- if any -- do not
wish to have their names added to this
resolution, please notify the desk.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President. It's my distinct honor and
pleasure, as a former altar boy, to introduce
to my colleagues 12 bishops who are with us
here today.
And I would ask that each might
stand and just wave, and we'll hold the
applause till the end.
Bishop Gerald Barbarito, the Bishop
of Ogdensburg.
Bishop Thomas Daily, Bishop of
Brooklyn.
Bishop Howard Hubbard, the Bishop
of Albany.
Bishop Henry Mansell, Bishop of
Buffalo.
Bishop James Moynihan, Bishop of
Syracuse.
1974
Reverend Monsignor John Alesandro,
Diocesan Administrator of the Diocese of
Rockville Centre.
Bishop Robert Brucato, Auxiliary
Bishop of New York.
Bishop Ignatius Catenello,
Auxiliary Bishop of Brooklyn.
Bishop Basil Lostin, Bishop of the
Ukrainian Diocese of Stamford.
Bishop James McCarthy, Auxiliary
Bishop of New York.
Bishop John McGann, Retired Bishop
of Rockville Centre.
Bishop Joseph Sullivan, Auxiliary
Bishop of Brooklyn.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR CONNOR: Let me briefly
welcome Cardinal Egan here. We're delighted
he's become a New Yorker. We look forward to
many years of his leadership, and we thank the
entire Catholic Conference, on behalf of my
1975
Democratic Conference here, for everything
that you do and all of your work and the many
services you provide to our constituents.
I just point out to Cardinal Egan,
who prayed for us and our fellows in state
government, that Bishop Hubbard, who's here a
lot, looks down on us, he knows what's going
on here, and he prays for the people of
New York State.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR CONNOR: But the fact is,
we are certainly delighted by Cardinal
Egan's -- the Holy Father's choice of Cardinal
Egan to the College of Cardinals.
I certainly am delighted that
Cardinal Dulles, a noted theologian, has also
been elevated to the College.
And if I may add a personal note
about someone who's not here, Cardinal
McCarrick. In 1963, at the age of 18, I left
the Diocese of Trenton and went to the
National Pontifical University, otherwise
known as Catholic University of America, and
in the first week met a young priest there,
Father Ted McCarrick, who was among a group of
1976
faculty -- he was then in administration
there, and was completing his Ph.D. -- who
mentored us. And they did it so well we
didn't know we were being mentored.
You know, we'd find six guys would
be out to dinner with Father McCarrick at a
nice restaurant in Washington. And it wasn't
until many years later I realized this was
part of the program, so to speak. And we'd
carefully watch to see which fork or knife he
picked up, and we learned a lot of life skills
that way.
And I've known Cardinal McCarrick
for these last 38 years in a very personal
way -- I've been to some of his birthday
parties over the years. And so on a personal
level, I have to make that note that he's
someone who has always been an important
person in my life.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Connor.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I believe that we're going to return to
1977
reports of standing committees. And I believe
that there is a report at the desk from the
Finance Committee.
And while we're calling that, and
I'm on my feet, just to have the last word as
relates to the Cardinal, I want to say how
much I appreciated the words of my colleague
Senator Connor in terms of his exposure.
And also to the Bishops and to the
Cardinal, in thanking you for all of your good
wishes and for your prayers. And ask you to
say a special prayer for the Minority in this
house, because they need it desperately.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you. Thank
you very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno, I
might add to your comments that a higher power
has called, through the voice of the Cardinal,
who would like the floor. And I will
certainly defer to that higher power.
ARCHBISHOP EGAN: I was afraid I
was breaking Robert's Rules of Order.
But I don't want to leave without
thanking you most sincerely for your warmth
1978
and your kindness and for this wonderful
honor.
Believe me, I'm very touched. I
cannot believe that in eight months I've made
my way here, to the Senate of New York, and
that you have been so extraordinarily kind to
me.
I would like to say that when
Bishop Hubbard asks to pray for the people,
it's because he wants the Lord to thank them
for choosing you. So see it that way, all
right?
(Laughter.)
ARCHBISHOP EGAN: And finally,
I'd like to note that there were only three
named to the College of Cardinals this time by
our Holy Father.
And uncarefully one day, I said to
the New York Times: "It's a clean sweep for
New York." Someone said to me afterwards, "I
don't know if that's a good way to put it."
But the more I think about it, I
think it's excellent. It was a clean sweep
for New York, and New York has done so much
good for the Church, and for the churches and
1979
for the synagogues and for all who are
committed to the service of our people in the
name of the Divinity.
So once again, I thank you most
sincerely. I am extraordinarily honored.
I'll try to live up to it. And I'll keep
praying for all of you.
Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Return to reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 3456, Budget Bill, an act to
amend Chapters 50, 53, and 55 of the Laws of
2000.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the bill will be reported to third
reading.
Senator Stafford, nominations?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Please, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
1980
will read, Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As Chairman of the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, Peter S. Kalikow, of
New York City.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I know that this is a very, very
important day for us. But I have to say that
we're certainly pleased that you've stayed
right up there -- we're certainly pleased that
you are still right up there on the rostrum,
and we're all doing our duty.
Madam President, we had three fine
nominations before us today. And it's a
pleasure for me to at this time yield to the
Senator from Manhattan for the first
nomination -- the chairman of the MTA, Peter
S. Kalikow, one of the excellent
nominations -- Senator Goodman.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman.
1981
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President, distinguished guests and members of
this great chamber, it's a privilege, a
pleasure, and I deem it a high honor today to
be able to present to you for your
consideration the name of Peter S. Kalikow as
chairman of the Metropolitan Transit
Authority.
Peter Kalikow is an individual I've
had the pleasure of knowing in New York City
for a number of years and a man for whom I've
garnered the highest respect. He is not only
an individual of keen energy and great
dedication to the public interest, he's also
an outspoken advocate of transportation in its
many forms.
He's had a truly distinguished
career. I'd like to take a moment to acquaint
you with some of the highlights of that
remarkable series of accomplishments.
First of all, he's a graduate of
Hofstra College and graduated from there in
1965. And, in the 35, 36 years since, has had
one of the more distinguished careers of any
New Yorker that I can think of.
1982
Specifically, he's been a member of
the New York City Metropolitan Transit
Authority and its vice chairman in recent
years. He's a commissioner of the New York
State Port Authority; that is, the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey. He's a
former member and owner and publisher of the
New York Post.
He's chairman of the Grand Central
Partnership Board of Directors, and has been a
member of the Metropolitan Transit Authority,
serving with great distinction, and has
recently enunciated a series of ideas which
are of great significance to all New Yorkers.
Specifically, he has come out in
strong favor of the development of a
full-length Second Avenue Subway, which will
have a major economic impact on the whole of
Manhattan and all abutting areas. He has also
done a very important job in regard to the
connecting trunk line which will bring -
which will connect the Long Island Railroad to
Grand Central Station, easing the burden of
the daily commute for many thousands of
commuters who come to New York City every day.
1983
Mr. Kalikow is a man who has been a
very distinguished leader of his chosen field
of real estate. He's been honored repeatedly
by the Real Estate Board of New York.
He's a philanthropist of
considerable note, having created the
pediatric intensive care unit at New York
Hospital with his wife, Mary. He's a trustee
of New York's Columbia-New York Presbyterian
Hospital and chairman of its pediatric
development committee, caring deeply about the
welfare of children.
He's on the board of directors of
the Jewish National Fund and was honored by
being given the Peace Medal, which is the
State of Israel's highest civilian award, for
his many years in aiding that nation's
development.
Madam Chairman, let me say to you
that Mr. Peter Kalikow in my judgment
represents the highest degree of integrity and
ability that we can have in a public servant.
He's a man of great drive, and I think anyone
who knows him and speaks with him is aware of
the fact that his energy will be well applied
1984
in his great new responsibilities.
Having been involved with both the
Port Authority and the MTA at some length,
he's familiar with the bridges, the tunnels,
all of the arteries which cause New York to be
economically one of the greatest areas in the
world. And I think that his availability in
assuming responsibility for these areas of
ingress and egress from the city will assure
that this will be smoothly run and well taken
care of.
One of his significant
accomplishments while acting as chairman -
Madam President, may I ask you for a little
order, if you please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, as
usual, we were in sync. I had just gaveled as
you requested that.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Thank you.
It's called mental-to-gavel telepathy, Madam
President.
May I say to you that in one of his
unique and notable accomplishments he has
taken the remarkable ability of motorists to
drive quickly through the toll booths with the
1985
special credential which is now available for
that purpose, and extending that privilege to
motorists not only from New York City but
surrounding regions as well. A very important
development, and a very great conservative
time for motoring commuters.
I could go on and on and try to
heap high the accomplishments of this man, but
let me simply say that we're very lucky that
an individual of his stature and caliber is
willing to devote as much of his time as he
has to public service.
And by placing him in the
chairmanship of the MTA, we will assure that
that sensitive post is in good hands. In
fact, I can think of none better to serve in
this very distinguished post.
Madam President, I present to you
his name and hope that this house will quickly
approve him as he richly deserves to be
approved. Thank you very much indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
Senator Stachowski, I believe, is
next.
1986
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes, Madam
President.
I rise to second the nomination of
Mr. Kalikow. I was thoroughly impressed by
his knowledge of the MTA and its many
functions. A group of my colleagues at the
Finance meeting asked him a myriad of
questions on a lot of different issues that
concerned them from their parts of the City of
New York, and he was not only aware of each
one but he had a good grasp of the subject.
And it was a breath of fresh air to
hear a nominee that was so up on the issues,
had ideas of how to deal with some of them,
and had the energy to say that he was going to
go and try to make a lot of these things
happen.
I think that he has a good
knowledge of what public service is. He has
the right attitude to handle the MTA and get
it to serve the people of New York better, to
alleviate some of their travel problems.
And I think that it's my great
pleasure to rise and second the nomination of
Mr. Kalikow.
1987
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, I also
rise to second the nomination of Mr. Kalikow.
I want to commend the Governor for
this appointment. Mr. Kalikow, as you've
heard from Senator Stachowski and Senator
Goodman, is an outstanding real estate
developer, philanthropist, and has served with
distinction for several years as a member of
the MTA and the Port Authority.
I believe he is the first chairman
of the MTA in history who also is a member of
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Now, this creates certain problems, because I
believe the capital plan for the MTA is over
$17 billion and for the Port Authority is over
$14 billion. And any way we can be helpful to
him, we will.
And I know with his contacts in the
federal government and the city government
there will be ways of reaching, if not all of
this total, most of this total for the benefit
of the entire metropolitan New York region.
Lastly, but not least -
Mr. Kalikow is probably not aware of the
1988
fact -- there is life before the New York
State Senate, as I'm told there is life after
the New York State Senate. Almost twenty
years ago, Mr. Kalikow and his father received
the award of Men of the Year from UJA
Federation of New York. I was on the
committee as a trustee, and a member of the
executive committee of UJA Federation that
approved the award and also presented the
award with my colleagues.
And I am delighted that this man,
who has ability and commitment and courage
and, we hope, support, will be able to build
upon what Virgil Conway has done over these
last few years and make the MTA the
outstanding institution it is and even further
advance it for the future for the citizens of
the City and State of New York.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to support this nomination.
1989
The Governor would have been hard pressed to
come up a nominee with a more impressive
resume in both the public sector and the
private sector.
And as Senator Stachowski
illustrated before, it was refreshing to have
someone come before the Senate Finance
Committee with a very complete understanding
of the very important issues that will be
faced by that nominee once they assume the
position for which they have been nominated.
On a personal level, I was
gratified that, as I was asking the nominee
certain very parochial questions, he was very
in tune and very responsive to the needs in my
communities. And it's not just because the
nominee grew up in Forest Hills, it's because
he is dedicated and compassionate and has a
very full understanding of the one problem
that I raised with him this morning, and that
I've raised on this floor before -- the last
time being about a week ago -- and that's the
number of pedestrian deaths on Queens
Boulevard.
And just to reiterate some of the
1990
numbers, 73 people dead since 1993, an average
of one pedestrian fatality every six weeks on
Queens Boulevard. Eighty-nine percent of the
deaths pedestrian error, 60 percent of the
deaths senior citizens. And I should note
that this particular area has the highest
concentration of senior citizens in the entire
state of New York.
We're doing a number of things to
improve the conditions. But MTA and the
Transit Authority can have a dramatic impact
here by examining the technical feasibility
and the monetary feasibility of installing
escalators on seven subway underpasses that
cut underneath this dangerous intersection to
avoid unnecessary crossings which just
compromise people's health and lives in some
cases.
And I was very much gratified that
not only Mark Shaw, the Executive Director of
the MTA, was receptive when I first broached
this idea with him several weeks ago, but at
this morning's hearing that Mr. Kalikow was
also receptive.
As he indicated during that
1991
committee meeting, when he was growing up in
the area, to avoid the dangerous crossings on
Queens Boulevard, he too would cut underneath,
using the subways. So he recognizes that
senior citizens often cannot do that and that
we really have to explore ways to avoid people
from being unnecessarily killed or injured on
that roadway.
So I'm thrilled that he is
enthusiastic about examining that issue and
that he is very knowledgeable on all of the
other issues of concern to us, including the
extension of the Second Avenue Subway and a
series of transportation initiatives that are
absolutely essential to the economic vitality
of the New York metropolitan region.
So having said that, I fully
support this nominee and commend the Governor
on an excellent, excellent choice.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I rise to also second the motion,
the resolution, and wish to commend Governor
Pataki on this fine appointment.
Mr. Kalikow's accomplishments speak
1992
for themselves. They are legend. The
comments of the Senate Minority indicate that
he can reach across to all political parties,
to people in all walks of life. His
experience and breadth of knowledge and
experience is so wide that it's almost as if
he came from central casting for this
position.
Mr. Kalikow is of course a
gentleman, a gentle man with a steel core, a
man who has, by his many, many charitable
endeavors over the years, contributed so much
to our great state and to the nation.
I'm very pleased to second the
nomination of a good friend, someone who will
behave in the office of chairman of the MTA in
a way that will bring credit not only to
himself and his family but to the people of
New York and to the Governor that appointed
him.
I'm very proud to second the
nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President.
1993
I'd like to join others in
seconding this nomination. Peter Kalikow has
a home in my senate district, and we have
exchanged pleasantries over a number of years.
I just can't say enough about his
talents. Both in the area of public service
to this state, and as a businessperson, he has
shown that he has extraordinary skills. And I
think that he will continue to demonstrate the
use of his talents in his chairmanship in a
very important area.
So it gives me great pleasure,
Madam President, to second this nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor,
to close.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm delighted to second the
confirmation of Peter Kalikow. He's been a
friend for years but, more importantly, he's
been a friend to all of New York City in his
charitable work. He's been a successful -
obviously, successful businessman.
And the thing we all do appreciate
is his willingness to serve, his willingness
1994
to serve on the MTA board and now to serve as
the chair. And I know he will do a superb
job.
I was frankly delighted, but not
the least bit surprised, when the members of
my conference who serve on the Finance
Committee reported to me that -- including
some who are not from New York City and not as
familiar with Peter's fine work in the past -
who reported to me: Wow, what a nominee. We
asked a lot of questions because we have a lot
of concerns, obviously, about transportation
in the metropolitan area. We asked a lot of
questions, and he knew all the answers, he
articulated them well.
He obviously is committed to doing
a superb job. I know he will. I'm delighted
to second this nominee.
THE PRESIDENT: To close for the
Majority, Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
I too am delighted to join with my
colleagues in thanking and congratulating the
Governor on your appointment.
1995
I've had the pleasure of knowing
Peter for many years, having worked with him
on many MTA issues as the Senate
representative to the MTA Capital Review
Board, where there are still many challenges
ahead of us in making sure that whether it's
the New York City subway system, the Long
Island railroad, Metro North, or our bus
services, that they are the best and what are
our constituents deserve.
Peter, by your appointment,
Governor Pataki -- and of Virgil Conway before
you -- I think by both of those appointments,
the Governor has indicated his concern and his
desire and his understanding that we have to
have a state-of-the-art mass transit system
for all of our hundreds of thousands of
constituents that use the system on a daily
basis. It has to be safe, it has to be clean,
it has to be courteous, and it has to be on
time. And I know you will meet those
challenges in the years to come.
So congratulations to you, my
friend.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
1996
on the confirmation of Peter S. Kalikow, of
New York City, to serve as chairman of the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And as President of the Senate, on
behalf of the Senate, I'd like to acknowledge
the presence of the chairman of the
Metropolitan Transition Authority, Peter S.
Kalikow, who is here with his son, Nicholas.
I've had the privilege and
educational opportunity of working with
Chairman Kalikow on other initiatives. And
without reservation, I know the Governor has
made an excellent choice to succeed another
excellent chairman, Virgil Conway.
Congratulations, Peter, and best
wishes.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
1997
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
Edward B. Dunn, of Rye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, another excellent appointment.
And to move Ted Dunn's nomination,
I yield to the Senator from Westchester.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Thank you very
much, Senator, and Madam President.
It's my pleasure to stand in
support of the nomination of Ted Dunn to the
MTA. Ted Dunn is someone who was educated at
Harvard, served as a successful businessman,
served as the mayor of the City of Rye in
Westchester County, has been involved in a
number of local activities, most worthy as
the -- serving as the trustee of one of our
colleges in Westchester County, and has
continued to serve as a member of the MTA in a
way that makes us all proud. Serving as the
Westchester representative, serving with then
Virgil Conway, who did such an outstanding job
1998
as the chairman of the MTA.
And also I want to congratulate
Peter Kalikow on his appointment as the new
chairman of the MTA.
So it is my pleasure today, Madam
President, to second the nomination of Ted
Dunn as a member of the MTA and hope that he
continues the great work that you continue to
provide to not only to the people of
Westchester but to the people of Long Island
and the people of the City of New York as
well.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I rise to second the nomination of
Ted Dunn. Ted has done just very wonderful
work in Westchester and in the financial
field. And he has been on the MTA board. He
is very knowledgeable of the whole process and
all the work that is being done there.
And I think this is -- it's totally
appropriate that we should want to have him
continue in his service. He has been willing
1999
to take on this for another term. And I think
we are the beneficiaries, because his
financial background, his knowledge of the
transit systems -- actually, he lives close by
to where I live, and we both live like three
minutes away from our local Metro North
station, which is of course -- Metro North
being a part of the MTA.
And I think that his commitment to
Westchester, his commitment to transportation,
and his financial skills make this really an
extraordinary nominee, and I'm delighted he
has decided to serve again.
I second his nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the reappointment of Edward B. Dunn, of
Rye, as a member of the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, for a term to expire
on June 3rd in the year 2006.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
2000
Congratulations to Ted Dunn.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the State Board of Parole, Vernon C. Manley,
of New York City.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, for our third fine appearance
today, we have Vernon Manley, nominated for
reappointment to the Parole Board.
And it's a pleasure for me to yield
to Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you,
Madam President. Thank you, Senator Stafford.
As chairman of the Crime Victims,
Crime and Corrections Committee, with
jurisdiction over the members of the Parole
Board and the operations of the Parole Board,
it is with great pleasure that I rise for the
renomination, reappointment of Vernon C.
Manley to serve as a member of the Parole
2001
Board.
Mr. Manley has served with
distinction in a variety of governmental and
community-based operations in the City of
New York, and has served for the last half
year with extreme distinction as a member of
the Parole Board.
That we are benefited by someone
with as diverse qualifications as Mr. Manley,
involved in the workings of neighborhood
organizations within the city of New York, who
has worked within the municipal government of
the City of New York, has been a very
aggressive and ambitious member of the Parole
Board during his brief tenure.
And Governor Pataki is certainly
right to renominate Mr. Manley for service in
this capacity. The committee recommends and
urges his renomination.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President.
I rise to second the nomination. I
2002
think that -- I'm very happy. I don't know
personally Mr. Manley, but -- and I apologize
that during the time that we had our Finance
Committee meeting, we were involved with a
hearing on the criminal justice system.
And one of the issues raised in the
context of the hearing and the press
conference and the hearings that we've held,
the issue of the Parole Board has loomed as
one of the major questions and areas that we
need to work more on.
And so I'm very happy that we have
a person from New York City who probably has a
much better understanding of all of the unique
aspects of that environment and ways in which
those things come to play as it relates to
people who may be in our corrections system
and who may be looking to be paroled. It's
very good to have a person who not only has
the experience and the expertise but who also
has the sensitivity.
So I want to commend the Governor
on this appointment. And I look forward to
having some dialogue, hopefully, with
Mr. Manley as it relates to some of his ideas
2003
and some of the things that he thinks that we
might do as a legislative body to help support
what the role of the Parole Board is. Because
we understand its significance as it relates
to addressing the whole issue of our
corrections and criminal justice system.
So I look forward to working with
you. And hopefully this is one of the better
appointments that the Governor has made in the
time that I'm here.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I would certainly want Senator
Montgomery to know that her assumption, having
not the pleasure of getting to know
Mr. Manley, is very well taken.
I actually have known Vernon Manley
for over ten years. And at one point, Madam
President, he worked with a former colleague
of ours who I saw in the chamber yesterday,
the former Senator Catherine Abate.
What has always struck me about
Mr. Manley, in addition to his own personal
integrity, was his understanding of many of
2004
the issues that involve New York City,
particularly placement of services. As much
as we do need these types of facilities, they
often conflict with the needs of a
neighborhood and community.
Our office always got a sympathetic
ear when we spoke to Mr. Manley when he worked
with the previous mayoral administration.
And in addition, just his
understanding of the fact that people have at
times committed harm against society and it's
our public policy to punish them, but if they
have taken that punishment and in some way
been rehabilitated that we try to hope that we
can clean the slate with them if they work
through the parole process.
So I couldn't think of a better
person that the Governor could have chosen -
the fact that he hails from my district only
being a minor consideration.
I would say that I hope that -- I
wish him well and wish the Parole Board well,
with his voice among them.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Vernon C. Manley, of
2005
New York City, for reappointment as a member
of the State Board of Parole, for a term to
expire on June 18th in the year 2006.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
Congratulations, Mr. Manley, on
your confirmation.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Continuing Care Retirement Community
Council, Edward Charles Weeks, of Buffalo.
As members of the Medical Advisory
Committee, John Angerosa, Jr., M.D., of
Scotia; Norman Loomis, M.D., of Ontario;
Dennis P. Norfleet, of Oswego; Michael P.M.
Pond, M.D., of Saranac Lake; and Roger W.
Triftshauser, D.D.S., of Batavia.
As a member of the Council on Human
Blood and Transfusion Services, William Allen
2006
Fricke, M.D., of Rochester.
As a member of the Public Health
Council, Stephen A. Jennings, of Watertown.
As a member of the State Camp
Advisory Council, Sheila Cohen, of Freeport.
As a member of the State Hospital
Review and Planning Council, James J. Daly, of
Lawrence.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Helen Hayes Hospital, Jeffrey
Sweet, of Peekskill.
And as a member of the Board of
Visitors of the New York State Home for
Veterans and Their Dependents at Oxford,
William E. Randall, II, of Marathon.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move the
nominations, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Edward Charles Weeks,
of Buffalo, for reappointment as a member of
Continuing Care Retirement Community Council,
for a term to expire on June 24th in the year
2002; and on the reappointments of the members
of the Medical Advisory Committee, for terms
2007
to expire on May 31, 2001, with the exception
of John Angerosa, Jr., who is being confirmed
for a term to expire on May 31st in the year
2002, and Norman Loomis, M.D., for a term to
expire May 31, 2002; and also for the
confirmation of the members of the Council on
Human Blood and Transfusion Services,
specifically William Allen Fricke, M.D., for a
term to expire December 31st in the year 2002;
and for the confirmation of the following:
Member of the Public Health Council, member of
the State Camp Advisory Council, member of the
State Hospital Review and Planning Council -
Could we please have order in the
chamber so the nominations can be heard.
-- member of the Board of Visitors
of the Helen Hayes Hospital, and a member of
the Board of Visitors of the New York State
Home for Veterans and Their Dependents at
Oxford.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
2008
hereby confirmed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. There will be an immediate
Majority Conference in the Majority Conference
Room.
And please recognize Senator
Paterson for an announcement.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Majority in the
Majority Conference Room.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Minority in the Minority Conference
Room, which is Room 3.14, which is also the
mathematical division of pi.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be a
meeting of the Minority Conference in Room
314.
The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 3:58 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:30 p.m.)
2009
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we ask for an immediate meeting in the
Majority Conference Room of the Commerce,
Economic Development and Small Business
Committee, chaired by Senator Alesi.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting in the Majority Conference
Room of the Commerce, Economic Development and
Small Business Committee, chaired by Senator
Alesi.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we return at this time to motions and
resolutions, and adopt the Resolution
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: Motions and
resolutions.
All in favor of adopting the
Resolution Calendar signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
2010
THE PRESIDENT: The Resolution
Calendar is adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I have a privileged resolution at the desk. I
would ask that the title be read and move for
its immediate adoption.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: The
Secretary will read Privileged Resolution 785.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and
Assembly Number 785, authorizing the Senate
and Assembly of New York State to purchase
copies the New York Red Book for 2001-2002.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll on the resolution.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Fuschillo, for a motion.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Maziarz, on
page Number 16 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 174, Senate
2011
Print Number 1898, and ask that said bill
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, and the bill will retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time take up the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
68, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 487,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to aggravated unlicensed
operation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
86, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 389, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
policy coverage.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
2012
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
89, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 1575, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
expanding.
SENATOR PATERSON: Last section.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
92, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 860, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to aggravated unlicensed operation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
143, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 64, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to persons and officials.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
2013
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
146, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 587, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to extensions.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
147, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 588, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to procedures.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
158, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 1087, an
act to direct the Department of Public
Service.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
162, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 1449, an
act to amend the Social Services Law and
2014
others, in relation to penalties.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
163, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 833, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
certain BOCES programs.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
166, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2651, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the terms of members of the Board of Regents.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time take up Calendar Number
143.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 143.
2015
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
143, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 64, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to persons and officials.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, we discussed this bill yesterday,
with the kind responses from Senator Velella.
And when we left off, Senator Onorato was just
asking for the floor.
I just wanted to bring that up, if
that's of any help.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Senator
Onorato, do you wish to have to have the
floor? If you stand, I will consider that.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will Senator Velella answer a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly.
2016
SENATOR ONORATO: It's a brief
question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Velella, this has to do with the EMTs. Prior
to this legislation, did you have any
conference at all or understanding with the
EMTs?
SENATOR VELELLA: With who?
SENATOR ONORATO: With the
emergency -
SENATOR VELELLA: Okay.
SENATOR ONORATO: Did they agree
that they were willing to go along with this
here? Did it in any way violate their
contractual union agreement with the City of
New York?
SENATOR VELELLA: I'm not aware
of any. And as far as I know, the EMT people
that spoke with me were in support of this.
SENATOR ONORATO: They were
supportive of it.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
SENATOR ONORATO: And the other
2017
question that I had in mind was, would there
be additional training required on the part of
the EMT now to start recognizing some of these
things that they will be asked to report on?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Senator.
As I indicated yesterday, all those
groups that will be covered by the law -
there are other groups that are covered that
are required to make these reports. There are
standards set out in the law for them to make
those reports and standards for which they
should -- things that they should be looking
for.
So that in and of itself sets the
criteria.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of the
calendar month next succeeding the 60th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
2018
passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we now call up Calendar Number 86.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 86.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
86, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 389, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
policy coverage.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill would prevent the refusal
to issue or renew any policy of life or
non-cancelable disability insurance based
solely on the basis of genetic testing or
because an individual has had any type of
cancer, the latter providing that the initial
diagnosis of such disease occurred at least
three years prior to the date of application
and a physician has certified that the disease
has not reoccurred.
2019
In 1993, we passed this type of
legislation concerning breast cancer in the
Senate. And I believe at that time Senator
Oppenheimer raised the point why not all
cancer. We have done that.
It has passed the Senate
unanimously in '97, '98, '99, and the year
2000. And unfortunately, the Assembly has not
passed this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Skelos would yield for a
couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Skelos, the definition that you use in the
legislation, is that accepted by the American
Medical Association? Is this a sound
definition? Because my fear is -- which will
probably be the precursor to my next
question -- is that it in a sense could act as
2020
a loophole in the legislation that you're
trying to pass.
SENATOR SKELOS: No, I think it's
a sufficient definition.
And I want to point out that it is
supported by the American College of
Obstetrics and Gynecologists. So I think if
there was a defect in the legislation, that
certainly they would have so indicated.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Skelos would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, in
your explanation I missed your comments about
some of the other forms of cancer. Would you
mind restating them for me?
SENATOR SKELOS: I didn't
mention -- if I could, Madam President, I
didn't mention any types of cancer. I
2021
mentioned cancer.
Prior to -- we've passed
legislation, I believe it was in 1993 -- '97,
rather, just relating to breast cancer. I
believe at that time Senator Oppenheimer
indicated why not all cancer. And this is
what this legislation is today that passed, at
least on three or four occasions, unanimously
in the State Senate.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I thank Senator Skelos for the
clarification. And if he would yield for
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, do
you think that in some respects that this
legislation is almost defeated by the use of
the term "genetic predisposition," which is
kind of a new terminology and a new study in
our society, and one that may or may not be
2022
proven to be valuable when you think of
actuarial tables, and that with genetic
predisposition being in a sense almost written
into the law that in the future it might
actually be used to stop people from getting
treatment when you don't really know for a
fact that they're really going to -- well, it
may stop people from getting insurance when
you really don't know for a fact that they're
going to need treatment?
SENATOR SKELOS: No.
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh, that's the
answer? No?
THE PRESIDENT: That's correct,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Read the last section.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
2023
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane, with a question.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
On page 1, lines 5 and 6 read
"unless action is based upon sound actuarial
principles." Would the sponsor tell us what
that could mean in practice?
SENATOR SKELOS: I'm sorry, I
didn't hear.
SENATOR DUANE: To repeat, on
page 1 of the bill, lines 5 and 6, the bill
reads "unless action is based upon sound
actuarial principles." And I'm wondering if
the sponsor could tell us what that would mean
in practice.
SENATOR SKELOS: This is in
current law. It's almost boilerplate
legislation. It's in Section 2606 of the
Unfair Practices Act, Section 2608 also.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
2024
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Is it possible,
however, that this could mean that an
insurance company, based upon actuarial
principles, would end up not having to provide
the coverage?
SENATOR SKELOS: If I could,
Madam President, the possibility could occur.
But that would always -- that could always be
reviewable by the Superintendent of Insurance.
And remember, if it's based solely
on a person's predisposition.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: If I could just
correct that. If it's based solely on the
basis of genetic testing.
SENATOR DUANE: Genetic testing.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
2025
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you yield,
Senator?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I do want to ask, however, that
since the term "genetic predisposition" is
used in the bill, is that a term -- and the
definition that's attached to it -- recognized
by, for instance, the American Medical
Association?
SENATOR SKELOS: The definition
already is current law, if you look on page 2
of the bill, line 4.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. But
through you, Madam President, because I'm
actually not familiar with that -- and I
apologize. But was that derived from the
American Medical Association or some other
healthcare trade association?
SENATOR SKELOS: Again, if I
could answer that as I answered -- if I could,
2026
Madam President -- Senator Paterson, there's
support from the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They have
carefully studied this bill. It's been before
this house three or four times. And I'm sure
if there was a problem with it, they would
have notified us.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Madam
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering in
the genesis of the bill how it was that a
three-year limit was used. What accounts for
using that time?
SENATOR SKELOS: That was taken
from the -- I'm sorry, I just couldn't hear
you, Senator Duane.
That was taken from the 1993
legislation that I passed concerning breast
2027
cancer and that was signed into law.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if I could just have a
clarification about that.
The 1993 legislation used three
years as what kind of a determining factor?
SENATOR SKELOS: In 1993, the
state legislation was enacted to prohibit -
and this is legislation that was signed into
law -- life and disability insurers from
refusing to issue or for cancelling a policy
because an individual had -- has had breast
cancer.
SENATOR DUANE: But through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm trying to get
at the three-year limit and why that's being
used, and maybe I missed why that is. But I'm
2028
just still not getting that, if the sponsor
would just clarify why the three-year rule was
used.
SENATOR SKELOS: It's the same
amount of time used in the legislation passed
in '93. It was supported by both houses,
signed by the Governor, so we felt it was
appropriate to have in this legislation, that
we could make it law.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: The insurance
carriers who would be impacted by this
legislation, have they indicated to us what
the anticipated financial impact of the
legislation might be?
SENATOR SKELOS: There's no memo
in opposition that I know of.
2029
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm assuming
that -- the past responses to indicate that
the insurance companies either don't know or
don't care about what the cost is to them. Is
that what's being implied by their not having
a memo in opposition?
SENATOR SKELOS: Nobody has come
to us and opposed this bill. I have not seen
a memo in opposition to this bill. And we've
passed it on four occasions, unanimously. I
believe you supported it for the years that
you have been in the Senate.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
2030
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I do want to
preface this question by saying that I do
think this is a good bill.
And I'm wondering whether or not
the sponsor feels that there should be a
similar policy for, for instance, the issue of
mental health and, as we discussed, providing
parity for mental health.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Duane,
I'll comment on this legislation which is
before the Senate. I know that there are
numerous other pieces of legislation that
would affect other concerns. And certainly if
and when they come before the Senate for
consideration, I will express my opinion at
that time as I vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
Thank you. I do want to repeat
that I do think that this is a good bill. And
I'm heartened that the insurance companies
2031
have not come out in opposition to this
legislation, and I think that bodes well for
other kinds of legislation that would follow
this model.
And so I am very much looking
forward to including these kinds of bills when
we look at other ailments and diseases,
including mental illness.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson was next, and then Senator
Smith.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. If the sponsor would
yield to a question.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
You may proceed.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
I heard your answer on the actuary.
My problem, though, is the actuary
is that person that -- you know, the
2032
numbers-cruncher that makes a determination
about what the insurance is going to cost.
And do you not think by adding that
as language you create a loophole for the
insurance company to send an actuary to say to
us that the case in question would -- because
of the cost of cancer, that that would be a
good enough reason to deny, based upon the
financial impact to the insurance company?
SENATOR SKELOS: If I could
comment on that.
If you took away actuarial
principles, that means they would have to
insure everybody on everything.
And I think there would be perhaps
a problem in terms of cost.
You could have a situation where if
I found out today that I had cancer and I went
in and sought insurance tomorrow, I think that
would cause a problem in terms of all who are
seeking insurance in the state.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Madam
President, through you, another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
2033
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Then,
Senator, then I was under the misimpression
that we really were trying to help everyone
who might fall into this category. Because if
you -
SENATOR SKELOS: If I could ask
you a question. If I know -
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Let me
just finish what I'm saying.
SENATOR SKELOS: Okay.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I know
we have to have some guidelines. I know there
has to be some parameters that we use.
I'm just not clear that if we are
instructing the insurance companies not to
deny persons based upon all the other
parameters that you have developed here, why
actuary as the determination? Why not another
principle?
SENATOR SKELOS: First of all -
well, again, we're just talking about based
solely on the basis of genetic testing. That
2034
we're saying that they cannot deny this
insurance based solely on genetic testing.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Just a
final question, if the Senator will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I
don't think that my concern is that we don't
have some sound principle by which we make
determinations. My question is why the
actuary, and -- because that, to me, is an
insurance loophole. That's my assessment.
SENATOR SKELOS: It's in no way
determinant. And it's replete through all of
our laws.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I said
final question, so I will honor that. Thank
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President. Would the sponsor yield for
2035
one question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
After listening to Senator
Hassell-Thompson, some questions came to mind.
And one of them was, are any particular ethnic
groups more predisposed to -- genetically
predisposed to cancer?
SENATOR SKELOS: We're dealing
with cancer.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Yes, I said
cancer.
SENATOR SKELOS: I -- I have no
idea.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Okay. If
not, are there any particular groups actually
at all that would be genetically predisposed,
any categories?
SENATOR SKELOS: Again, I have no
idea. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't
2036
be denied this insurance based solely on
genetic testing.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
Would the sponsor just yield for one more last
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield for a final question?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
For those people who have
successfully battled cancer, statistically how
often do they suffer from a reoccurrence of
the disease? Would you know that?
SENATOR SKELOS: I have no idea.
I guess it depends on every individual.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Will the
Senator yield for one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do
you -
2037
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
SENATOR ONORATO: If the actuary
for whatever reason denies the person who's
seeking the insurance, is there a right of
appeal of their decision?
SENATOR SKELOS: I mentioned that
earlier, that it's with the Superintendent of
Insurance.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
will the sponsor yield to one question,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you,
Senator.
We've acknowledged that advances in
genetics and microbiology have allowed us to
detect the predisposition not only of cancers
but of other illnesses, other diseases -
2038
sickle cell anemia, diabetes, heart disease.
Would you in a future bill consider the
inclusion of these other -
SENATOR SKELOS: I believe
Senator Duane asked a similar question,
perhaps not in the same words.
Right now I'm dealing with cancer.
There are members who have sponsored
legislation concerning all other types of
diseases. And certainly if they are presented
to the floor, I would probably be supportive
of all of them.
SENATOR ESPADA: We thank the
Senator. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just -- would the sponsor
yield to just one question, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield for a question?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
2039
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President. The overall effect of this
would be to require insurance companies to not
use genetic testing or genetic predispositions
as the sole basis for denying policy coverage.
My question is, would you
anticipate that the average cost of insurance
of this type, both life and non-cancelable
disability insurance, would increase in this
state as a result of their attempting to cover
their risk under this policy?
Would you anticipate overall
policies would increase?
SENATOR SKELOS: No.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, just briefly on
the bill.
I certainly share Senator Skelos's
interest and I think proper interest and goal
of eliminating the use of genetic testing as
the sole determinant of denying coverage for
either life policies or noncancelable
disabilities.
But I do believe that the
consequence of this bill will be to increase
2040
the cost of life insurance and noncancelable
disability, because the consequence of this
will be there will be fewer instances in which
they can use the tools of modern science to
detect predispositions and then rule certain
people out of the policy pool. Such as we've
done with the smoking of cigarettes in life
insurance policies and in the calculation of
the cost of life insurance policies.
So I think this is a good bill, but
I think it -- at least from my experience in
looking at the insurance business and how
insurance pools work, I would suggest that it
will increase the cost of both of these
coverages generally across the state, even
though that increased cost will be justified
because we're going to be creating a policy
which protects people from the arbitrary use
of genetic testing.
I think it's a good idea, but I do
think it will have a result of an increase in
cost, and we ought to do it with that
understanding.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
2041
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 100.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: To explain my
vote. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I stand to
commend Senator Skelos for this bill. He's
introduced it before. There's no reason it
shouldn't pass both houses.
It's taking the positive side of
genetic research, which can be so important in
today's scientific community, but taking away
the negative side, the negative side being the
improper or bad use of it by insurance
companies to deny coverage.
I commend him. I hope it passes on
to additional areas and that we have some ways
to enforce it, police it, to make sure that we
can guarantee that insurance companies can't
use that information in any way that would
cause individuals to lose their insurance
2042
coverage.
And for that reason I vote in the
affirmative. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
Senator Hassell-Thompson, did you
wish to be heard? And then Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. Just to explain my
vote.
I certainly too commend Senator
Skelos on his thoughtfulness in this area and
will have every intention of voting on the
bill.
I would just hope that he would
have considered deleting the language of
"sound actuarial principles" in its connection
not to people who already have cancer or who
know they have cancer but, rather, to those
with a predisposition.
So that's my only concern about
this bill. And I do vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you will
2043
be recorded as voting in the affirmative.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Madam President. I also will be voting in the
affirmative.
I thought I'd give an answer, the
partial answer, the little piece of it that I
do know myself personally, to the question
that Miss -- Senator A. Smith raised.
Yes, there are predispositions to
certain types of cancer.
For example, Ashkenazy Jewish women
have a strong predisposition to breast cancer.
And unfortunately, I fit into the pattern and
did -- am a survivor.
But there are many other types of
cancer that are predisposed to particular
groups, so it does exist.
But this is a good bill. I'm happy
to support it. I'm glad I planted the seed in
Senator Skelos's mind.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: To explain my
vote. Because I also intend voting for it.
Just thinking about it, I had a
2044
question in mind that I didn't ask you. And I
hope that if this isn't the bill that passes
both houses, that we'll have another
opportunity to come back to it.
I'd like to know how the insurance
companies are going to get their hands on the
information about anyone's predisposition to
have this particular information available to
them. And is it going to be mandated by the
insurance companies that before they give you
the insurance that they will require you to
take some kind of a test on it.
So keeping that in mind for a
future bill, I intend to vote yes on this
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. To explain my vote.
I do feel that this is a good bill.
But I share the concerns that I raised before
about the phrase "unless action is based upon
sound actuarial principles." I haven't
actually been -- my fears have not been
particularly calmed. And of course my
2045
colleague Senator Hassell-Thompson really also
zoomed in on that.
I think I would feel better if the
insurance companies had opposed this
legislation. It would make me feel that there
was more of a likelihood that the intent of
this bill would actually be met in practice.
I am going to vote for it. I am
going to hope that it achieves the result that
the sponsor had intended for it to have. If
that isn't the case, then I think we would
have to go and revisit it and try to tighten
up the language to make sure that people -
women are covered in the way that we intended.
And I will be voting yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the affirmative,
Senator Duane.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
2046
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if you would call up Calendar Number 166, by
Senator Kuhl.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 166.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
166, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2651, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the terms of members of the Board of Regents.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: May we have
an explanation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. I didn't hear who requested the
explanation.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I did.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President.
This bill is singular in purpose.
It would simply stagger the terms of the Board
of Regents.
There are currently 16 members of
2047
the Board of Regents. And last year there
were six appointments. This year there are
four appointments.
So as you can see -- and they serve
five-year terms -- that there seems to be an
unbalanced selection which can lead to a great
turnover as far as experience goes.
So the attempt is to try to stagger
the terms so that there's continuity of the
existence of institutional knowledge that the
Board of Regents might acquire should that
happen.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I think I'm
supportive of this; I just have to ask some
questions. Through you, if the sponsor would
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, I'd be happy
to.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: How would
2048
this work, Senator Kuhl? In each of the next
five years there would be two or three people
or three seats chosen to run in that year?
SENATOR KUHL: The easiest way
perhaps to explain this, Senator Oppenheimer,
is that -- use last year, the year 2000, as an
example.
There are 16 Regents on the Board
of Regents, as you know. There are 12 various
judicial districts across the state. Four are
elected from at-large status.
In the year 2000, there were six
seats that became vacant. This year there are
four seats that became vacant. Next year, the
year 2002, three seats will be up for
election. In the year 2004, three seats will
be up for election. And then we're back to
the year 2005, when there will be again six
seats up for election.
So you see a disproportionate
number of Regents will be coming up for
election or reelection, whatever happens to be
the circumstances, in numbers of years.
This law was changed back in the
year 1993 when we reduced the size of the
2049
board from 17 members to 16 members. However,
the previous experience of having staggered
terms was not continued forward.
I think -- and it's -- I think it's
a wise idea, and obviously this chamber did,
because we supported this bill 60 to nothing
last year. The committee voted 18 to nothing
to advance the proposal to the floor. It
seems to be an acceptable idea.
And the simple allocation would be
at the next time -- and this would not
occur -- if we had passed this this year, the
next time that we have more than four Regents
elected would be the year 2005. And what
happens is on that occasion, if there are more
than four, then the successive -- or the terms
for which they are elected are based on
seniority.
So if all of the current members
decided to run for reelection, all six, what
would happen is that we've got to go back and
determine when they first became a Regent, and
then the first one would get the five-year
term, the second would get a five-year, the
third would get a five-year, the fourth would
2050
get a five-year, the next one would get a
four-year, and the next one would get a
three-year.
Thereby, we would have staggered
the terms so that there would be no more than
four Regents elected at any one year
subsequent thereto.
None of the existing Regents would
have their term shortened. This would be
prospectively for newly elected Regents.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
you, Madam President, if the Senator would
yield again.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield? Senator Kuhl, will you yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: You said
for newly elected. But if in that example
where you had five coming back for
reappointment, then -
SENATOR KUHL: That is currently
the situation. We don't know -- we don't know
2051
what the situation will be in the year 2005
when there are then currently six positions
that have their term ended.
We don't know how many of those six
Regents will in fact have continued to full
completion of their terms. We don't know
whether or not any of them will seek
reelection or reappointment.
And so what the bill does is simply
says that there will not be more than four
Regents elected at any one time, but there is
a staggering system set up from the first time
that that happens so that the terms are
staggered, once and only once.
So that subsequent thereto, there
will only be four Regents at any one time
elected in any one year.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I got it.
SENATOR KUHL: I knew there was a
reason.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Now,
through you, Madam President, if the Senator
will continue to yield.
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to
yield, Madam President.
2052
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: What would
happen, Senator, in the instance of an
unexpired term where someone comes in, we
would elect someone to take the unexpired
term, would -- wait, I'm figuring this out.
That would then be, unless it's a term that
ended up at 2005, it would just be the normal
continuation of that term? For an unexpired
term where someone has stepped down.
SENATOR KUHL: Unexpired terms
really don't enter into what we're attempting
to do here. We're attempting to stagger the
terms for the elected Regents as they come up
in each year.
And currently, in the year 2000,
and then again in the year 2005, there will be
six vacancies. In the year 2001, there are
four vacancies. That will again happen in the
year 2006.
So unless you stagger the terms,
every five years there will be six Regents up
for -- or six vacancies to be filled either
with existing Regents who are seeking
2053
reappointment, or the next year there will be
five.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: So -
SENATOR KUHL: Excuse me, four.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm
confusing you.
To you, again, if you'll -
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: How long,
then, Senator Kuhl, would this transition
take? Would it take six years for the
transition to complete itself and then
everybody would be on the same term?
SENATOR KUHL: No, actually it
only takes one year. And that would be in the
next election when there are six
representatives.
Keep in mind, you have five-year
terms. Okay? This last year -- and you're
running in a five-year cycle. This last year
we had six members who were elected. This
2054
year we had four. Next year, there's three.
The following year, there's three. Then the
next year, there's six. Then there's four.
Then there's three. Then there's three.
So that the next time, the next
period, which would be 2005, when there are
six up for election, we change those six to
read only four in that year, and then
thereinafter there will be four, four, and
four. So you'll have successive terms of only
four Regents every four years.
And it's solely meant -- the only
purpose is to try to keep as much knowledge on
the board as you possibly can so that there's
not maximum turnover and so that you're not
really facing learning all over again.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Senator Kuhl. And on the bill, please.
I think this is an excellent bill.
This is something that's needed. I was just
trying to figure out how long it would take
before we would be on a circuit where there
would be four Regents elected every year. And
the answer to that would be in 2006, we would
have everybody on the Board of Regents in -
2055
four elected each year.
So I thank Senator Kuhl. That was
what I was trying to work through. And I
really think it's essential, because
otherwise -- I think this bill is essential,
because otherwise you're left with people in a
very responsible position who are really
determining the policy and essentially the
quality of education in our state. And if
many of them have turned over, like happened
last year, when we had six people coming
before us -- and I'll tell you, the amount of
interviewing was interminable, and some of you
were sitting there with us. I mean, it did go
on and on.
And I think with that kind of
responsibility, we simply can't have a large
turnover where people are new and don't know
what they're dealing with.
And I think this is a very
responsible bill, and I'm happy to support it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman
is next.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I defer to
Senator Stavisky.
2056
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
If Senator Kuhl will yield for a
question. A question, one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator -
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, I
commend Senator Kuhl for the clarity of his
presentation, because I also understood it
very clearly this time around.
One question. Through you, Madam
President, do you foresee any other agencies
participating in this staggered term? As an
example, today we had five members of the
Medical Advisory Committee on our calendar
today. Do you foresee any changes in other
appointments to boards or commissions? Since
if this is such a good idea for the Regents,
perhaps it's a good idea for the Medical
Advisory Committee?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, Senator, in
response to your question, there may be some
2057
other members of this house who chair
committees that in fact oversee other
appointments.
This whole issue of reconfiguration
of the Board of Regents has been a subject of
concern. As a matter of fact, this house is
involved in a lawsuit against the Regents.
So from my perspective, this is an
oversight that wasn't taken care of back in
1993, when in fact we reduced the number of
members. And I think it's something that's
long overdue, because we saw last year a
tremendous turnover. And Senator Oppenheimer
was absolutely right. It was an interminable
display in patience and persistence and
certainly exhausting to all of us who went
through the multitude of people who were
interested in applying for the Regents.
And I think that, number one, from
an efficiency standpoint of going through an
appointment, this house and the other house
would benefit from only having four vacancies
come up a year, in successive years.
And certainly the other part of
this is that you have a continuity in the
2058
institution. There's such an important role
that the Board of Regents play in establishing
a curriculum for our young people in this
state that it's essential that there's some
continuity. And when you have a turnover of
six people -- and you could have the
chancellor of the Board of Regents, you could
have the vice chancellor, you've got several
people who head up significant committee
slots -- all of a sudden, just because it's
the end of their term, they've had enough and
leave, and you've lost a great deal of the
institution.
So I'm only concentrating on this
particular aspect. I haven't looked at
anything farther. My realm of responsibility
is in the education arena, as the chairman of
that committee. And so I can't answer your
question other than to say that there may be
some other members who have some thoughts
along the same line.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
2059
SENATOR LACHMAN: Through you,
Madam President, I have a question, if Senator
Kuhl would accept it.
SENATOR KUHL: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you.
First, I'd like to say I think it's
an excellent bill. I voted for it last year;
I'll vote for it this year. In fact, I
strongly believe in staggered terms. I'm
looking forward to the day when the New York
State Senate, like the U.S. Senate, will have
six-year terms, staggered, one-third,
one-third, one-third.
Short of that, though, I have a
question dealing with the staggering. If a
U.S. Senator unfortunately dies in office or
is incapacitated and resigns, there is a
special election. But you might have one year
where ten members of the Regents leave, or
eight members of the Regents leave. Unusual,
but it's possible, because of illness, death,
as well as the term expiring. So you don't
have an exact staggered figure unless you work
2060
around that.
SENATOR KUHL: Well, yes, you do,
Senator, because when there is a vacancy, we
fill for the unexpired term of the vacancy.
So once you make this change, there are only
four regular terms that terminate every five
years. And so what you do is you'd fill the
vacancies.
And you might have four -- if this
bill were enacted into law, signed by the
Governor -- certainly passed by the other
house, signed by the Governor and becomes law,
then you'll only have four five-year terms
that end every year. But you might have a
couple of vacancies where you had four more
who had three years left in their term, or one
more who had or two more who had two or one.
So I don't see that that presents a
problem with a massive retirement. There are
some members in this chamber who would like to
see massive retirements.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, through you, one more question.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
2061
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I'm happy you
realize that some members would not want to
see that.
But what you're saying basically -
tell me if I'm wrong -- is if you do have
these retirements, then just as for a U.S.
Senator where there will be a special election
called in a state, what we would do is have a
special selection for that person who retires,
so that at the appointed time of reappointment
he will or she will come within the staggered
four people each.
SENATOR KUHL: That's correct.
And that is the current practice. We talked
about six terms ending last year, if you
recall.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
SENATOR KUHL: I know your memory
is very, very acute this way. We actually did
seven elections last year -
SENATOR LACHMAN: That's true.
SENATOR KUHL: -- because the
current chancellor of the City Board of
Education, Harold Levy, decided to take that
2062
position and resign his position. So we had
to fill that vacancy for the balance of his
term and then fill six vacancies.
So this is meant to really limit
that number of regular term endings to an
average and consistent number, four places
every four years.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill,
Madam President.
I strongly support it, as I did
last year. I think it's an excellent example
of nonpartisanship in the arena of policy.
Thank you kindly.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I'm
wondering if the sponsor would allow me to go
on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: If you wish to
2063
speak on the bill, Senator, you may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: No, Madam
President, I'm asking if the sponsor would let
me go on the bill.
SENATOR KUHL: That's certainly
something we can discuss, but I'm not prepared
to respond to that right now.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a
question relevant to the bill itself, the
substance of the bill, Senator?
SENATOR DUANE: On the bill,
Madam President.
I was very compelled earlier today
when we had a joint meeting of both houses in
the Assembly, and I listened very intently to
the sponsor as he discussed bipartisanship and
his desire for bipartisanship among all of us
here in the Legislature. And I'm very much
looking forward to all of us rekindling that
spirit of bipartisanship as it was directly
related to the issue of the Regents.
And I will be voting for this bill,
and I'm hoping that everyone will be able to
show their support for this bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
2064
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Will the sponsor yield for one
brief question, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl?
SENATOR KUHL: I'll be happy to.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
I believe I understand what this
legislation does. And the fact that we have
passed this unanimously in the last few years
does not obviate the need for asking
questions, particularly when the language is
unclear, based on the explanation that we've
heard.
So I truly am unclear on this, and
I just would like a clarification before I
vote in favor of this. If Senator Kuhl would
please tell us, where on line 13 it indicates
that "the terms of such Regents so affected
shall be reduced by one or more years, based
upon the order of their election," what that
means.
2065
SENATOR KUHL: To explain,
Senator, that simply means that the term,
whether or not it's reduced to four years or
three years, will be based on seniority.
And I think I gave an example, and
I explained this to you, if you may remember.
I know that you're younger and your memory is
much more acute than mine, simply because you
haven't reached the age of 40. So I would
have expected you to remember our conversation
last year.
But I know for the benefit of
Senators to the left of you and to the front
of you, they haven't heard this, and so I'm
more than happy to try to explain it again.
SENATOR HEVESI: Would you?
SENATOR KUHL: But it's based
simply on seniority.
That's so that if you had somebody
who was, say, a Regent who was elected in 1990
and chose to run again, and somebody who was
up for reelection and it happened to be the
year of the decrease of the longevity of their
terms, there were six members up for election
and somebody else had been selected, say, in
2066
1990, two or three, well, then, by some method
of chance the -- well, I shouldn't say method
of chance -- the older person would get the
longer term, the shorter-term-of-service
person would get the shorter term.
That's simply what that language
means.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'll be happy to
yield for some other questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator Kuhl, I
actually do not remember the specific
conversation that we had last year.
But I would suggest to you that my
reading of the English language, and the
language contained in this bill, does not jibe
with the explanation that you've just
provided, though the explanation that you just
provided is one that is perfectly logical.
And worded in this bill the way you just
2067
explained it, I think you would have
eliminated all the confusion.
That's, Senator, where it says
"based upon the order of their election," that
doesn't clarify for me the way you just
explained the order in which the terms are
going to be staggered.
So my question is, don't you agree?
SENATOR KUHL: Senator, let me
just simply say to you that I found in the
course of my service here that people coming
from different parts of the state certainly
have different environmental backgrounds and
certain heredities, and they have a different
understanding of the usage of the English
language. I find that's the case here today.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. On
the bill, Madam President. Madam President,
on the bill.
Thank you. Madam President, I
fully appreciate Senator Kuhl and his comments
here today, particularly his concession that
his memory is not as good as mine, which is
why it surprised him that he didn't understand
why I couldn't understand his bill.
2068
Having said that, I stand by my
ability to read the English language and my
statement before that this language does not
fully explain the way the terms are supposed
to be staggered, though that explanation is a
perfectly worthy explanation. And I believe
that that's why my very learned colleagues on
this side of the aisle have asked questions
pertaining to how the staggering should be
done.
Having said that, I will accept
Senator Kuhl's translation of the language of
the bill, and its intention, because I do
think it's a good idea. And I should like to
point out that in this year of municipal term
limits in New York City, that the raison
d'etre for this bill is the exact reason why
you should not have a complete transition of
institutional knowledge and power, be it on a
Board of Regents or in a elected New York City
Council or in any legislature. It's a real
problem.
So notwithstanding our
discrepancies and disagreements with the
phraseology of this bill, I do think the
2069
intention is good and so I will be supporting
the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes, Madam
President. Would Senator Hevesi yield to a
question.
SENATOR HEVESI: I would be happy
to yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Madam President. You've outlined some
possible disagreements and interpretations to
the bill.
Senator Hevesi, would you have any
language that might be able to correct that
situation and make the bill more easily be
readable to all citizens of the state of
New York, west, east, north and south?
SENATOR HEVESI: The answer,
Senator, is yes. I would simply remove the
phrase "based upon the order of their
election" and substitute it with the process
that Senator Kuhl outlined by which he intends
for the terms of the Regents to be staggered
2070
in order to prevent there from being any more
than six Regents appointed in any given year.
And I'd be happy to draft such
legislation if Senator Kuhl will pull this
bill. And while I'm on this topic, I would be
happy to include Senator Duane as a cosponsor
of that legislation, since he obviously feels
passionate enough to want his name associated
with such a positive change.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you very,
very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Kuhl would yield for two
questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, do
you yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to
yield to my good friend Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
2071
Senator. Just a couple of things I'd like you
to clear up for me.
Pursuant to the conversation you
had with Senator Hevesi, there was something
that I found confusing. Perhaps you can clear
it up for me. Today we elected four Regents.
Does the one who was actually elected first
have seniority over the one who was elected
second?
SENATOR KUHL: Senator Paterson,
it would be a moot question at this point,
because none of them will be in a position
where they'll have to have their term
shortened. There were only four of them
elected, and so they don't fall into the
category of having to have staggered terms.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right. Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, do
you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Certainly, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
2072
SENATOR PATERSON: I was just
using that as an example, Madam President,
because I was just trying to understand
whether the use of the word "order" related to
seniority or if "order" meant the order of
seniority by year.
SENATOR KUHL: Well, Senator, if
you had used the example of should all six
members who were appointed last year or
elected last year seek reelection in the year
2005, and should there be more than four who
were selected in the same year, then what I
would have said to you is if there were five
seeking four spots, four complete five-year
terms, then if there were -- there we would
use a selection method of chance to decide
which in fact -- who had seniority over the
other.
So seniority, under the proposal
here, is a determination by year, not by the
minute within which the same day that there is
election.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. Thank
you, Senator. I didn't get that, as I guess
Senator Hevesi didn't either.
2073
But a final question unrelated to
this question.
SENATOR KUHL: I'll continue to
yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if we have five-year terms and we
are electing four members to the Board of
Regents every year, that would accommodate 20
seats. So is it not correct that in one of
these years, if we elect four every other
year, we would only be electing one member to
the Board of Regents?
SENATOR KUHL: No, what we're
saying is there's a realignment to make sure
that the existing 16 are there, sitting, but
no more than four in any one year.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
2074
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could call up Calendar Number 220.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 220.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
220, Senate Budget Bill, Senate Print 3456, an
act to amend Chapters 50, 53, and 55 of the
Laws of 2000.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
2075
accepted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Last section,
please.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
The bill is now before the house.
Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you.
Madam President, this is a
deficiency bill, and it would increase the
2000-2001 appropriations for the following.
It would provide appropriation for the
Fiduciary Fund increase of $3,159,600 for the
Retirement Systems' administrative costs. It
also would provide an appropriation for an
Internal Service Fund increase of $420,000 for
the investments and cash management program,
also for the same system.
It would also charge for the
general state charges the General Fund
increase of $23.5 million. And this is for an
assessment imposed on the workmen's
compensation insurance carriers, and it would
2076
be repaid. And this is pursuant to a court
order.
Also, it would provide an
appropriation for the Special Revenue Fund
increase of $96.8 million for the State
University Hospital income reimbursement
account.
And, finally, it would provide an
appropriation to the General Fund, an increase
of $19.6 million. And this is for the
extraordinary costs for the winter we've had
here in the state and the ice and snow
removal.
I would point out that the
appropriation for the Retirement Systems and
also for the hospital account are just
appropriations of those accounts. But that is
necessary, the appropriations are necessary to
have the money available. And the other two
appropriations are of course charged to the
state.
I might add this is a very, very,
very reasonable deficiency bill. And having
been here for a number of years, I would even
hasten to add that this is the smallest
2077
appropriation, deficiency appropriation that I
have seen come before this august body.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Would the
Senator yield for a couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
do you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, on
the insurance part of this, the workers' comp
part of this deficiency piece, I know that
it's a court decision and that the money goes
back, because they took money from their
reserve. And when a reserve goes down, the
people that are being insured have to pay to
get the reserve back up.
Is any of this money that's going
back to the insurers going to then pass back
to the people that are paying these high
workers' comp coverage costs? Or is it just
going to stay with the insurers?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I think your
2078
question, which is perceptive, and I think an
appropriate question, I think it even suggests
the answer.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
do you continue to yield?
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Since it
gives the answer, would you mind sharing that
answer with me?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAFFORD: I would
suggest that, as you were saying would this
accrue to the people being covered, the answer
is in the affirmative.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
Senator would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I know that
you're telling me that, and I'm looking
through the paperwork on this, and I know that
2079
the money goes back to the insurers.
But I don't know if it goes back to
the people that you say it does. So I'll
leave it at that. It's still kind of
peculiar, because I'm not sure that it does
actually -- is it -- if it in fact will reduce
any coverage.
It's my understanding in talking to
some people previous to this, and that's why I
asked the question, was that it will just stay
with the insurance companies that are
providing the coverage and won't provide any
relief to the people that are paying the
premiums.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, let
me -- this is sort of a broad stroke with a
conceptual brush.
Obviously, as you suggested, if the
reserves are strengthened and the insurance
companies are strengthened and the funds are
made available to the insurance companies,
therefore the actuaries, the actuaries will
find it necessary to take that into
consideration. Ergo, you would find the rates
reflecting the actuaries' research.
2080
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Senator. Now I got that part of it. I
understand that in the future, the rates
should be lower as a result of this money
going back to the insurers. And that I
understand.
So then it does stay with the
insurance companies. But by being in the -
should provide more in their reserve, and
therefore lower the rates in the future years.
So that would be good for the businesses that
are again crying out that the workers' comp
coverage still is so high and it's one of
their problems with doing business in our
state, and hopefully that this will be another
step in the direction of helping New York be a
better state to do business in.
Now, on the other part of this, on
the hospital part, this money -- and I know
you explained this in committee, but a lot of
the people in the room, particularly on my
side, aren't on Finance. And I think it would
help us all -- and if the Senator would
continue to yield, now that we switched Madam
Presidents, but still being a Madam
2081
President -- if the Senator would continue to
yield, I'll have another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Certainly.
Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, I
know in your brief description you mentioned
that the money is there, it's money that the
hospitals have collected. But in order for
them to get that money -- or use that money,
rather, we have to appropriate that money. Is
that correct? And if so, could you give a
brief description of how that works for the
members on my side that weren't there to hear
that brief description that you gave in
Finance?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I was
complimented on that dissertation today in
committee. I just hope I can do as well
again.
Actually, of course, this is a
fund, and it's a fund which is collected by
2082
the hospitals. As we all know, the hospitals
are a great part of our State University
system and a great part of the hospital fund
complex here in the state of New York.
Now, the hospitals will be able to
spend additional revenues generated from
higher patient volume to cover costs incurred
by these three SUNY hospitals. We all know it
is very, very difficult to operate a hospital.
And with the larger volume, they've been able
to collect additional money. We're now making
it possible for them to spend that on the
hospitals. But in order to spend it on the
hospitals, we have to appropriate it.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stafford, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator,
would any of this money -- and I understand
that explanation. I think you did it as well
2083
as you did it in committee today, and I have
to compliment you again. And then I know
someone else complimented you earlier.
But would any of this money, since
there is an increased patient load and
obviously more money, would any of this money
be used to lower the debt that they have?
Like -- because, you know, the hospitals, the
SUNY hospitals have about $116.2 million in a
deficit that the -- that someday we'll have to
address. And I know that there's an increase
in patient load, but I don't think it was that
big.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I have -- of
course, as I said, I hate to keep mentioning
this, but -- for some people, this is good;
for others, it may not be. But I have been
reviewing budgets now and have been here each
year with a budget. And I can remember 36
years ago, the hospitals were a very, very
severe issue when it came to operating them
and when it came to keeping them open. And we
all want to do that. They're teaching
hospitals. They're excellent hospitals.
Now, no one would rather -- no two
2084
people would rather take care of debt than you
and me. All you have to do is look at the
areas we come from. On the other hand, we
want to make sure that we keep the hospitals
operating. And therefore, we're doing our
best to provide these funds to keep them
operating.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Senator. Briefly, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stachowski, on the bill.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I happen to
agree with Senator Stafford as far as the
deficiency budget bill, this is a rather small
one as compared to other years. The three
areas covered are pretty well defined. The
hospitals have to have an appropriation to use
the money that they collected in patient care.
The obvious snow and ice removal that the
bills that we have this year, for even -
you've just got to look out a window
currently, and obviously not the painted ones,
but ones you can see out of, and you'd see
that we still have snow and ice, and that
expense has been a little greater than usual
2085
this year. And this insurance piece, the
workers' comp piece, is a result of a court
case.
So I think that Senator Stafford
was right in saying that it's a small
deficiency package. I have to agree with him
on the hospitals, that we have to keep them
open. And in particular, I know in his area a
big concern is to make sure that Syracuse
stays open, because sometimes people from his
and Senator Wright's district might be -- if
they get hurt in his area and the local
hospital treats them, they might not have the
capability, if it's of a serious nature, and
they might have to be sent to Syracuse
Medical.
And I know the same goes for
Senator Seward's district and probably some of
Senator Meier's district, because those
hospitals are a little bit smaller and these
teaching hospitals not only teach but they
provide some of the more extensive services
for hospitals that are smaller and may not
have all those services available.
So I don't disagree with any of
2086
that. And I just think that we should be
passing this and taking care of these bills
and doing what we can to make sure that the
SUNY hospital system stays open.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you,
Madam President, would Senator Stafford yield
for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stafford, do you yield for a few questions?
SENATOR STAFFORD: May we please
lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Lay it
aside for the day?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside for the day.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there being no further business at this time,
I move we adjourn until Wednesday, March 14th,
at 11 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On
2087
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Wednesday, March 14th, at 11:00.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)