Regular Session - March 28, 2001
3512
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 28, 2001
11:07 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR JOHN R. KUHL, JR., Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
3513
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will come to order. I ask the members
to take their places, staff to take their
places.
I ask everybody in the chamber to
rise and join with me in saying the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: In the
absence of clergy, may we bow our heads in a
moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, March 27, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday, March 26,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Hearing
no objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
3514
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
President. I move the following bill be
discharged from its respective committee and
recommitted with instructions to strike the
enacting clause: Senate Bill 3217.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
will be recommitted and the enacting clause
stricken.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Mr. President,
on page number 16, I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 197, Senate
Print Number 2533, and ask that said bill
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendments to Calendar Number 197 are received
3515
and adopted. The bill will retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Mr. President,
on behalf of Senator Libous, please place a
sponsor's star on Calendar Number 308.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Calendar
Number 308 starred at the request of the
sponsor.
Any other motions or resolutions?
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, I
believe that there is a privileged resolution
by Senator McGee. I would ask that the title
be read and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the title to the
privileged resolution by Senator McGee.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator McGee,
Legislative Resolution Number 1068,
congratulating Robert Saurini upon the
occasion of receiving the distinguished rank
of Eagle Scout, the most prestigious of
Scouting honors, on April 1, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
3516
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, I
believe there is another privileged
resolution, by Senator Stafford. I would ask
that the title be read and move for its
immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the title of the
privileged resolution by Senator Stafford.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Stafford, Legislative Resolution Number 1070,
congratulating the Plattsburgh State Hockey
Team upon the occasion of winning the NCAA
Division III Tournament Championship.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
3517
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: I believe that
there are two privileged resolutions by
Senator Morahan. I would ask that their
titles be read and move for their immediate
adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the titles to the two
privileged resolutions by Senator Morahan.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Morahan, Legislative Resolution Number 1076,
honoring Freddie Roman upon the occasion of
his designation as recipient of the "Lifetime
Achievement" Award by the JCC-Y of Rockland on
April 1, 2001.
And by Senator Morahan, Legislative
Resolution Number 1077, honoring Amy and Irwin
Schneidmill upon the occasion of their
designation for special recognition by the
3518
JCC-Y of Rockland on April 1, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the resolutions. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
resolutions are adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, I
would ask for an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Senate
Finance Committee, immediate meeting of the
Senate Finance Committee in Room 332, the
Senate Majority Conference Room.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up the
noncontroversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
3519
Secretary will do the noncontroversial reading
of the calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
194, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1811, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the allocation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
234, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 2617, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
assaults.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
237, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 2732, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
criminal contempt.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
252, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 399, an
3520
act to amend the Family Court and the Criminal
Procedure Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
253, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 1339, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to child abuse.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
254, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 1447, an
act to amend the Domestic Relations Law, in
relation to notification.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
257, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 849, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
the maintenance.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
3521
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
258, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2838, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
the apportionment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
268, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3089, an
act to amend the General City Law and others.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
274, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2900, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
extending.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
283, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 514A, an
3522
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
designating.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
286, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3071, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
290, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 1070,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
296, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 6816, an act to amend
Chapter 395.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
3523
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
298, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 2275, an
act to amend the County Law, in relation to
review.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
300, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2491, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to authorizing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
301, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2589, an
act to amend Chapter 554.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
302, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2774, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to the salary.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
3524
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up the controversial
reading of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the controversial reading
of the calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
194, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1811, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the allocation of payments.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar Number 194 by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a local bill that will deal
only with the Town of Tonawanda, which pretty
obviously is in my district. But also, as
chairman of the Local Government Committee, it
would have come under my purview.
3525
And what this bill does is
authorizes the town at its option to allocate
PILOT payments on IDA-owned property to
nonhomestead property instead of to both
nonhomestead and homestead property. And the
reason for this is that the Town of Tonawanda
biggest's taxpayer was an energy generating
station, the Huntley energy generating
station, owned by Niagara Mohawk at one time.
It's now been purchased by NRG.
And of course as a result of that,
the assessment issues were very high on the
discussions as that property was changing
hands. It was formerly the town's largest
real property taxpayer when it was the Huntley
generating plant, and as it's coming off of
the tax rolls, the PILOT agreement of course
came into place.
And what will happen is that the
town wants now to take those PILOT payments
and spread them to the nonhomestead properties
so that the businesses in the Town of
Tonawanda will not be so negatively impacted
that they themselves ask for reassessments,
which would again cause difficulty on the
3526
total tax base in the Town of Tonawanda.
So it's a measure that would sunset
in three years. It's not mandatory, it's at
the discretion of the town board.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Rath would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR RATH: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, how
would you compare the difference between the
resources that were generated by the taxes
paid by the Huntley power plant and the PILOT
payments that are made by the Town of
Tonawanda?
SENATOR RATH: The PILOT payments
that are made to the Town of Tonawanda by the
new NRG owner? Through you, Mr. President.
Is that what you're asking, Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
SENATOR RATH: The agreement -
3527
or the Huntley plant is now entering into an
agreement where they will be doing payments in
lieu of taxes, consisting of a schedule that
will put them in a position of paying
$13 million in 2001-2002, 12 million the next
year, 11.9 million the following year, and
11 million 2004 through 2008.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
perhaps I'd be a little less confused if the
Senator would be so kind as to explain to the
body how the exemption, the homestead
exemption, works in the first place. Because
it's inevitably going to lead to a question
that I have about what happened when the IDA
took over the power -- was vested in the power
plant.
3528
But how does the homestead
exemption work in the first place?
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President,
through you, at the discretion of a town, it
can go into a homestead/nonhomestead
circumstance, as have 30 jurisdictions around
the state of New York, in order to benefit the
homeowners, basically. And that was what the
Town of Tonawanda did a number of years ago
when it was first made available.
And what it has done is it has kept
the property tax in Tonawanda at a reasonable
level with some of the heavier costs laying
off to the industrial sites in what is quite a
very mixed-use town.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: When the IDA
became involved in the first place, was there
any discussion about what would happen; in
3529
other words, the large tax bite that the power
plant was generating when it was owned by
Niagara Mohawk and how that would change
inevitably? You know, is this something that
was within the contemplation of the parties
back when the Industrial Development
Association became involved?
SENATOR RATH: Through you, Mr.
President. Senator Paterson, the lengthy
negotiation that was involved was consummated
without having to go to a lawsuit just this
past year. It was felt by all sides that many
dollars were saved. And the lawsuit,
although, even as I'm recollecting, it did
start, but it was settled. And everyone felt
that this was a very agreeable and certainly
the very best way for this to be handled.
We're not the only place in
New York State that will be going through
this, as the generating stations that were
owned by Niagara Mohawk are being sold to
independent generators.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
3530
if Senator Rath would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator Rath,
since there seems to be a problem with the
homestead exemption or the nonhomestead
exemption as it applies to the taxes in this
case, why would the town not consider
repealing the homestead exemption, just going
on the regular tax-equalization basis and
solving the problem that way?
SENATOR RATH: Because the tax -
the homestead circumstance is one that really
fits well for the Town of Tonawanda. It's a
very old community. I would point out how old
it is. It has a nuclear -- old nuclear waste
cleanup that was left from the Manhattan
Project in the 1940s, the nuclear bomb. So
it's a very, very old community right on the
banks of the Niagara River. And this
circumstance fits and suits it well.
And what the town has characterized
3531
this changeover as is a two-to-three-year soft
landing, if you will, as an attempt to absorb
this loss of revenue.
It's a very old town, but it's a
very substantial town. I grew up in this
town. It was the first suburb of Buffalo,
Kenmore, was the very first recognized,
incorporated village suburb outside of the
city of Buffalo, as such, that was directly
linked through buses and walking back and
forth. But the whole town itself is a very
old community, and it suits it well.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I want to thank Senator Rath for that and ask
if the Senator would be willing to yield for
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, maybe
you might give me an idea of the percentage of
3532
property that is listed under the homestead
exemption and what, you know, your general
idea is of the property that isn't.
SENATOR RATH: You're talking
about the land space, the amount of space?
SENATOR PATERSON: The land
space, exactly.
SENATOR RATH: I would say
probably 60/40, residential to commercial.
SENATOR PATERSON: And what has
been the effect on some of the other
commercial properties of this whole situation
with the homestead exemption and the
nonhomestead exemption? I would tend to think
that some of the other commercial properties
would have felt that they were paying more
taxes than perhaps they would prefer.
SENATOR RATH: Well, this has
been a continual issue with this town, and
they have managed to run a very tight ship, if
you will, and keep their tax rates low. This
is hitting their school tax as much if not
more than anything.
But to answer your question,
they're doing this in order to avoid undue
3533
impact on the other commercial ventures that
are in the town, some of them very large.
Like Praxair, which was the grandchild, if you
will, of Lindy Air, which was the Manhattan
Project. And it had some very significant -
played some very significant roles in early
development. General Motors has a very large
plant about to increase its size in the Town
of Tonawanda.
Assemblyman Schimminger and I have
worked hand in glove in an effort to ease the
pain of the transition of our community from
the kinds of industry that it's supported
before the war, after the war, during the war.
And this is just a measure of what happened as
Huntley was sold by Niagara Mohawk.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. Senator Rath has been quite
informative on this issue. And if she'd be
willing to yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
3534
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
just want to make sure I understand this. Are
the PILOT payments equal, or what is the
variance between those payments and the taxes
that were generated when the Huntley plant was
owned, you know, in its previous ownership by
Niagara Mohawk?
SENATOR RATH: Through you, Mr.
President, the Huntley plant had been paying
$15 million a year. The first payment by NRG
will be $13.5 million, and the schedule -- and
then the following year it will be 12.7.
The schedule was worked out through
lengthy negotiations and was -- through the
agreement of all sides that this was the very
best thing that could happen.
And, Senator, while I have your
ear, let me -- I'm really enjoying this debate
because it's giving me an opportunity to tell
you a little bit about where I come from and
how important the Huntley generating station
is to the whole nature of electricity in
New York State, in my opinion.
3535
As you know, California yesterday
voted to raise their electricity rates
approximately 40 percent, an average of
40 percent. Under the able direction of the
various chairs, Senator Wright presently and
Senator Seward formerly, and the assistance of
the Minority -- because none of us do this
alone -- we have managed to get New York State
into a position where that isn't going to
happen here. We are going to have enough
electricity for what is a bright future that
all of us look forward to, not only in upstate
but throughout the whole state of New York.
And the broad demands that New York City will
be making because of its needs and the
electronic futures of the fast-paced
computers, et cetera, that we all know. I
don't have to belabor that point.
But I speak about Huntley as I
would speak about the other generating
stations around New York State, because they
are going to add electricity into the grid.
And the grid, we know where our electricity
comes from, where it's bought and sold, it's
bought and sold off the grid. We need more
3536
power generation in New York State.
And let me just finish this little
piece of this conversation, Senator, because I
know in your mind's eye you'll remember this.
Do you know how everyone around always kids
Buffalo about our snow? I mean, you wouldn't
do that, but most people would. Senator Brown
knows exactly what I'm talking about.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, could we keep the conversation germane
to the question.
SENATOR RATH: Oh, just let me
finish this. Okay? Okay.
Because when we're talking about
electricity, the cheapest electricity that
we're going to get is going to be from
hydropower. And that snow turns into -- that
we move around and play with and have a good
time with, turns into our water, it goes over
the turbines at Niagara Falls, at Robert Moses
power generating, and it's some of the
cheapest and most dependable, best electricity
anyone will get from anywhere.
We want to share that. We will
share that as we relicense the Niagara
3537
hydropower project. But just remember whose
snow it was when it becomes your electricity
in New York City. Okay?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm going to
take that under advisement, Mr. President.
SENATOR RATH: I had to get to
say that sometime in my lifetime on this
floor.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I
appreciate that.
And if the Senator would yield for
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: I actually
read, Mr. President, that in California some
of the rate increases are going to be as high
as 46 percent, just approved yesterday. And
it's interesting because in the newspaper this
morning they're talking about a power plant
3538
that's to be built on Long Island, there's
already a public uprising against it. And
although we certainly understand that, that
was one of the problems in California that
everybody understood they needed power, but
they understood demand side, but they didn't
understand supply side. Because we have to
place those plants somewhere.
And what I would like to inquire of
Senator Rath goes back a little more towards
the genesis of the bill. And it has to do
with how the residents in that area, people
who you grew up with and people who have lived
there for a long time, feel about the
nonhomestead exemption issue. In this
particular case, do the residents feel they
may actually be put in the position of having
to pay higher taxes?
SENATOR RATH: Senator
Paterson -- and through you, Mr. Chairman -
this is the reason that we're trying to do
this, is so that the other industrial
facilities in the Town of Tonawanda will not
find themselves looking, because their taxes
go up so dramatically because of this hole, if
3539
you will, in the Town of Tonawanda and its
revenue structure, so that they won't look for
assessments and then be reassessed and then
that fall back onto the homeowners.
So it's an attempt to keep things
at an equitable level for the homeowners.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Rath would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, you
have not indicated as such, but I was
wondering if this is -- actually would be
considered a local bill. And if not, why that
would not be.
SENATOR RATH: It is. I believe,
Mr. President, that I may have said that when
I opened my conversation. But let me say
again that this is a local bill. It's for the
Town of Tonawanda. It's at the town
3540
board's -- it'll be at a vote of the town
board, and it sunsets in three years.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: This is really
just a kind of technical question, but does
this bill require -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, are you asking Senator Rath to yield
again?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, please,
Mr. President.
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Is this a
two-thirds vote for approval here in the house
today?
SENATOR RATH: We aren't
appropriating dollars, Senator, for this
purpose. This -- all this is doing is
authorizing the town to go forward so it can
reallocate the way it allocates its taxes -
or its -- yeah, its taxes, pardon me. Not its
revenue, its taxes.
3541
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then, Mr.
President, am I to interpret -- if Senator
Rath would continue to yield -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- that we
don't need a home rule message for this, do
we?
SENATOR RATH: We do not need a
home rule message from them, no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. Mr.
President, I want to thank Senator Rath for
her answers.
And it's really quite an education
for myself, who is not from the area that
Senator Rath and Senator Brown and others have
represented. So I want to thank her for her
answers. And I want her to know that the next
3542
time I turn on my television and I see snow,
that I'll know that the snow may have come
from her region.
SENATOR RATH: Senator, if I may,
it's powering your television. That
electricity is what's powering your
television. It's one of the things that made
New York State so great is all this power that
we have.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I
concur, Mr. President. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, why do you rise?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
I'd like to have permission to ask Senator
Rath a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question from Senator
Lachman?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Let me preface
3543
my question by saying that as a student of
American history, I'm more familiar with the
Homestead Act, which stretched the American
frontier to the west until Frederick Jackson
turned and said it was closed in 1898.
And I would like to learn some
things about this act, which, even though it
has the same name, is completely different.
For example, is school property involved in
this? Is there a homestead tax option for
school property as well as residential
property?
SENATOR RATH: No. To our
understanding, no, it is not subject, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Will the
Senator continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LACHMAN: How does a
municipality opt out of the homestead option
3544
tax, if that is permissible?
SENATOR RATH: I believe they
would have to -- they have to come back -
they'd pass a local law and, if necessary,
come back to us so that they could
discontinue.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay, forgive
me. Mr. President, will the Senator continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I was at a
Finance Committee meeting, and maybe this was
asked. Do most municipalities in the state of
New York participate in the homestead tax
option, or is this limited to a very few?
SENATOR RATH: There are 30
municipalities in the state of New York that
have homestead and nonhomestead setups.
SENATOR LACHMAN: All right.
Why -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3545
Lachman, are you asking Senator Rath to
continue to yield?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes. You read
my mind, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: I will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Is there a
reason why a small proportion of the
municipalities in the state of New York have
acted to opt within the homestead tax option,
against the vast majority that have not?
SENATOR RATH: I believe,
Senator, that it has to do with the
relationship of the amount of industrial
property, as the question Senator Paterson
asked in relation to the number -- the amount
of their area of jurisdiction that is actually
homes and residential. And they need that
flexibility.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Why is -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, are you asking Senator Rath to
3546
continue to yield?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
would the Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Why do you
think, Senator, that New York City as a
municipality has not opted to be part of the
homestead tax option?
SENATOR RATH: New York City is,
Senator.
SENATOR LACHMAN: New York City
is part of the -
SENATOR RATH: Yeah, they're in a
Class 4, 4 class.
SENATOR LACHMAN: The entire City
of New York?
SENATOR RATH: We can help you on
that sometime other than on the floor on this
particular issue. We'd be glad to walk you
through that.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, will the Senator continue to
yield.
3547
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Are the 30 or
40 municipalities that you mentioned that have
opted to become part of the homestead tax
option, are these the largest urban areas in
the state or are they a combination of urban,
suburban, rural areas?
SENATOR RATH: I don't think we
have many rural areas. For the most part,
they are -- let me read the list for you, or
part of the list. I'll skip around a little
bit. City of Albany, City of Beacon, Town of
Poughkeepsie, City of Buffalo, City of
Lackawanna, Town of Tonawanda, old -- and then
down the list, East Greenbush, Town of East
Greenbush, Town of Waterford, City of
Schenectady.
It's mixed. But I would think that
it's -- it's again places that would have the
older industrial facilities so that they need
to have this flexibility so that their
3548
homeowners aren't caught as so many of these
were closing or leaving.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: -- will the
Senator continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Tell me if I'm
incorrect or incorrect. I would interpret
what you're saying in response to the question
is that the older municipalities need this
rather than the newer municipalities.
SENATOR RATH: Well, the newer
municipalities can opt into it if they see a
reason to do it. But there's such a very
delicate balance as to how you tax as to
whether you're going to be able to attract
businesses, light industry to your community
or whether you're going to drive them away,
and how much traffic can the homeowner bear
3549
when it's all on their shoulders.
So there's a very delicate balance.
And people argue this point both ways. When
that homestead provision first became
available, I remember the long discussions in
the county legislature in relation to this,
whether it was valuable or not.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
will the Senator continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, if you'll pardon an interruption, I
see a note coming from Senator Bruno that he
would like to be recognized.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time temporarily lay this bill
aside.
And I believe, if we can return to
the reports of standing committees, I believe
there is a report of the Finance Committee at
the desk, and I would ask that we take it up
at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
We'll return to the reports of
3550
standing committees. There is a report from
the Senate Finance Committee at the desk.
I ask the Secretary to read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As Commissioner of Labor, Linda
Angello, of Islip.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
it's with great pleasure that I welcome back
Linda Angello to this Senate chamber for
confirmation as Commissioner of Labor.
Now, Linda, as many of we know,
worked here as chief of staff to Senator
Trunzo. She has a great background in
government, working with labor, working with
the employers in the public sector. And in
all the things that she has done, she has
continually distinguished herself.
And the Governor, in his wisdom, is
now presenting for confirmation before the
Senate Linda Angello for Commissioner of
Labor.
3551
So I ask my colleagues to join me
in the confirmation of Linda Angello, one of
the most qualified people that we could have
before us to serve as our Commissioner of
Labor for the people of New York State.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Mr. Spano on the nomination.
SENATOR SPANO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Just to follow up on the remarks of
the Majority Leader, it's my pleasure to speak
in favor of and enthusiastically support the
nomination of Linda Angello as Commissioner of
the Department of Labor. We all know -- I've
known Linda for a long time, and I'll defer to
Senator Trunzo certainly to talk about her
role in the State Senate for a number of
years.
But with the appointment of Linda
Angello, she brings to the Department of Labor
a sensitivity to the working men and women of
this state; along with that, a unique
understanding of the workings of this Senate
chamber as well as the entire Legislature, and
3552
also the works of the administration, having
served as the director of the Office of
Employee Relations, in a very challenging
position in OER, handling contracts,
implementing contracts with our public
employee unions across the state.
She has done that in a way that has
resulted in the support of practically every
labor and public employee organization in this
state, who have enthusiastically supported her
nomination as New York's Labor Commissioner.
So it's my pleasure, as the chair
of the Labor Committee, to report that she was
enthusiastically and unanimously supported by
that committee and to say on a personal basis
that it is my pleasure to recommend and to
vote in favor of Linda Angello's appointment,
and certainly to defer to my colleague from
Long Island, Senator Trunzo.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Trunzo, on the nomination.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
It's a great pleasure for me -
really, it's a great day for me to be able to
3553
confirm what has already been said by Senator
Bruno and Senator Spano regarding Linda
Angello's abilities and capabilities.
But I can go a lot further into her
whole history. I brought Linda to Albany in
1977. I'm not telling your age, though. In
1977, she came to work for me here in Albany.
And at that time I was chairman of the Housing
Committee. And shortly after her employment,
she became the committee director of the
Housing Community Relations Committee. Later
on, when I had the Government Operations
Committee, she became the director of that
committee.
And then the big committee, which
is the -- probably the background for what she
is doing today, was the Civil Service and
Pensions Committee. I used to chair that
committee now for 14 years, and 12 of those
years she was the director of the committee as
well as my chief of staff.
She is a very well-qualified
individual. She's far from being just an
average person. She has tremendous
administrative abilities, and she has always
3554
been fair and square with all the labor people
that she has worked with as director of my
committee. And in that relation, she had
gained the respect and admiration of many of
the labor people in the state, both private
and public.
She has been -- you know, at one
point when Governor Pataki became Governor in
1995, after he appointed John Sweeney as
Commissioner of Labor, John Sweeney was trying
to get her to become a deputy commissioner of
the Department of Labor. And after a few
months of negotiations or meetings or what
have you, evidently someone else was able to
get that position. And that didn't make her
unhappy, because she still liked working with
me.
But at any rate, later on in that
year, after a lot of conversation by many
labor people, there was a gentleman -- many of
you remember a guy named Jim Gill. James Gill
was acting in the position of the director of
the Employee Relations Commission just for the
temporary period. And then when he decided
that he wanted to go back to private practice
3555
in the early part of -- I guess it may have
been April or May of 1995, the whole thing
started to come together. Her name began
bouncing around as possibly becoming the
director of the Employee Relations Board.
And so, with that, it came to a
point where her name was being thrown around,
talking about her and what have you, but
nothing was coming definitely until George
Pataki had her have an interview with James
Gill. And Mr. Gill, who was in private
business at the time, she went to meet with
him. And once he gave the final word of
approval, then the Governor appointed her as
the director of Employee Relations. And
really, that happened in September 1995.
And -- which was a great day.
Now, as Nick Spano, Senator Spano
has indicated, her work as the director of
government relations, she had many positions
with that. She was also appointed by the
Governor as chairman of the Fair Compensation
Board and also the chair of the National -
well, the Governor didn't -- she was also
chairman of the National Association of
3556
Directors of Employee Relations. And the
Governor did appoint her on the Task Force on
Pension Reform, which has happened last year.
As you know, she did a report,
which was a committee made up of labor and
management put together. Many of the
legislation, many of the things which are now
law, items which were done when she and I were
working together in civil service, such as the
permanent COLA, the tier equities, the Tier 3
and 4 people that after ten years of service
didn't have to contribute to the pension
service and all of that. Which was something
that -- and other items, the veterans' buy
back. And these are items that we had been
discussing for many, many years.
And they were all part of her
report to the Governor, who accepted it
completely. And then what happened, we passed
all this legislation. Vinnie Leibell became
the big guy on that one, as the new chairman
of Civil Service and Pensions.
But at any rate, again, last
October when Jim McGowan decided to resign as
the Commissioner of the Department of Labor,
3557
her name started to float around again. And
there were members of labor -- both -- on
both -- Dennis Hughes, president of the New
York State AFL-CIO. Tom Hobart, the president
of the teacher's union. Danny Donohue, from
the Civil Service Employees Association. You
go down the line: Ed Malloy, from the
construction trade people, all started
recommending her for this position.
And she didn't know whether she was
going to get appointed or not get appointed.
And then she was -- I was invited to the
convention in Florida for the -- Ed Malloy's
group, which is the New York State
Construction and Building Trades Union, and
she called me on the Saturday, I guess it was
the 16th of February, to tell me that she just
got the word that she has to come down to
Florida to this convention with the Governor
because the Governor was going to speak before
this group at 11 o'clock on Tuesday the 20th
of February, and at that time he was going to
make the announcement that she is going to be
his appointee for the Commissioner of Labor.
And really, I was so elated that
3558
particular day. I was with her, Nick Spano
was with her and with the Governor. And it
was really a great day, not only for her but
for me. And many of the labor people who were
in that particular session that day, a lot of
them knew her, some didn't know her. But by
the time the meeting was over, they all knew
her and knew her capabilities and what have
you.
And believe me, I really commend
the Governor for having picked Linda not only
for his Director of Employee Relations but now
as the Commissioner of Labor for the State of
New York. And I know that she will do an
outstanding job in that position.
And therefore, I second the
nomination of Linda Angello for Commissioner
of Labor.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, on the nomination.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
you're going to say here I go again, and
you're exactly right.
The four nominees today that
3559
appeared before the Finance Committee were as
good as they could be. And I might add, their
presentations before the committee were the
best. And I can only, as has been done here
earlier, commend the Governor and his staff
for these nominations. And every time I stand
up, I say these are the best nominations.
Well, I'm going to really stretch today and
say they were the best, the four of them.
And of course I want to join in
all, but I want to join at this time in moving
Linda Angello's nomination. And, again, her
work that she's going to be doing and the work
of the other three are going make this state
that much better.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: Thank you
very, very much.
It's not often I try to commend the
Governor, but this will be one of those times.
Let me just say, truth be told, and I think
Caesar Trunzo will tell you, there's no doubt
that when I began in Albany back in 1979, that
3560
the very first woman I had a crush on was
Linda. I have to share that with you. I have
to share, I have to tell you the truth. My
wife is out of the room; right? Yes, okay.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: Now, I have
to tell you that of course she was married at
the time as well. So I can assure you that
that crush began and ended very quickly.
But actually, I've had a crush on
Linda for many years, in marveling at her
absolutely tremendous abilities. And she's
done it that old-fashioned way. She's worked
hard for this position.
Both -- all of us, working people
and employers alike, unions, elected
officials, Linda has been there. I think she
will be one of the finest Labor Commissioners
that the State of New York has ever had.
And all I can say is that I know
Caesar is not just her former employer, but I
know he considers Linda a part of the Trunzo
family. Not only is Linda part of the Trunzo
family, so am I. And so that makes Linda and
I related as well.
3561
But all I can say is that I look
forward to working with her, and we all do.
And so thank you for this appointment. And
and I have a prediction that this vote,
Senator Bruno, should be symbolic of the rest
of the session where Democrats and Republicans
alike work together, no acrimony, in peace and
respect and dignity. That's what I want to
see the rest of this session go, with the
respect for all of us.
And let's hope that this
appointment, Linda, sets the pace for the rest
of the session.
Thank you very, very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, on the nomination.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
I had planned on voting against this
nomination, but Senator Stafford convinced me
that she was one of the best of the rest to be
nominated.
During our interview with her in
the Labor Committee, she answered all of our
questions put forward to her. But, you know,
looking over her background -- and I know
3562
Linda for the 18 years I've been here, and I
know that Senator Trunzo is kind of devastated
that he lost her. But we are all sharing in
his very happiness at this moment that the
Governor saw fit to recognize the talents that
Caesar Trunzo recognized in her over the many,
many years.
And when you look at her
background, she's one of the more qualified
people that we have to represent the labor
management field. And I'm more than confident
that she will render fair and honest decisions
in her tenure as the Commissioner of Labor.
I wish you and your family good
health, Godspeed, and the wisdom to produce
Solomon-like decisions on all of your Labor
decisions. Congratulations.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lack, on the nomination.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President. I too rise to second the
nomination.
And I was so happy to see Senator
Markowitz do that. For those of you who think
he actually is using those crutches for
3563
something that happened to him at his hotel,
that's not exactly true.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LACK: In any event, for
the eight years that I chaired the Senate
Labor Committee, and Caesar Trunzo, my good
colleague who sits next to me, chaired the
Civil Service and Pensions Committee at the
same time. For those of you who don't know,
our district offices are also located right
next door to each other in the same building,
and I sort of got free use of Linda's services
for these eight years as she traveled back and
forth with Caesar, since in effect we were
running the respective labor committees.
She worked hand in hand with my
then committee director, Connie Varcasia, who
is now a Deputy Commissioner of Labor.
And I congratulate the Governor for
his sterling choices all around, because the
Department of Labor, in the 23 years I've been
here, has never been so reinforced with people
who have a true understanding of the
legislative process in this state and the
relationship between the Legislature and the
3564
Executive. And in dealing with all facets of
the labor movement, that's very important.
So the Governor has understood
that, he has made an outstanding and wonderful
appointment, one which I think, as we've seen
from both sides of the aisle, everybody in
this chamber certainly, certainly agrees with.
And I again look forward to now an
increasingly long time of the free services of
Linda Angello as Commissioner Angello at the
Department of Labor. I offer my personal and
professional congratulations and congratulate
once again the Governor for a fine
appointment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, on the nomination.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, I too rise to second the nomination
of Linda Angello.
I also know her since I got here.
She's always been helpful. She obviously did
a good job in her last position, because when
people were negotiating with her, they weren't
all that praiseful of her. But after it was
finished and when she was nominated for this
3565
job, all of them came forward and said she
would do a great job as commissioner. I don't
think you can get a better compliment than
that, because when you're negotiating,
everybody's not supposed to like you, they're
only supposed to respect you.
And I have to point out, since
Caesar didn't do it here, that in her resume
it says she worked for him for several years.
And Marty Markowitz is here longer than I am,
and I got here in '81, and Linda was here when
Marty got here. So you do the math. It's a
little more than several. So Caesar is more
specific, but he can be, because he's a lot
closer to her. And I don't want women mad at
me. Because I know you don't ever want to say
anything that would say that -- you know, ever
imply that a lady is getting older. In
Linda's case, she's just getting better, more
experienced, and smarter.
And obviously the Governor is
getting smarter, because he took her from
where she was and made her Labor Commissioner.
And I think it will be a great appointment.
It will be a pleasure to have somebody in that
3566
position that we can call upon and we know
that we'll get a return call. And I just
think -- I look forward to working with her as
different situations come up.
And it's my great pleasure to also
have risen and seconded her nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Thank
you, Senator Stachowski.
Just as a reminder from the chair,
you all recall that under the new rules, we're
limited to 15 minutes from each conference to
talk on a confirmation. Certainly there are a
number of people who want to speak to the
accolades of this nominee. But I just remind
you all to that effect.
The Majority has used 14 minutes at
this point; the Minority, 5 minutes. So,
Senator Nozzolio, keep that in mind.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Although my
remarks will be brief, my admiration for the
nominee is great. As is the admiration for
the nominee and respect for Ms. Angello with
the public employee labor unions.
As chairman of the Crime Victims,
Crime and Corrections Committee, like I say,
3567
those public unions -- Council 82, NYSCOBA,
PEF, CSEA -- that work in corrections have an
extraordinary high degree of respect for the
professionalism exhibited by the nominee
throughout her tenure in working with
particularly COs. I know they, who are in a
very tough job, respect Linda an extremely
great deal.
In closing, though, I would like to
say to Senator Trunzo that you do need to
present among your family a little more
discipline to Senator Markowitz. That as a
member of your family I think that, Caesar,
you need to exert some parental supervision
with Senator Markowitz.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: But again,
with all due respect to our nominee, it's a
great, great one. I congratulate the Governor
and I congratulate Ms. Angello for this fine
appointment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane, on the nomination.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
3568
I just have to say that even though
I'm not personally acquainted with the new
commissioner, her good work and integrity and
smarts certainly preceded her here. Former
Senator Leichter, who's a good friend of mine,
told me that if I had any questions ever on
anything having to do with civil service and
labor, that Linda Angello was the person to go
to speak with.
So from the past, present, and
future points of view, I think that we can all
be assured that the Governor has made a really
terrific decision in appointing Linda Angello
as the new Commissioner of Labor. And I
wholeheartedly congratulate her on this
appointment.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Ada Smith, on the nomination.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I rise to praise the first lady of
the State of New York, Libby Pataki, for
sensitizing our Governor, George Pataki, to
the need of having more women in positions
3569
that are important to the people of the State
of New York. And also to praise the Governor
for his wise decision to pick someone who is
eminently capable and who will make him proud.
Having known Linda from her days
working in the State Senate, I know that she
will do an excellent job, she will be fair,
and she will work with all of us to service
the people of the State of New York.
I wish her the best in all that she
does, and I once again wish to commend the
Governor and the First Lady.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, in 20 seconds, to exhaust the time for
the Majority.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President. I just rise for a point of order,
Mr. President. I'd move to just suspend the
rules to give Senator Farley more than 20
seconds and not enforce the 15-minute
limitation on the Majority. I think that's
the way to do it in -
SENATOR FARLEY: Can we have a
slow roll call on that one?
(Laughter.)
3570
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley.
I appreciate the extension of your
hospitality, Senator Dollinger, but -
SENATOR FARLEY: I'm grateful to
the Minority for extending me this time to
speak on behalf of Linda. Having been a
neighbor of Ms. Angello for so many years on
the seventh floor -- I spent a lot of time
over there -- she is Senate-trained. And I
applaud the Governor for making this
appointment.
You know, she is the person that
has made Caesar Trunzo look good for all of
these years.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: You're
out of time, Senator Farley.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR FARLEY: But, you know, I
think the interesting thing, whenever I had a
question, Linda Angello always had the answer,
on any kind of piece of information you needed
to know in that area.
We're very proud of you. And I'll
3571
tell you, this is an excellent appointment.
And it's something that everybody in this
chamber and everybody in the Legislature is
fortunate to have somebody leading one of the
largest and most complicated departments that
there is, or agencies, rather, that there is
in the State of New York.
And Linda, we wish you well. We're
lucky to have you there.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the nomination.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I can
say that I recognize and know no superior
skill that's demonstrated in the labor
management field. I am married to such a man,
who demonstrates great skill in this field.
And Linda also has demonstrated great skill in
this field.
But beyond that, I think what I'm
hearing here and what I feel is not only skill
and intelligence and integrity, but also a
warmth that we all feel for Linda. She has
always been very open, very anxious to help
all of us. And I know she will continue that
as Commissioner, and I look forward to working
3572
with her.
And if I could just say, there was
something very thrilling about my looking up
into the balcony here and seeing three very
eminently qualified women who not only are
qualified but have demonstrated their
friendship and their caring for many of us.
And it's really a great pleasure for me to see
that.
I'm delighted to second the
nomination of Linda.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, on the nomination.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, Mr.
President. I too want to rise because I think
it's appropriate, since this is Women's
History Month, that we recognize the
contributions of women in New York State. And
I commend the Governor for this appointment.
There is another aspect, though,
that I think is important. It sends a message
to staff that if you work hard, you do the job
that is expected of you, if not more, you
become well-known and well-versed in the
issues, then you too can become a
3573
commissioner. I think this sends a very
important message to young people throughout
the state, that appointment to high executive
positions are truly open to everyone and that
it becomes a meritocracy rather than anything
else.
So again, I commend Senator Trunzo
and Senator Lack for their ability to spot
someone as capable and as proficient. And I
commend the Governor for making use of these
talents. But I do commend the Senate for
acting as a training ground, as a sort of a
farm system for future appointees.
And I too support the nomination.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
LaValle, to use the 10 seconds that Senator
Farley didn't use on the nomination.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. I just wanted to rise to
support this nomination and say that, very
simply, it shows another Senate staff member
making good, moving forward, another resident
of Suffolk County being in a key position in
3574
our government.
And I would say that Linda Angello
demonstrated that she is very smart and has
the skills to maneuver through very tacky
issues as the Director of OER. And I think
the Governor has made an outstanding
appointment in moving Linda to the position of
Commissioner of Labor.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Mendez, on the nomination.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President, I
also rise in support of the nomination of
Linda Angello.
She comes to the position of
Commissioner of Labor with a long history,
about 20 years, of dedicated public service.
And throughout the time that I have been here
and known her, I have respected her
intelligence, I have respected her diligence,
I have respected her commitment. And I don't
think that there is any other person in
New York State that would make such a great
Commissioner of Labor as she will be.
And in reaction to what Senator
3575
Stavisky mentioned, that this is Women's
History Month, again, I think that we have to
congratulate the Governor for this appointment
as well as for the appointment of those two
other women that are brilliant, dedicated,
capable, and that are really wonderful, and
that will be rendering excellent service for
the people of the State of New York.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the nomination.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President, just very briefly.
This is one of the jobs in the
State of New York that requires someone who's
got skills to get through the difficult and
oftentimes challenging relationships between
management and labor. And, Linda, my only
comment to you would be to echo the comments
of my colleagues and say that if you can earn
praise from Democrats and Republicans in this
house, you have mastered the ability to bring
labor and management together. And my
suggestion is, the job may not all that
challenging.
3576
And so my suggestion to you is use
the skills that you learned here in bringing
us together, and labor and management, as
difficult as that may seem, it will be a piece
of cake.
Godspeed.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: And
Senator Connor, to use the balance of time for
the Minority.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
When I arrived here in early 1978,
the first appointment I received was as the
ranking Minority member on the Civil Service
and Pensions Committee, which was chaired by
Senator Trunzo. I actually continued as the
ranking Minority member on Civil Service and
Pensions for the next 16 years, until I became
the Minority Leader. And for most of that
time, although with the exception, I guess, of
a year, Senator Trunzo was the chair. And
actually, I guess in the beginning, it was
Senator Schermerhorn, now that I think about
it.
But anyway, I had occasion to meet
3577
Linda right away as a staff member and then
very shortly thereafter as the committee
director. Those were interesting days. I
think committees then were more collegial and
more productive. We actually passed bills. I
think I passed a bill in 1979, I recall, with
assistance from Linda and the staff in
refining it to guarantee to Sabbath observers
the right to take civil service tests on
alternate days, which arose out of a
constituent problem I had, and it became
legislation that applied statewide.
So throughout all those years, I
had regular and frequent contact with Linda in
a professional capacity. And she was always
just that -- a hardworking, knowledgeable
professional who cared about the legislative
agenda, cared about the issues, and
demonstrated the highest competence.
Since then, the Governor, shortly
after I became Minority Leader, in his wisdom
appointed Linda to the Office of Employee
Relations. And now I must applaud him on a
spectacular appointment of Linda as the
Commissioner of Labor.
3578
I know she will be successful in
that position she has the skills, commitment,
and character to do a phenomenal job. I know
she will. My congratulations. I'm delighted
to second this confirmation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the nomination of Linda
Angello, of Islip, to become the Commissioner
of Labor. All those in favor of the
nomination signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is unanimously confirmed.
Linda, congratulations.
(Lengthy applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As commissioner
of Environmental Conservation, Erin M. Crotty,
of Troy.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President.
3579
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: It's certainly
an honor, for a fine nominee, to yield to
Senator Bruno, the Senator from Rensselaer.
SENATOR BRUNO: And Troy.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, I
have never seen so much love and affection and
togetherness in this chamber.
And I've noticed all the staff
people are especially perky this afternoon as
they recognize the confirmations that are
taking place here.
And I can only say that there are
certain Senators that are extremely pleased
that Linda Angello never ran for the Senate.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: So we're happy to
be here for her confirmation.
And I'm especially happy that the
next nominee, for Commissioner of
Environmental Conservation, is also a lady
3580
that is very familiar in this chamber, very
familiar in the halls of the Capitol, having
started her career with Senator John Daly, and
is really an environmentalist in the very
finest sense of the word.
Her life has been dedicated to
protecting the environment, helping people
enjoy the world that surrounds us. She
started as a policy analyst with Senator Daly,
was recognized by the Governor's office and
moved into the Executive branch, where she
continually moved up over the years, and in
1997 was made the deputy commissioner at
EnCon. And then moved into the private sector
for a year and a half.
And then, in the Governor's good
judgment and his everlasting dedication to the
people of this state, he imposed on her to
apparently give up the big bucks of the
private sector and return to the public sector
where she could do so many good things on
behalf of all of the people in New York State.
And I applaud the Governor, and I
also appreciate the fact that he overlooked
that Erin Crotty is a neighbor of mine and
3581
sent her confirmation anyway, based on the
merits.
But here is another person who
started on staff, based on all the good things
that she could do in terms of her public
service, now finds her way to the Senate for
confirmation for one of the highest positions
here in the state. And I'm proud that she's a
neighbor, a friend, a colleague of all of
ours, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino, on the nomination.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President. I also would like to rise and
commend the Governor for this marvelous
appointment of Erin Crotty, the first woman to
be given that honor to chair this important
division of state government in New York
State's history.
Erin has the qualities that will
make an excellent commissioner. She has huge
shoes to fill -- size 11 triple E, I think -
from the previous commissioner, but I'm sure
she's capable and up to the task. She has the
temperament. She has, as Senator Bruno
3582
rightly pointed out, the public and private
sector experience, the knowledge, the
capability, the educational background to
understand what's going on in the important
bills that pass through this committee and the
ramifications that they have in the public
sector.
So it is my pleasure to second the
nomination of Erin Crotty to be Commissioner
of DEC. She also had the distinction of
passing unanimously through the EnCon
committee on our referral to the Finance
Committee. She did a marvelous job there.
And I look forward to many, many
years of working together on the important
issues in this state.
Congratulations, Erin.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, on the nomination.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
As a past chairman of the EnCon
Committee, and one that is very, very
interested in that agency, let me just say
that Erin Crotty, this is a very exciting day
3583
for this entire chamber. Because here is
another woman who is Senate-trained and a
member of our family. And actually, she
worked for one of the most significant
Senators that ever served here in John Daly,
really a great guy who I think so many of us
miss every day.
Erin is taking over an agency that
is one of the toughest to try to run and keep
everybody happy. And if there's anybody that
can handle that, it's Erin Crotty, because she
is a people person. And I know that she will
represent not only the Governor and this state
well in protecting our environment, but also
trying to work with all of the sides that do
attack in this area.
So, Erin, I know that you're going
to be able to handle it, and I personally wish
you well, and we're looking forward to a very
successful tenure. I didn't realize that
you're going to be the first woman to ever
head EnCon, but maybe that's what we've needed
for a long time.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3584
Marchi, on the nomination.
SENATOR MARCHI: This is indeed
felicitous for me, Senate-trained since my
experience started that way, along with many
of my colleagues. And it's exciting that, as
Senator Ada Smith observed, that so much of
this is now coming to public visibility and
endorsement in the month that we're in.
And Erin Crotty is a marvelous
presence, really. She worked with Senator
Daly as you pointed out, a very good friend,
personal friend. And it distressed us all,
and we think of him often. And she has that
same luminous quality about her. When you're
heading almost any activity, no matter how
demanding -- and she demands a great deal of
herself in the service of whatever particular
public service you're called upon to honor -
the environment really spells out your
relationship to nature, to people, to all of
the circumstances that surround us.
And she exemplifies that in a way
that is so admirable, so compelling that it
transcends, it becomes a spiritual quality.
And you need that. You need it very
3585
especially in taking on this responsibility,
that spiritual vista of what you're going to
be doing. And she has it. It radiates
immediately, and there's an emanation that you
sense instinctively when the subject comes up
in its specifics.
So I think it's a very, very
wonderful event, all the splendid people that
we have this morning. In all the years that
I've been here, which is a long, long time as
I was telling Clinton some time ago, that this
is a very compelling event, and we're so
joyous and happy that it's taking place.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the nomination.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I
know I've sometimes been a pain to the EnCon
chairman and Senator Stafford on environmental
issues. But let me say, we are in a
million -- a hundred percent agreement, if not
a million percent agreement, on this nominee.
And I want to echo what Senator
Farley said about John Daly, because I think
all of us still miss him. And he was such a
vibrant, live person. He was a people person,
3586
much like Erin is. And we all think of him
still.
I would say that when Erin Crotty
worked with Senator Daly, it was a time when
the environmental agenda was really being
pushed by Senator Daly in this chamber, and it
resulted in some very superior bills coming
out of the Legislature, Superfund and
hazardous waste management and environmental
enforcement.
And then Erin Crotty went to work
for two other people who I enormously admire
and who I'm sure were very, very positive
people in her life directing her into the spot
that she now is, which is Michael Finnegan and
John Cahill, two people who really did have a
deep-seated love of the environment.
And her responsibilities working
under Michael Finnegan, with the New York City
Watershed negotiations and the 1996 Clean
Water/Clean Air Bond Act -- and I don't have
to tell you that those particular areas are
particularly significant for me and
Westchester County and some other suburban
areas. Because the Watershed Agreement is
3587
what has permitted us to move ahead somewhat
with our economic development as well as at
the same time preserving as much open space
and land as we can, which is all part of the
formulation of the Watershed Agreement. And
also it brings in -- not the Watershed
Agreement, but the environmental protection,
the Clean Air/Clean Water brings in of course
the Hudson River and the Long Island Sound,
which are so extremely important to my county
and the whole Hudson Valley and Long Island,
because we have to have them remediated.
We are in the process of doing a
great number of things, all of which I think
will benefit all of us when we have a cleaner,
PCB-free Hudson River and less nitrogen going
into the Long Island Sound. And I know Erin
will work hard on these issues, because she
has.
And we rely on her intelligence and
her natural honesty and her really friendly
manner to get us through some of these major,
major issues that will be facing us, are
facing us now, and will be facing us in the
future.
3588
I am very delighted to second the
nomination of Erin Crotty.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, on the nomination.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you, Mr.
President. This state has enjoyed a
resurgence not only in our economy, but we've
done so without it being at the expense of the
environment. That is because Governor Pataki
continues to provide national leadership on
the environment, whether it be the Bond Act,
Clean Water projects, open space acquisition,
this Governor whose vision reflects the
deepest commitments to the continuance and
development of an environment that will be a
legacy for all of our children, works every
day to try and make this a system that will
bring about resolution and not conflict.
The Governor continues this mission
with this nominee. She is a woman who has
developed an experience through coming up with
the chairs. And that is so essential with the
environmental community and the environmental
policies. History plays such an important
role in understanding a dynamic of trying to
3589
regulate the environment.
She reflects an attitude of action,
rather than defense, and she possesses the
quality to hear all sides of the debate on any
particular issue. She will build consensus.
The Governor is to be congratulated
on this nominee's appointment, and we can help
forward and further the Governor's mission
when it comes to this environment by
confirming this nominee.
Congratulations, Commissioner. I
look forward to working with you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Seward, on the nomination.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, thank you,
Mr. President. I too would like to join my
colleagues in rising in support of Erin
Crotty, our nominee for Commissioner of
Environmental Conservation.
It's great, as many of my
colleagues have indicated already, to see
another Senate staffer move on to great
things. And I know that John Daly is looking
down on the proceedings here today and smiling
broadly as only he could do.
3590
You know, the position of
Commissioner of Environmental Conservation is
a very complex and difficult position to hold.
Many competing interests, the stewardship of
our environment, tremendous impact on our
economic development initiatives and our
economy around the state. And it's very
complex, many competing interests and various
aspects of the position.
But our nominee today, Erin Crotty,
has proven throughout her distinguished record
of service to the people of this state that
she can handle the tough, complex issues.
Obviously her involvement in the historic New
York City Watershed Agreement, our upstate
counties in the Catskills and New York City
bringing that all together, a very complex
matter, she was directly involved with that.
Her work involving the Clean
Water/Clean Air Bond Act, once again, another
complex issue that she was directly involved
in.
And assisting our previous
commissioner John Cahill as his deputy
commissioner, helping to bring very innovative
3591
strategies to the department to deal with
difficult issues is very much a part of Erin
Crotty's record as well.
So I rise in support of this
nominee. I want to congratulate the Governor
for this nomination. I think it's going to
mean great things for the environment of this
state and for the people of New York State.
Ms. Crotty, we congratulate you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, on the nomination.
Just for your information, Senator,
there's 11 minutes left of the Minority time,
and four of your members have indicated a
desire to speak also.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Well, based
on my past history of speaking, I don't think
they're in any danger of missing out on a
chance to talk.
Mr. President, I also rise to
support the nomination of Erin Crotty. I
happen to be familiar with Erin since I was a
member of the commission that Senator Daly had
that Erin worked for. And actually, I have to
say that in all the commissions that I've ever
3592
been a part of, it was one of the best ones
that I ever had anything to do with. We
actually had lots of meetings, did a lot of
work, came up with good reports. And Erin
obviously had a major part in those things.
And it was a real good time.
I think that she'll do a great job.
I know that in committee when people asked her
various questions, even some that she might
not have had to answer, she answered them, or
at least tried to, or said she'd get back to
them if she didn't know. I think she'll make
a great commissioner.
I was a little concerned when the
past commissioner moved up, so to speak. And
one of the things I'm kind of interestingly
awaiting is to see if she can match the warm
and fuzzy exchanges that former Commissioner
Cahill had with Assemblyman Brodsky, when she
meets with some of the environmental issues
and meetings that we'll have to deal with.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: And I think
she's going to have to go a little bit to have
that sense of togetherness that he had. But
3593
I'm sure she'll be able to handle it.
It will also be interesting to see
how he handles it. Because with a woman, I
don't know that you can get as vocal. Which
will be kind of interesting for me, and I'll
rather enjoy watching that part of it.
But back to Ms. Crotty herself, I
think that she's going to do a great job. Her
background is terrific. I think her knowledge
of the environment is terrific. And I think
that her ability to be informative and open
and responsive to questions will serve her
well and I think make her a commissioner that
we'll all enjoy working with.
I think that the Governor has done
a great job in picking her out. I don't think
anybody had any idea where he was going to
reach to get the commissioner to replace
Mr. Cahill, who I think did a pretty good
job -- a real good job, as a matter of fact,
also was very responsive.
So I look forward to working with
Erin Crotty again. It's been a while. But I
look forward to working with her, and I think
that the Governor has made an excellent
3594
choice.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Leibell, in two minutes or less.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you, Mr.
President. Just to briefly echo the comments
of so many of my colleagues.
Erin Crotty comes to this position
with a great deal of experience. And without
question, this is one of the most difficult
and challenging assignments that we have in
State government. And certainly a person we
have here who comes to this position with a
great deal of experience, a tremendous amount
of background. She's following in the
footsteps of a great commissioner, John
Cahill, who's here with us today.
And we congratulate the Governor,
as we did with Linda Angello, for sending us
two absolutely superb names today.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: She's
saying you didn't say M. Smith as opposed to
A. Smith.
3595
Thank you, Mr. President. I rise
also to support the nomination. I give kudos
to the Governor for such a fine choice.
You know, I was sitting here
listening to Senator Marchi, and he just
always fascinates me as he hits the mark. One
of the things he said about Ms. Crotty was
that he kind of sensed her spirituality. And
I can tell you when I met her, she came into
my office, and I looked right into her heart,
and I got a true sense of the kind of person
she was and what she would represent as a
commissioner in such a challenging area.
But, you know, in addition to that,
we have immediately a couple of commonalities.
One, we both now belong to the baby-faced
group, as she looks so young, as I told her
before. And also, on this same day,
Commissioner, last year on this same day, my
district voted me into the office of State
senator. I had 96 percent of the vote, but
you fortunately will probably get a 100 of the
Senate conference today. So there is a
commonality there.
But in addition to that, she is a
3596
person that when I met I immediately realized
that she is someone that we are going to get a
great deal of positive action from. As I told
her, as far as I'm concerned, there is no such
thing as problems at all. All I believe it
gives rise to is the possibility to create
solutions. And I think she is one who will
create a tremendous amount of solutions.
I will tell you that God will
continue to bless you. I will keep you in my
prayers, and I truly look forward to working
with you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile, on the nomination.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I too want to rise to second the
nomination of Erin Crotty.
Ms. Crotty had the opportunity to
be with us last week on Staten Island as she,
the Governor, the Mayor of the City of New
York, and other legislators were present for
the last dumping of a trash barge on the
Staten Island Fresh Kills Landfill. It was a
momentous occasion, and it was good to have
Erin Crotty there, along with the Governor and
3597
the Mayor, to witness a new era, a new day
dawning for Staten Island with the closure of
the Fresh Kills Landfill. So it is my
pleasure to second this nomination.
I must say, however, that it's good
to hear my colleague Senator Balboni say that
Ms. Crotty is one that helps to build
consensus. Because if that's true, it will be
needed, because not all is well in New York
City, not all is well in Staten Island.
Particularly with the electric generating
plants that are being proposed around New York
City, one of them being in the Rosebank
section of Staten Island. Certainly we
question the need for a generating plant in a
residential community, as we have questioned
the Rosebank facility. We will be there this
weekend, Ms. Crotty, to have a rally
questioning the need for such an electric
generating facility. We hope to be able to
work with you and speak to you about this in
the coming months.
So with that, and certainly with an
eye looking forward to working with Ms.
Crotty, I second this nomination.
3598
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, on the nomination.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. I too rise in support of the
nominee, who is obviously very well qualified
and very well suited for this position. And
judging from her behavior in the days leading
up to today's confirmation, she will be
exceptionally accessible to all of us, which
is very important, because there are some
major issues that are going to be confronting
the people of this state in the days and weeks
and months to come, two of which are very
important to my constituents.
One regarding the environmental
impact of New York City's two airports,
Kennedy and La Guardia, because my Senate
district is situated directly in the middle of
those two airports, and there is a tremendous
amount of air and noise pollution that come
out of the airports, not just from the planes,
but from the trucks loading fuel and all of
the other transportation vehicles, a whole
series of things. And I've been trying for
the past three years to have a bill that's
3599
sponsored by a Republican in this house -- my
esteemed colleague Senator Maltese -- trying
to get that bill passed or even get it out of
the committee. And it's the Bubble Bill,
which would call upon the Department of
Environmental Conservation to conduct an
analysis, using a bubble concept, of all of
the environmental emittants from both of the
city's airports, and then come up with a
assessments of what can be done to mitigate
against the negative consequences coming out
of those airports.
I haven't been able to get that
bill out of committee, and I brought a motion
to discharge on the bill my last two years. I
don't think I can do a motion to discharge
anymore on this bill. And the reason I raise
this right now is because I believe that the
legislation may not even be necessary, because
DEC, I believe, can conduct such an analysis
and study in-house, if the requisite funding
was made available or funds were shifted
within the agency to perform such a study.
So I hope we see that. I'll
continue to discuss this issue with Senator
3600
Maltese and the folks on the EnCon Committee.
Hopefully we can see some movement.
The second issue, as Senator
Gentile alluded to -- and Senator Onorato has
been exceptionally vocal in his advocacy on
this issue -- is making sure that when we have
the siting of electric generating plants,
80 percent of which for New York City,
80 percent of New York City's generating
capacity has to come from within the city, as
a consequence of the blackout in 1977, and
since we are pushing up against our maximum
megawattage, we have had the need for
temporary generating facilities, and there's
going to be more of a need in the next few
years. So siting becomes an exceptionally
important issue.
And since there is a tremendous
need to add new capacity, and I think we all
recognize that, we have to be very careful
that we don't push to the side the very
important environmental concerns that come
about as a consequence of siting these
facilities, and the fairness, the fairness
that you cannot saturate certain communities
3601
with these facilities. And Senator Onorato
can tell you that some areas, most notably in
the westernmost areas of Queens, are
saturated. We've got a tremendous amount of
the generating capacity there, and it's
necessary. But when we look to the future,
how we're going to handle this situation, we
cannot jeopardize and compromise the
environmental integrity of our communities
simply because we have a need for additional
generating capacity. We have to meet that
need for generating capacity, but to do it in
a way that is an environmentally conscious way
and that is done with equity.
So with that, I hope that the
nominee, who I trust will soon be confirmed by
this body, will take those issues to heart,
and I look forward to having discussions with
her in the days and weeks and months to come
to address these important needs for my
constituents, for the residents of the city of
New York, and all the people in New York
State. But I written her well on the
auspicious occasion of her very early rise in
her career to a very prestigious post, a
3602
powerful post, and one in which I hope and
trust and am fairly confident that she will
have a profound and positive impact.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Ada Smith, to be followed by Senator Onorato
in the minute that's left for the Minority.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President.
As you read Ms. Crotty's resume, it
reads as if she has been preparing for this
day all of her life. Everything that she has
done has brought her to this day. But when
you meet her, you feel the warmth and you see
her ability to bring people together and to be
able to negotiate the thorny issues.
I commend the Governor for this
appointment, but I commend most of all my
former colleague, the late John Daly, whom I
loved dearly, for bringing her into State
government and making her talents available to
the people and to the Senate and now as the
Commissioner of DEC.
Because her background shows that
she will be capable of performing all of the
tasks at hand, and I know that she will do
3603
them well. My congratulations.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
I certainly intend to vote for the
confirmation of Commissioner Crotty, but I
would like to share with her some of my
concerns with the current expansion of the
energy in the state of New York; in
particular, the siting of a couple of the
generating plants by the New York Power
Authority in my district.
I currently represent Western
Queens, Astoria, Long Island City, which have
Con Edison, the New York Power Authority,
Brooklyn Union, which is now Keyspan. And all
of the current projections are for additional
plants to be built on those sites.
One site in particular lacked a
great deal of input and sensitivity on the
part of the New York Power Authority, because
it is having a very, very serious impact on
the economic development of the silver cup
Studios, which currently produce many, many of
the current TV shows, and "The Sopranos," and
3604
they have an expansion plan on the books that
would generate an additional 2,000 jobs for
our community.
That particular site is located
adjacent to one of the largest public housings
in the City of New York, Queensbridge Housing.
Now, we are not telling the Power
Authority we don't want additional power. We
have offered them an alternative site
approximately a mile and a half from the
current location, with perhaps getting
additional federal funding to offset any
additional costs that would be entailed with
it.
You know, we have the power plants
that are currently operating under the
grandfather clause of the Clean Air/Clean
Water Act. So while the additional power
plants are needed, we certainly must exercise
caution and care by not overloading one of the
highest-rated asthma and lung-related-disease
communities in the entire state of New York.
So I ask you to please, for the
sake of my constituents and their health, use
some care and sensitivity before we grant the
3605
locations in my community.
I vote for the confirmation of this
nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
one minute left to the Majority. There are
three members in the Majority who have
indicated a desire to speak: Senator Larkin,
Senator Hoffmann, and Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
First, I'd like to commend the
Governor in his wisdom for making this
nomination of Erin Crotty. There's no doubt
that she has an extensive background. I
worked with her as a Senator, as the chairman
of the Environmental Conservation Committee,
and I know of the work that she's done.
She's tackled some of the toughest
jobs that came down during her tenure working
for the Senate and for the Governor and for
the Department, and she's always demonstrated
an exemplary talent and ability to resolve
problems and go ahead and accomplish the
objective which she sought.
3606
So I don't have any concern at all
that she'll be a great success. And I must
commend her for agreeing to accept this
nomination, since in my view it covers the
most extensive range of concerns of the people
of this state, with many different
departments, divisions and sections.
And she has demonstrated a mastery
of her position, and I'm sure she'll be the
outstanding commissioner that we've had in
New York State. And I commend her very much
and second her endorsement as well.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President,
in brevity, what I want to say is that I'm
very proud that the Governor has taken the
opportunity to nominate Erin. Those of us who
have seen her progress up the ladder recognize
that her demeanor, her talents and her
expertise and her advice and guidance to those
in this critical field make her an exceptional
person with outstanding qualifications to do
the job.
Congratulations.
3607
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hoffmann.
SENATOR CONNOR: Point of order,
Mr. President. A minute and a half went by
with those two Senators, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
no question that you are correct, Senator
Connor. And so that will conclude the debate.
Certainly members are entitled to
explain their vote. So we'll certainly
recognize the members who wish to explain
their vote in a timely period.
The question is on the nomination.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, to explain his vote. Senator
Hoffmann, to follow.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President. Just briefly to explain my vote.
I'm delighted to have voted for now
Commissioner Crotty's confirmation. I voted
3608
for it because of her exceptional background,
her commitment to the environment. I
congratulate the Governor on this appointment.
And I note that Commissioner Crotty
has reached out to members throughout the
Legislature. She has, in her past roles,
dealt very professionally with all of our
colleagues. And certainly in the last in the
time of the pendency of this nomination has
extended the courtesies to all members to
answer questions, to discuss her views and
visions.
And I know she is going to do a
splendid job as the Commissioner of
Environmental Conservation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hoffmann, to explain her vote.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'm delighted to show my support
for Erin Crotty for this very important
position. And while much of the attention
focused on the pollution-patrol concept of
Environmental Conservation, there are two
other key areas where she will have inordinate
3609
amounts of responsibility.
One is in managing our beautiful
environment for the benefit of sportsmen,
hunters and fishermen and fisherwomen, of whom
Ms. Crotty is one herself, I'm pleased to say.
And she shows a great sensitivity for that
very important balance between providing
sportsmen activities and protecting the
environment in its tranquil, unspoiled state,
welcoming out-of-staters, balancing the needs
for in-state sportsmen and -women.
And I'm delighted to see that she
has a real personal grasp of that area and has
remarkable sensitivity towards the needs of
New York's number-one industry, agriculture.
All too often the farmers of this
state felt the Environmental Conservation
Commissioner to be an adversary. That will
not be the case with Erin Crotty at the helm,
I am convinced of that. And to just further
demonstrate her wonderful awareness and
concern for farmers, she passed, I'm happy to
say, my own little test with flying colors.
On every single question that I administered
to her about manure management, she passed
3610
with flying colors.
I'm convinced that the farmers of
this state are in good hands with Commissioner
Erin Crotty at the helm of Environmental
Conservation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, to explain her vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
to explain my vote.
I want to echo what Senator Onorato
and Senator Hevesi have mentioned, and that is
the need for vigilance in terms of the needs
of the Silver Cup Studios and the power plant
siting, which is just beyond the western part
of my district.
There is another area that is of
concern, and that's the water quality
standards, both in Flushing Bay and the
Flushing River. And I know that the
Commissioner will keep in mind that waste
transfer stations along the Flushing River,
even though the permit has already been issued
by her predecessor, nevertheless this too is
an area where vigilance is essential.
And I would like to add my
3611
congratulations to this nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is confirmed.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:
Commissioner, congratulations. We wish you
well in your job. And we're very pleased that
you brought along so many family members with
you -- your mother and father, your
father-in-law, your sister and brother, and
your sister-in-law. We appreciate their being
in the chamber today too.
Good luck.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: As Commissioner
of General Services, Kenneth J. Ringler, Jr.,
of Glenmont.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Once again,
Mr. President, an excellent nominee.
And I yield again to the Senator
from Brunswick.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you very
3612
much, Senator Stafford, who chairs the
distinguished Finance Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: We are really
outdoing ourselves here today, as the Governor
has outdone himself with the nominees that are
appearing before us, each one distinguishing
themselves in their careers that bring them
before this Senate for confirmation.
And, Senator Connor, I appreciate
you recognizing that we do have time
limitations in this chamber. And they were
put in place so that we could move on with
efficiency in the work that we do.
And I also want to commend this
chamber in recognition of those time frames,
because there are so many good things that all
of us would like to say about each and every
nominee that we could literally go on for
hours.
But I'm going to share with my
colleagues that we are hopeful that we are
going to do the first emergency bill for the
budget today, if we have time. And if we
3613
don't do it, then these new commissioners and
all the others won't be paid. And that's of
some serious consequence.
So speaking to Ken Ringler, who has
over 30 years of public service and in each
and every place that he has served, he has
always done it to the best of his ability and
been of great service to the public that he
has served. Having served in the Labor
Department for a number of years, Deputy
Commissioner in Motor Vehicles for a lot of
years, where there is so much activity. Most
recently, as First Deputy Secretary of State,
where the entire state is that constituency.
And has also been in the private sector here
in this Capital Region, where he was extremely
successful.
So we're very, very pleased that he
has been recognized by the constituency,
receiving many awards for his public service.
He was supervisor of the Town of Bethlehem,
where people know him best, chairman of the
Planning Board there, where he spent a lot of
time in showing the interest on behalf of the
community that he lived in and represented.
3614
So we can all be proud as we vote
for the confirmation to follow his
predecessor, Joe Seymour, who did such an
outstanding job at the Office of General
Services, where all of us know it's busy, it's
a huge responsibility. But I am sure, given
the years of service, that Ken Ringler is up
to the task.
So we urge your support.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, on the nomination.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I also rise to support a terrific
nominee, somebody that every job he's taken
on, he's done well. Ken Ringler, I've known
him for a lot of years.
You know, one of the things that is
so important in serving government is that you
have served in local government. That's where
the action is. He has served in local
government.
And OGS is terribly important to me
personally because it represents so many of my
constituents who work in government services.
3615
And he is their landlord, and he is the guy
that makes everything work for them. And it's
a difficult job. And we're very, very
grateful for competent people serving in that
department.
But Ken Ringler has had a
tremendous background in serving in state
government. And he knows basically the
concerns that each agency has, because he
again will be working I think with almost
every agency we have, not only here in this
Capital District, but throughout the state.
And certainly the Governor has
chosen somebody who is eminently qualified
and, as I said before, someone that every job
he's undertaken, he's done well. He's a
distinguished counsel and lawyer and somebody
that has really been an asset.
And we're grateful to have you in
public service. And Ken, we wish you well in
your new job, and I know that you're going to
be a true asset to the State of New York.
Thank you for serving.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, on the nomination.
3616
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President. I echo the remarks of Senator
Bruno, Senator Farley. And I also add that
Ken Ringler has been a friend of mine for 25
years. We're fellow residents of the town of
Bethlehem. We don't share the same political
allegiance, you might know that. But I have
watched Ken as a Planning Board member, an IDA
member, chairman of both, and as the
supervisor of our town, the town of Bethlehem.
And I've watched in each individual stage in
the Town of Bethlehem how gifted he is
interacting with people, how dedicated he is
in being responsive to the needs of the
citizens of Bethlehem. And then I've seen him
go beyond, I've seen him go beyond, to the
Department of Motor Vehicles and to the
Secretary of State's office.
And in each, each part of his new
responsibilities, he's continued to grow and
has really exhibited the kind of leadership
that's necessary at OGS.
Joe Seymour was a great choice at
OGS by the Governor and did a wonderful job
there. And Ken Ringler is a fitting successor
3617
who will continue to do the same kind of a
job.
And I congratulate the Governor for
his nomination of my friend Ken Ringler.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Spano, on the nomination.
SENATOR SPANO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
You know, we often start off by
saying thank you to the Governor. We should
say congratulations to the Governor, not only
for the four nominees that he's presented to
us today but for what he didn't realize was
going to happen in this chamber.
You can tell that the mood in this
chamber has changed a little bit, especially
today. And maybe it takes these four nominees
who are here today who may have gone a long
way to restore some of the dignity and
camaraderie that those of us who have been
here a long time have come to appreciate.
And I think that type of mood is
certainly relevant when we talk to someone
like Ken Ringler, someone who, as Senator
Bruno has mentioned and other colleagues have
3618
mentioned, that has an outstanding career in
government, an outstanding career that has
taken him through several different state
agencies, and is someone who has been a
professional, has been hardworking, and has
got the experience to do his job.
And I will tell you that you would
think that the qualifications for this
position might be his position in the
Department of Motor Vehicles or his role in
the department or in the Secretary of State's
office, but his real qualifications to become
Commissioner of OGS is the fact that he served
for a number of years as the Chairman of the
Emergency Financial Control Board in the City
of Yonkers. And if he deserved combat pay for
anything, it was the role that he played as
the chairman of that Emergency Financial
Control Board and as a member of that board.
And I will tell you, the type of
temperament that he's shown is the temperament
that we need in someone who is going to lead
an agency like OGS, where he is in charge of
so much of the bricks and mortar and moving of
what we do here in terms of the state
3619
employees and making things happen all across
the state.
So I just want to say
congratulations to all four of the nominees,
and especially to Ken Ringler, and to say that
I offer you my best wishes. I know you follow
in a great tradition in a job that has been
completed so admirably by Joe Seymour, and I
know that you'll be able to do as well if not
better a job as our commissioner.
We're proud of you.
Congratulations.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, on the nomination.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I wish to commend Governor Pataki
for this nomination and echo the comments of
my colleagues in praise of Ken Ringler, the
nominee.
That there is a great team at OGS.
Many of them are here today. I want to thank,
on behalf of the Senate, the responsiveness
and cooperation we have seen with that agency,
as well as the particular efforts of the
3620
nominee throughout his career in state
service. His responsiveness to those concerns
of the legislators has been second to none.
His efforts to help is really the best essence
of government service.
And I want to thank the nominee and
commend the Governor for this nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane, on the nomination.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
If I'm not mistaken, I met Ken
Ringler at the opening of one of the
state-of-the-art motor vehicle facilities
which opened in my district at Herald Square.
And I was very, very impressed at the fine
work, the spirit of the workers there and the
professionalism of the executive staff of the
Department of Motor Vehicles. It was truly a
terrific experience and one which has really
been very, very helpful to my district. It's
convenient, it's well managed, it's really
been outstanding.
And I can only think that Ken
Ringler will bring that exact same spirit to
3621
his new position. As you know, I'm the
ranking member on the Investigations and
Government Operations Committee, and I'm very
much looking forward to working with the new
Commissioner in his new position.
And again, I'm very pleased with
the Governor's announcement of this
appointment, and I'm very much looking forward
to a terrific working partnership.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
member wishing to speak on the nomination?
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, I too would like to rise to second
the nomination.
I think Mr. Ringler has a terrific
background. He was very impressive in
committee. I think that he brings an
enthusiasm that will be welcome. He has big
shoes to fill. The last commissioner did a
very good job. And I have no reason to
believe that this gentleman won't do equally
as well, if not better.
I'm glad to hear that he's a friend
3622
of Breslin's. That makes me a little more
comfortable. But actually, I think he'll be
terrific. I love his background. I'm glad to
hear that he sets up bureaus as well as
Senator Duane said.
And I too would just like to add my
second to this nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the nomination of Kenneth J.
Ringler, Jr., of Glenmont, to become the
Commissioner of General Services. All those
in favor of the nomination signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is unanimously confirmed.
We're very, very pleased to have
the Commissioner with us.
Commissioner, congratulations.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Commissioner is joined by members of his
3623
family, his wife, Marty, and daughter Amy, and
his mother and father, Mary and Ken Ringler.
Welcome to the chamber.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Crime Victims Board, Christina Hernandez,
of East Greenbush.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I will again yield. But I'm reminded today
when I was at a political gathering and I had
my young daughter, and she listened throughout
the evening, and she said, "You know, it's
interesting, but everybody says the same
thing."
Now, everyone has said the same
thing here today about all four nominees who I
mentioned at the outset. And now for the
fourth nominee who was with us today,
Christina Hernandez, it's a pleasure for me to
again -- to again yield to the Senator from
the rolling hills of Brunswick.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you very,
3624
very much, Senator Stafford.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Again, the
esteemed and dedicated and committed chair of
Finance, one of the most powerful committees
in the Senate.
And, Mr. President, again I rise,
and I rise with great pleasure. And Senator
Stafford is right, he has never been wrong
when he talks about us saying the same kinds
of things. Because when you have highly
qualified people, each dedicated to public
service, each outstanding in the work that
they're doing, then, yes, it gets to sound
similar.
And in this case, we're here now
talking about Christina Hernandez that, yes,
lives in Rensselaer County and has served for
the last six years on the Crime Victims Board
as a commissioner. And Christina has
dedicated her life to helping people who are
unfortunate enough to have been a victim of a
crime.
And those of you that have exposure
3625
and experience in that regard know how
sensitive that is, how difficult that is. But
Christina has done her job so well that the
Governor sees fit to again send her here to
the Senate, and rightly, for confirmation and
continued service.
She also has a great interest in
other areas, serving on the Center for Women
in Government, I think serving on the Task
Force, with the State Police, for Minority
Recruitment, and serving on the Committee for
Domestic Violence for Fatalities, which again
is a very, very difficult task.
But all of these things she does in
the spirit of just helping others who truly
need help. Academically, she has her master's
in her chosen field, presently studying for a
Ph.D. in social work.
So she goes on and on in just
improving her ability to continue to do the
service to all of the people of this state
that we so desperately need.
All of us have a responsibility to
victims, crime victims. And by confirming
Christina Hernandez's nomination here today,
3626
we continue our responsibility to help those
victims that so desperately need help.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, on the nomination.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President. It's an honor to serve as
chairman, appointed by Senator Bruno, to the
Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections
Committee. And the committee works closely
with the Crime Victims Board. And this board
has made great progress in the last six years
under Governor's Pataki's leadership in
providing the right type of reimbursement to
crime victims in a timely fashion. And I
underscore the comment of timely fashion.
That the nominee, being renominated
to serve on Crime Victims Board, has been part
of the effort to bring to crime victims
remuneration that would in some way mitigate
the pain of the crime. And I wish to thank
our nominee for her efforts in that endeavor.
That this is an excellent Crime Victims Board,
and the nominee has been a part, as a
commissioner, has been very much a part of
3627
that success with the Crime Victims Board.
And I wish to congratulate her and
thank her for that effort, and to thank
Governor Pataki for the nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, on the nomination.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I rise on this
nominee to commend the Governor and also to
commend the Rockefeller School of Social Work
of the State University of New York.
I must say I've only known the
nominee for two weeks. And I first met her on
paper in black and white in terms of
curriculum vitae, which is really outstanding.
And then in committee, we questioned the
nominee. And she is a very bright and very
articulate individual. The Governor can be
proud of his appointee. We can be proud of
our being in favor of her.
But I would also like to add that
the Rockefeller School of Social Work at SUNY
can be proud of the fact that they have waived
one regulation in order to allow her to
complete her doctorate. Usually universities
have a one-year residence requirement for
3628
Ph.D. degree students. And in the case of
Christina Hernandez, because of her
outstanding work in government as well as her
academic ability, this one year of residency
has been waived.
And she is now working on her
doctorate, as Senator Bruno said, in the area
of her major interest, where she will be of
maximum positive influence in the future.
So I commend the nominee, Christina
Hernandez. I commend the Governor. And I
also commend the Rockefeller College of Social
Work of the State University of New York.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
member wishing to speak on the nomination?
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
I too want to commend the Governor as we
celebrate, as I said before, Women's History
Month.
This nomination I think is
particularly significant, because it sends a
very positive message concerning the role of
Latina and Hispanic women in the State of
3629
New York. We are a very diverse state, as the
recent census figures have shown. And as an
individual having a great many people with
Hispanic and Latino surnames in my district,
I'm very proud of this. I'm very proud
because of the recognition that it provides.
I'm also proud because
Ms. Hernandez is a graduate of the State
University system, SUNY at Buffalo, SUNY
Albany, and the Rockefeller School at SUNY
Albany. And I think it sends a message that
for all the criticisms that have been made of
the State University system, we have many
graduates of whom we can be very, very proud.
And we are training the very best that have
achieved great success in the State of
New York.
So, Mr. President, I commend the
Governor for this appointment, and
particularly her interest as a social worker
exploring issues of victims' rights and
services to victims of crime, and I urge her
nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, on the nomination.
3630
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President. I too also rise to congratulate
the Governor on this renomination of Christina
Hernandez to the Crime Victims Board and want
to congratulate Ms. Hernandez and commend her
on her service and her renomination.
As Senator Stavisky said, I was
impressed in reading Ms. Hernandez's resume
and noticed on her resume that she is a
graduate of Buffalo State College, where I
also had the opportunity to earn two degrees,
having completed my second degree at Buffalo
State College in 1983, when Ms. Hernandez
started there at Buffalo State College. I
don't know if our paths ever crossed, but I
look forward to meeting Ms. Hernandez if we do
not know each other and talking about Buffalo
State College and the important work that she
will be doing on the Crime Victims Board, and
certainly offering any support that I can be
to her in doing that important work.
I just again want to congratulate
Ms. Hernandez, and I look forward to working
with her.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3631
Hoffmann, on the nomination.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr.
President. I'm delighted to rise in support
of the nomination of Christina Hernandez to
this very important position on the Crime
Victims Board.
And she has demonstrated in her
first term that she has a remarkable degree of
sensitivity to the issues of crime victims,
but also to the very important aspect of
change in our criminal justice system.
Governor Pataki has made this very unique area
a hallmark of his administration. This term
he has announced a number of initiatives that
he would like to see occur during his current
term.
And it's not easy to change the way
the criminal justice system operates and has
operated. As indicated by the large number of
demonstrators outside the Capitol yesterday,
we are now besieged by varying requests from
different groups urging rapid change, in some
cases, or in other cases no change at all in
the way we handle crime in New York State.
But what better way to assess how
3632
we should make these changes than by
soliciting the input of those who have been
the victims of crime themselves. And
Ms. Hernandez has demonstrated an ability to
sort out that information and to work within
our very complex criminal justice system to
help put together sound policy initiatives.
So again, I applaud the Governor
for his very sage choice in Christina
Hernandez for the Crime Victims Board.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, on the nomination.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes, Mr.
President, I also rise to second the
nomination of Christina Hernandez. I can
remember when she first came to Finance to the
get the original appointment, and I think that
in the interim period she has done a wonderful
job in her position. I think she will
continue to do a great job. That she's a
fellow graduate with Byron, even though he's
slightly older -- second degree when she first
got there -- I think that the fact that she
has some familiarity with different parts of
the state, if for no other reason than she
3633
went to school in various parts of the state,
that that also serves her well.
And I think that the Governor has
done a very good job in reappointing her,
sending her name up quickly, and giving us the
opportunity to confirm her so that she can
continue with the good work that she's doing.
And the fact that she's a social
worker in a position like this I think is also
interesting and gives her a little bit of
extra insight into maybe some of the problems
that people that are crime victims face when
put in the position that they're put in just
through the fact that they are crime victims.
So I also second this nomination
and am happy to do so.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, on the nomination.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I just want to briefly congratulate
Christina Hernandez. I think that she has
exhibited wha is the hope and ambition of
every young woman, and that is to have access
and to have the ability to work to your
3634
greatest potential. And so she's done that
against all odds, and I'm very, very pleased
that she has been so successful and that we're
able to vote for her today.
But I also would like to
congratulate Governor Pataki, because he has
celebrated Women's History Month in the best
way that I can imagine. And that is three out
of four of the appointments today are women,
and they are -- they're being appointed to
very important and strategic commissionerships
and positions. That, to me, is the highest
respect for equal opportunity for women, that
we don't view women for just very specific
kinds of things but that we also will accept
the fact that they have the skills and the
experience and the knowledge to offer in any
number of areas, including those areas that we
have appointed women to commissioner today.
So I applaud the Governor, I
applaud our Majority Leader for listening to
the Governor and accepting his wisdom and his
appointments, and I applaud the women who are
here today -- and the man. All of these
appointments are very important. I don't want
3635
to be totally sexist. But congratulations to
all.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Question is on the nomination of Christina
Hernandez, of East Greenbush, to become a
member again of the Crime Victims Board. All
those in favor of the nomination signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is unanimously confirmed.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Congratu
lations, Christina. Good luck.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the State Board of Real Property Services,
Michael Joseph, Jr., of Marathon.
As a member of the Advisory Council
to the Commission on Quality of Care for the
Mentally Disabled, Milo I. Tomanovich,
3636
Esquire, of Rochester.
As a member of the Medical Advisory
Committee, Tamton Mustapha, of Valatie.
As a member of the State Hospital
Review and Planning Council, Michael A.
Berman, M.D., of New York City, and Henry M.
Sloma, of Lewiston.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Central New York Developmental
Disabilities Services Office, James R. Iles,
of Clay.
As a member of Board of Visitors of
the Metro New York Developmental Disabilities
Services Office, Rita J. Haahn, of the Bronx.
And as a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Western New York Children's
Psychiatric Center, Gloria Paine, of Batavia.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the nominations.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move the
nominations.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: All those
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
3637
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominees are confirmed.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 901A, Budget Bill, an act making
appropriations for the legal requirements of
state debt service.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is reported directly to third reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Investigations, Taxation and Government
Operations Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the Investigations, Taxation and
Governmental Operations Committee in the
Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator Skelos.
3638
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to the controversial
calendar and continue with Calendar Number
194.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the title and put the bill
back before the house.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
194, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1811, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, I would like to continue to ask
Senator Rath, with her permission, one or two
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question from Senator
Lachman?
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator Rath, I
want to thank you for your indulgence and
patience in explaining this to someone who did
not know about it beforehand.
Now, in answer to one of my
3639
questions previously, you had said that New
York City has a homestead tax option. Now I
have in my hand a statement from the Office of
Real Property Services, question and answer.
Is the homestead tax option available
everywhere in the state? Answer: It is
available only to qualifying cities, towns,
villages, counties and school districts. It
is not available in New York City or in Nassau
County, except for villages and, to certain
purposes, the cities.
Now, can you explain that to me?
SENATOR RATH: I believe I can,
Senator.
It's a different article of law
that the City of New York and the County of
Nassau function under. It gives them a 4
class system rather than the 2 class system,
which is the classic homestead exemption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you. Am I correct, then, in assuming
that they are not part of the homestead tax
option but something different that in some
3640
aspects is similar, yes or no?
SENATOR RATH: Yeah. It's a look
at a way to get the same kind of relief in a
different kind of a jurisdiction that the
homestead offers to the one that I'm talking
about here in the Town of Tonawanda and 29
others around the state. It's Article 18 that
deals with this.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: In answer to a
question that I had previously about school
districts, I think you might have
misinterpreted in terms of school property.
SENATOR RATH: I did, yeah.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Because the
information on the same website here is that
if school districts are wholly contained
within the boundaries of the city or town that
3641
has the homestead tax, they must use the
homestead tax unless they opt out of the
program by passing a resolution.
Can you explain that further,
please?
SENATOR RATH: I did not
understand your question, and I did answer it
incorrectly, Senator Lachman. Your question,
I believe, asked were they exempted. And that
was how I thought -- or I thought you asked
were they exempted. And they can be in or out
at their own discretion.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
I just want to thank Senator Rath for her
responses to the questions, her candor and her
honesty and patience. And I will be voting
for this bill.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you. I
appreciate it.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, why do you rise?
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President. Through you, if I may ask Senator
3642
Rath a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question from Senator
Brown?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator Rath, I'm
certainly going to be supporting this, but I
just have a question. When was Huntley Power
Plant actually sold?
SENATOR RATH: It was sold last
fall. The transaction was completed last
fall.
SENATOR BROWN: And through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Rath would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BROWN: The plant was
sold last fall, Senator Rath. Have the taxes
now -- I'm looking at the bill memo, and it
3643
says that the community stands to lose
$5 million in property taxes. Has the
community been losing money thus far?
SENATOR RATH: No. The issue is
that when they sold the Huntley Plant to NRG,
it would only be sold if there was a
reduction, an assessment reduction as part of
the consideration.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, if Senator Rath would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, I understand
that there would be a PILOT. How many years
is the PILOT going to be provided?
SENATOR RATH: It goes from 2001
to 2008.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, if Senator Rath would continue to
3644
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BROWN: What will happen
after the PILOT expires in 2008, Senator Rath?
SENATOR RATH: They will go back
and renegotiate.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, if Senator Rath would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator Rath,
what is impact on the residential homeowners
of this agreement, this piece of legislation,
if any?
SENATOR RATH: What it will do,
it will ensure that the very least possible
amount of increase for the residential rate
3645
will occur. Because we know -- we know that
the homeowners are the ones that are always
hardest hit. But also if the businesses, the
other businesses are hard-hit and move out of
town or if they look for reassessments and get
their assessments changed, then once again,
it's all -- it's just a balancing act.
And so this is an effort to get a
soft landing, if you will, from this huge hit
that the Town of Tonawanda is taking.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, if Senator Rath would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR BROWN: So, Senator, I
know earlier on, before we moved from this
item, you had explained that the PILOT would
decrease every year. And what will be the
difference in the taxes that would have been
paid and what will be lost through the PILOT
agreement?
3646
SENATOR RATH: Basically, there's
a sliding scale that goes from the $15 million
that Huntley had been paying to the $13.5 that
NRG is at in 2001-2002, and it slides down
until 2005-2006 at $11 million, and stays
there until 2008, at which time the
renegotiation will click into place.
So if you want to total it all up,
it's easy enough. But the point is is that
this will just help them to get a soft landing
so that the businesses and the homeowners
won't be unduly impacted.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, if Senator Rath would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BROWN: So through the
assessment challenge, that actually removes
the Huntley Plant from the tax rolls
altogether?
SENATOR RATH: This was a result
3647
of the assessment challenge. And so they're
not off the tax rolls, but they're into a
PILOT.
SENATOR BROWN: Okay. Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: I just want to
thank Senator Rath for being kind enough to
answer those few questions for me. I
certainly do support this.
As Senator Rath mentioned earlier,
Tonawanda is a neighboring community,
certainly a community in Erie County, and we
are a county that is known for our regional
cooperation. And certainly this would be a
major hit to the Town of Tonawanda that would
have an adverse impact on our entire
community.
So I commend Senator Rath for her
action in this matter and certainly will be
voting in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer, why do you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
3648
sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question from Senator
Oppenheimer?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I've done a
lot of PILOTs in my day, and I'm trying to
figure out why this bill is before us. So let
me phrase a question. Is it because you've
done reclassification in your area and
established two categories, that you have
residential and nonresidential, and because
you're applying the PILOT only to one part of
your -- okay, I think I understand now.
SENATOR RATH: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thanks,
Senator.
This is a good bill. Many of us
in -- on the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: As I said,
we've done a lot of PILOTs in our area, and
3649
normally we just put it across the tax base
because we haven't done classification, which
is something we very much want to do in
Westchester County, though we would probably
do it more in line with the Nassau
consideration, which is I think three or
four -- four categories. Because there's a
lot more variation, I think, in the areas
where we are than upstate, where I think maybe
two categories would have been more
appropriate. But downstate, we really want to
do a few categories.
But this is very interesting to me,
because it's the first time I've seen
something like this. And I sort of wonder if
it's the first time something like this has
occurred. And -- but I won't ask you a
question -- oh, yes, okay, I'll ask the
question. If the Senator would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield a question?
SENATOR RATH: You raise a very
good point, Senator Oppenheimer.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
answer is yes, she yields.
3650
SENATOR RATH: Yes, thank you.
Senator Oppenheimer, I believe that
sometimes difficult situations demand creative
solutions. And that's what happened here.
And I think if we are the first, we may not be
the last to have to do this this way.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, I think
it is creative. And I may even recommend this
to friends of mine.
But, you know, the putting in the
PILOTs is a way that we have been able to
bring in peacefully things that otherwise I
think -- developments that would have created
a lot of noise and excitement and confusion
and contention in our areas. And because this
is a way of paying the government for
properties would be otherwise exempt, it kind
of mutes the aggravated noise that comes from
the citizens every time you take a piece of
property off their rolls.
And this apportionment is very
interesting, and I applaud the government and
Senator Rath for having created this. I'll be
voting in favor.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3651
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
Senator would yield to a couple of questions,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question from Senator
Stachowski?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If we didn't
do the PILOT, what would be the effect on the
property tax of the homeowners in Tonawanda?
SENATOR RATH: Approximately a
23 percent increase immediately, Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: And to the
businesses?
SENATOR RATH: To the
nonhomestead.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: And what
then would be a increase to the businesses?
The homestead/nonhomestead is businesses
and -
SENATOR RATH: Businesses or
3652
homes, right, yeah.
The 23 percent increase, because
it's a PILOT, would be going on to the
nonhomestead. And what that would do would be
to hit the businesses so dramatically that
they'd either flee the town or they'd
challenge their assessments, probably get it
done, and then they'd be -- they'd have their
assessments lowered. And the dramatic effect
would be the same thing anyway, the homeowners
would get hit.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Currently in
Erie County the county executive has floated a
proposal to eliminate or roll into one all the
IDAs except Amherst. I mean, he would like
3653
Amherst, but currently I guess the last thing
he's talked about is if Amherst won't roll in,
then he would do everybody else except.
If he did that, in fact, and they
all became part of the Erie County IDA, what
would be the effect of this legislation?
Would this PILOT still stand because? There
would no longer be that -- I don't -- I'm
just -- this is for my own benefit, so I
understand.
SENATOR RATH: By way of
information, this is an ECIDA arrangement.
It's not anything to do with the Town of
Tonawanda IDA or any of the others. This is
purely ECIDA.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: One other
question. What would -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
3654
Mr. President.
There's also a possibility, because
of some other problems with the Huntley Plant,
that it may or may not be functional for long.
Something to do with the sale. Unless the
sale would revert to somebody else and they
would run it. But what would the effect of
this if that were the case?
SENATOR RATH: My best
recollection is that as the deal was being
negotiated for the sale, one of the provisions
was that NRG would upgrade the turbines that
are there now producing electricity and that
the time over the period up until 2008 would
encompass not only the improvement of the
generating capacity that they have there at
Huntley right now with the present turbines,
but also, as this went forward, that Huntley
would be one of the eligible candidates, if
you will, for some of the new turbines that
are going to be going into the facilities all
around the Northeast. And those new -
those -- some of the NRG facilities around the
Northeast, the new turbines. There will be X
number of new turbines. There won't be enough
3655
to go into all of the generating facilities.
We would like very much to have
them in Western New York, because -- I don't
know if you were here as I was expounding on
our snow and the grid and the electricity. I
got myself carried, Senator Stachowski. You
would know me well enough to know that
occasionally I do that.
But the point here being that I
think that it's better for everything on the
Niagara frontier, including the relicensing of
Niagara Hydro, if we are pumping as much
electricity into the grid as we can. So for
us to be the recipients of some of the new
turbines, if we are lucky enough to get them
in Western New York, because we've got a
facility that is showing -- it's doing well,
for all the right reasons it would be
important for us to have Huntley going along
well in a community that is working well with
them and agreeable to their needs. If the two
new turbines come in there, it would expand
Huntley's capacity dramatically.
Dramatically. They would be gas-fired, by the
way, not coal-fired.
3656
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: On the bill.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, on the bill.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I think that although I'm not a big
fan of IDAs and some of their things and I
have some questions about the new IDA that
Erie County is proposing -- having been there
when they put together the original IDA and
the governmental-based board, which is at
least responsible to the people -- I think
that we're stuck with this Huntley situation,
that the people in that community would be
very hard-pressed if something wasn't done. I
know that there's been a lot of work put into
obtaining some monies to help out with that
situation. And this seems like another step
trying to help that community. And I know
that community's represented in a bipartisan
nature, and so that this isn't partisan in any
means.
So because of all those reasons, I
will probably support this bill and hope that
3657
we could get this done with.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, why do you rise?
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will the sponsor yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question from Senator
Onorato?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: The
transferring of this place is going to be sold
or transferred to another entity, a privately
operated entity; is that true?
SENATOR RATH: The property
actually is being transferred to the IDA, the
industrial development agency.
SENATOR ONORATO: For the purpose
of erecting another power plant on the site?
SENATOR RATH: No, no. They're
renovating this very old one and hopefully
going to continue to renovate it even more so
that more electricity will be generated.
3658
SENATOR ONORATO: Do you
anticipate a rate savings to the taxpayers or
the consumers by the -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The State
of New York. I hope so. Of the State of New
York, Senator. I hope so. I hope we can get
enough generating capacity in New York State
not only to economically address all of our
needs but maybe even to be able to sell some
electricity outside the state if our needs are
met.
SENATOR ONORATO: Well, I
certainly hope that that's the case. Because
as you know, since deregulation -- and I can
speak for myself as a consumer in New York
City, my last utility bill was approximately
60 percent higher than my last bill for the -
through this deregulation. So I have not been
the recipient of any savings so far.
I hope that your particular bill
will address that particular problem that we
can get the additional power that we need but
at a rate that we can all afford.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
3659
member wishing to speak on the bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Morahan, continue in
regular order?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President, will you please call up Calendar
254.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the title of Calendar
Number 254, Senate 1447, by Senator Meier.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
254, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 1447, an
act to amend the Domestic Relations Law, in
relation to notification.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation, please.
3660
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Oppenheimer, I believe.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill is actually quite simple.
It amends subdivision 1 of Section 240 of the
Domestic Relations Law to require that when
the Supreme Court makes an order affecting the
support of a child, that notification of that
order be sent to the support collection unit
in the involved jurisdiction, or, if the order
modifies an existing order of Family Court, to
also notify the Family Court.
Under the existing law, the Supreme
Court is only required under the Domestic
Relations Law to inform the support collection
unit when it enters an order and directs that
payment be made through the support collection
unit.
What happens now is that when
orders are modified, if there's a downward
modification, the noncustodial parent making
the payment, because it is in that parent's
interest to do so, will normally notify the
3661
support collection unit. When there's an
upward modification, the notification is many
times not made, and so we have a lag in the
ability to collect the appropriate amount of
child support.
That particularly impacts when we
have a custodial parent who is a public
assistance recipient, not just in terms of the
ability of the local and state government to
recoup on the child support, but also, if we
delay the increased amount of child support,
it makes it harder to put together that
combination of work and support from the
noncustodial parent that helps us transition
people off.
So this is really something to fill
a gap in the law to provide for better
administration of child support.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, why do you rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, I would like to ask a question of
the sponsor, Senator Meier, if he will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you yield to a question from Senator
3662
Montgomery?
SENATOR MEIER: Certainly, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Meier, currently if a person is a welfare
recipient, what amount of the child support
payment goes directly to the parent, the
custodial parent?
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President,
the amount that currently goes to the
custodial parent is $50, assuming that the
noncustodial parent's obligations are current
under the child support order.
I would note that the Senate has
now I think for the second year in a row
attempted to increase that amount to $100. We
have not been able to get the other body to
agree.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. So
the amount is -- $50 is actually passed on to
the custodial parent.
Through you, Mr. President, if I
could ask Senator Meier another question.
3663
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you yield to another question from
Senator Montgomery?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Meier, in the existing law the Supreme Court
provides a copy of the request for child
support enforcement. So when and under what
circumstances, what cases, do they not direct
the payment to the collecting unit?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, Mr.
President, under the existing law the Supreme
Court is only obligated to inform the support
collection unit when they enter an order
directing that collection be made through the
support collection unit. The law does not
provide for notification when there's an
upward or downward modification.
And what the bill before the house
attempts to do is to require that that
notification be made when the modification
occurs.
3664
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Through you,
Mr. President, I have a couple of other
questions for Senator Meier.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you continue to yield to a question?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Meier, does the Supreme Court always know that
the custodial parent is a welfare recipient,
or do they have to investigate this? Is there
any way of them knowing this without some
additional steps that we need to take?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, Mr.
President, under -- what would customarily
happen would be the Supreme Court, if it were
entertaining a child support application,
would be aware. Because under other
provisions of the Domestic Relations Law, the
parties to that litigation would have to file
financial statements indicating assets,
sources of income. And that would then be
indicated if someone was a public assistance
3665
recipient in those verified statements.
The other thing that the bill does
set forth is that the Supreme Court will
provide notice at any time. It says if the
applicant is in receipt of public assistance,
they'd know that from the verified financial
statements. Or if there is a statement that
the applicant requests, has applied for, or is
in receipt of such services.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Will you continue to yield? Mr. President,
will Senator Meier continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you continue to yield for another
question?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, I will, Mr.
President. Be glad to.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Meier, the current -- the proposal from the
chief justice, Chief Judge Judith Kaye to
streamline the courts so that Family Court is
in a part of Supreme Court, would that, in
your opinion, address some of this
3666
information-sharing gap, that there would be a
more of a likelihood that we would have more
knowledge about a particular case in that kind
of a court system and therefore we wouldn't
have these gaps in communication that your
bill tries to address?
I know that's sort of asking you
for a judgment, but I'm just -- I would like
to hear if you thought that would make a
difference.
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President, I
believe the question is whether Judge Kaye's
court reform proposal or court merger proposal
would civil in some of the gaps provided for
in this legislation. And in a perfect world,
maybe in part. Although that proposal calls
for Family Court in effect becoming a Family
Court part of Supreme Court. You might be
dealing with different judges.
But that would only deal with the
part of this bill where modifications of
existing Family Court orders require
notification. It would still not address
direct notification to the support collection
unit, which operates in conjunction with the
3667
court systems but, you know, operates
separately from them and with a different
administrative setup.
So this bill would still be
required even if that court merger bill were
to become passed and law.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Senator Meier, for your patience in answering
my questions.
Just briefly on the bill. I think
obviously this is a very important step that
Senator Meier -- connection that Senator Meier
is trying to make in terms of communication,
which hopefully would improve the collection
of child support by the unit that is supposed
to collect.
I would, however, say also, Senator
Meier, that there are a number of instances
that I've been introduced to from -- by people
in my district where there is this apparent
glitch that they get -- they go to court, they
have their -- a change in their child support
decision, and it never shows up in terms of
whichever way they're paying it, very often
through their payroll checkoff.
3668
So it is a problem on both ends.
And certainly you're trying to address one
part of it. I appreciate that. And hopefully
we can continue to look at this issue, because
it is a very serious one.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Meier would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you yield to a question from Senator
Paterson?
SENATOR MEIER: Gladly, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm
trying to get an idea of just how widespread
this problem is in terms of cost. I
understand that we're going to try to find out
who is and who is not receiving public
assistance in this fashion. Do you have any
data about how many violations there have been
3669
and exactly what the -- you know, what the
cost is to the state because of this loophole
that is often used?
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President, I
don't have any exact dollar numbers, but -- I
don't have any exact dollar figures, Mr.
President, but this is legislation that -
where we've had requests from various counties
as well as from the State Community Aid
Association, which of course is an advocacy
group involved in helping to transition people
from welfare to work.
So this is a problem that we are
hearing from from the people who work in the
area. And I normally accept the word of those
folks, who don't have a partisan stake in
this, that something like this is needed.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I apologize, I'm just looking at this bill.
Which I'd seen before, but just didn't
remember it well. And if the Senator would
yield for one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3670
Meier?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
don't see an Assembly companion bill here.
Have you talked about it with the Assembly?
Because it really is probably a good idea. I
just wanted to know how you fared trying to
get this passed in both houses.
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President,
that would be Assembly 6627, introduced by
Assemblywoman Glick, the chair of the Social
Services Committee in that body.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, why do you rise?
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will the sponsor yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, I had Senator Hassell-Thompson on the
3671
list. And for the benefit of the members, if
you really do want to speak, I'd appreciate it
if you'd make eye contact with me.
I don't want any confusion amongst
the members. I know some people are talking
to the desk members. But make sure you
contact me, okay?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I will
yield to Senator Onorato.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson yields to Senator Onorato.
Senator Onorato, you now are next on the list.
Senator Dollinger, you will be placed on the
list.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Will the
sponsor yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you yield to a question from Senator
Onorato?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
3672
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Meier,
when an individual goes before them and is
receiving child support and they find out that
they're also receiving public assistance, how
much of the public assistance is reduced by
the amount that the child is receiving from
whosever paying the thing? Is it a
dollar-for-dollar amount?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, Mr.
President, it offsets the grant, but it
doesn't reduce it. Then you get the $50
passthrough that we just talked about.
SENATOR ONORATO: In other words,
if a -- just hypothetically, if the -- if she
or he is receiving $300 a month for the child
support and they find out now -- and they find
out -- let me see if I can make it clearer.
If the recipient is currently
receiving $300 a month from welfare for the
support of the child and they now find out
that the husband or wife is also providing,
unbeknownst to the agency, $200 a month, is
the support from the welfare agency reduced,
the total $200 from the child support?
3673
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President, I
believe I already answered that, but I
probably didn't explain it properly.
The public assistance allowance is
offset but not reduced. In other words, the
welfare recipient or the public assistance
recipient would still keep receiving the same
amount of money.
Let's say that there's a
$500-per-month allowance paid to the public
assistance recipient. And let's say for the
sake of argument that -- for the sake of
discussion that there's a $300 child support
payment. And if you assume that the child
support payment is current, what happens is
the sum of $250 is used to reimburse the local
and state government for the cost of that
child support payment, or the public
assistance payment, and $50 passes through to
the custodial parent.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson now.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. If the Senator would
3674
yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR MEIER: Certainly, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Senator, the question I have touches on
the last statement that you were just making.
In this bill, the assumption is
that when the court is notified -- when the
collection unit is notified, then the
adjustments will in fact be made. But there's
nothing that says that the award has been
paid. Because awards -- the court will make
an award, but all of us know that because an
award is made, it does not mean automatically
that that payment is made to the custodial
parent.
Does there then -- using your
numbers, the $300, if in fact this is an award
that is supposed to be paid, does this bill
also trigger the ability for the custodial
parent to in fact receive -- to ensure that
3675
the amount that is awarded is in fact paid?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, if I
understand the question correctly, this deals
primarily with people who are receiving public
assistance.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I
understand that.
SENATOR MEIER: So one way or the
other, the custodial parent will receive
support for that child. This is only a -
this bill only deals with the subject or the
issue of notification to the support
collection unit or, in the case of an existing
Family Court order, of modification of that
order so that the appropriate administrative
adjustments can be made.
And I guess, Senator, maybe you can
help me. Maybe I'm not clear on what you're
sag.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Stay right there, because that's where I'm
going. You're making the assumption that once
the award is made, that notification is made
to the collection unit, and therefore the
adjustment is then made to the welfare
3676
recipient and the $50 passthrough goes to the
custodial parent.
However, in those cases where the
award is not paid, the custodial parent is
only going to receive the $50 passthrough.
What is it in the bill or what is it in the
DSS law that is going to trigger to ensure
that that $250 difference is in fact paid to
the custodial parent.
SENATOR MEIER: Well, Mr.
President, no one is assuming. The bill
before the house does not assume that the
payment is being made. The very purpose of
the notification is to give the support
collection unit, particularly in the case of
an upward modification, a notice of that, so
that they can pursue collection of that
increased amount through the various means
available to the support collection unit,
which begins with voluntary payment and then
proceeds on through the uses of various court
processes, including the ability to execute on
the noncustodial parent's wages, or what's
more popularly known as a wage garnishment.
But that's under the existing law in the
3677
Domestic Relations Law.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you wish to respond to another
question?
SENATOR MEIER: Certainly. I'd
be happy to yield to Senator Hassell-Thompson.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Through you, Mr. President.
Senator, then what you're saying is
that at the point that this bill would -- the
legislation would trigger that action, the
assumption is that that $300 award is in fact
being paid to the Department of Social
Services directly, it does not go to the
custodial parent, and only the $50 passthrough
difference would go to the custodial parent.
I'm not clear.
SENATOR MEIER: Well, Mr.
President, the bill is a simple bill dealing
with a notification provision for
modifications for current public assistance
3678
recipients. It is of assistance to people,
though, as they leave public assistance
because you want the award current. And to
the extent the award remains current and if
the recipient finds employment and can,
through the combination of the support order
and employment, make adequate funds to start
to leave welfare, perhaps with the help of
transitional benefits, we put the support
collection unit and the court in a position to
fully enforce the higher amount.
But for so long as someone remains
a public assistance recipient, the only
thing -- what they lose out on is the
passthrough amount, the $50 if the support
order is not current. They do not lose out on
whatever amount they're entitled to under
public assistance.
So the goal really here is to put
something together that assists us in
enforcing the order. And as we get to that
point, to try to get people, through a
combination of resources, child support
included, to be able to move off of the
welfare rolls.
3679
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Final
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you yield to a another question?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Senator, based upon your most current
explanation, then, the $250 is in fact
evidence received by the custodial parent from
DSS as part of the grant and only the $50
passthrough, which would make up the entire
$300 that the person would in fact receive,
would be received by the custodial parent.
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President,
under that example, yes, the Senator is
correct.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay,
thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
3680
Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield to
just one question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you yield to one question?
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President, is
Senator Dollinger tantalizing me, or is it
only one question? Well, I'll yield to one
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Senator Meier, this bill embodies
an idea is that it seems to me that the Office
of Court Administration could implement by
rule or regulation. Why not just do it
through rule or regulation? Why bring it to
the Legislature, why have us -- it seems to
have merit. I agree with the principle behind
it. But why not just have OCA do it?
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President,
it's been my experience since my days in
school that there are three separate branches.
We're one. The Office of Court Administration
has chosen not to do this so far. And this is
3681
something, as I say, that some advocates in
the area who I respect think would be useful,
and so we're pursuing it as a legislative act.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, one follow-up, if I could. I'm
violating my one-question rule, but Senator
Meier said something that suggested a
follow-up might be in order, if he would
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President. Has OCA refused to do this at
this point, Senator Meier? Is there an
objection from OCA to doing this?
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President,
the extensive records that my office has on
this bill indicates that my distinguished
predecessor as chair of this committee,
Senator Holland, who now serves as Social
Services Commissioner in Rockland County,
3682
wrote several times to the Office of Court
Administration requesting that they implement
this very change, and he was not honored with
a response.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
what Senator Meier is trying to do here, and I
think I'm going to end up voting for this
bill. But it seems to me that while I agree
with him that there are three separate and
distinct branches of government, a good idea
ought to be recognized by the Executive branch
as much as it warrants treatment by the
legislative branch.
This seems to me to be a good idea.
OCA could implement it very quickly. I'm
astounded that OCA wouldn't have responded to
Senator Holland or wouldn't have responded to
an entreaty from a member of this house about
the merits of a bill that will simply require
transmitting information from one court to
another entity, to a child support enforcement
3683
office.
And, Mr. President, it seems to me
that OCA's lack of comment may suggest that
OCA has some difficulty with doing that or
doesn't want to take the responsibility or
isn't prepared to pay the additional cost in
administrative fees to do it. If that's the
case, then this bill will require them to do
something, using that all-important word that
we debated yesterday, which is "shall." Which
we know, based on our experience yesterday
with the Second Floor, means may or maybe or
maybe not. I mean, we learned that yesterday
when we looked at all those bills where we
told the Health Department to do something,
they shall something, they didn't do it, and
we had to come back and do it again. We told
the Executive branch to do something, the
Governor to appoint people, he didn't do it.
I would suggest that what we may be
doing here is we may, by using the word
"shall," be giving another branch of the
Executive Department license to consider the
word "shall" to mean "may."
And I still believe that this is
3684
the kind of thing, that merits of a good idea,
that ought to be done through the Executive
branch. It ought to be simply implemented as
a policy, and we don't need to take the
legislative time to do it.
I would assume that a leader like
Judge Kaye, who runs the Office of Court
Administration, or certainly the Executive
branch, which has an involvement in child
support enforcement, couldn't put this out as
a simple rule and regulation and get the same
beneficial result. I know that there are lots
of governors in this nation who wouldn't allow
this kind of intransigence in the bureaucracy
of any department to occur. I would suggest
that the man who resides on the second floor
now ought to take the same posture, implement
the rule and regulation, require the
information to be transmitted, and it can be
done quickly and easily.
I think -- again, I don't mean in
any way to criticize Senator Meier. He is
doing what his constituents want, which is
taking a good idea and implementing it. But
if it had been done by the Executive branch or
3685
by OCA, it probably could have become law when
Senator Holland had the bill years and years
ago, and the very problem that Senator Meier
is trying to rectify now would already be
taken care of.
Given that, Mr. President, I'm
going vote in favor of it, but I still think
this is exactly the kind of thing that ought
to be done through the Executive branch by
either its rule-making authority or by simply
a directive. And under those circumstances,
the legislation appears to be somewhat
superfluous if we had compliance by the
Executive branch and OCA with the reasonable
direction of this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, why do you rise?
SENATOR BRESLIN: On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, on the bill.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Briefly, I
commend Senator Meier. I think it's a very
simple, very direct, very good bill. It
points out what we've known for years, which
is that Family Court handles everything
3686
dealing with children, lives, problems, except
for one thing: divorce. And so many of those
ancillary matters that should be brought in
Family Court end up in Supreme Court, where
support collection doesn't exist, and snafus
happen. And when that happens, it hurts the
counties, it hurts the individuals involved,
because they get behind the 8 ball.
And I think court merger, which
would bring the Family Court, give it
jurisdiction over divorce, is the simplest
solution. And accordingly, I'll be voting for
this bill with the hopes that we'll continue
to look for court reform during this session.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Sampson, why do you rise?
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Mr. President, would the sponsor yield for one
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you yield to one question?
SENATOR MEIER: Certainly, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
3687
SENATOR SAMPSON: Mr. President,
I just want to find out, the notice
requirement, does it apply in those situations
where the award is not actually received yet,
although ordered but not actually received,
since we're only dealing with the notice of
requirement?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Mr.
President, the bill states the court shall
provide a copy of any direction of child
support payments to the support collection
unit.
SENATOR SAMPSON: An additional
question through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Meier, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR SAMPSON: What I'm trying
to find out is if in fact the court applies
the notice to the child support collection
unit, but if the award has not actually been
received by the recipient and therefore the
child support collection unit at some point in
time notifies public assistance to reduce the
3688
award, although the award has not actually
been received.
SENATOR MEIER: No, Mr.
President, this does -- this bill has nothing
to do and does not operate to reduce public
assistance awards.
SENATOR SAMPSON: No more.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, the Secretary will
read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please call up
Calendar 257.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
3689
257, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 849, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
the maintenance of assets.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, an explanation has been asked for by
the Acting Minority Leader, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Under the statutory and regulatory
scheme as established by this Legislature in
Article 5 of the Banking Law, foreign banking
organizations that do business in this state
are required to meet certain criteria. One of
the criteria found is what is known as a
pledgeable asset. That is located in Section
202-B of the Banking Law.
This bill would amend that section
so as to allow two other organizations that
are federally guaranteed programs -
specifically, the Student Loan Marketing
Association and the Federal Home Loan Bank -
to be among the list of banks that foreign
banking organizations can list as a pledgeable
asset.
In effect, Mr. President, what this
3690
bill does, it allows foreign banks to take
assets and put them in these programs so as to
improve the liquidity and the marketability of
these programs and therefore provide more
mortgages for New Yorkers and more student
loans for its students.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to a question from
Senator Paterson?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
other entity's assets are used by the
state-chartered foreign banks to fulfill the
5 percent requirement?
SENATOR BALBONI: Well, Senator,
see, I think it's listed in the bill itself.
But section 202-B, you have the Inter-American
Development Bank, which was added by chapter
in 1993, you have the African Development Bank
3691
which was added by a chapter in 1983, and you
have the International Finance Corporation,
again as added by 1993.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Balboni would yield for another
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to another question.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President, I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I got
the impression from reading this that the
state-chartered foreign banks are at a
disadvantage, in your opinion, when compared
with the federally chartered foreign banks in
terms of the entities and assets that they can
use in these types of situations. Is that
correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, that is my
understanding.
SENATOR PATERSON: If the Senator
3692
would continue to yield.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President, I continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Are the
federally chartered banks entitled to use
these same entities as we're setting forth to
accommodate the state-chartered foreign banks
in this legislation?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, I'm not aware of the list of
entities that the federally chartered banks
are available to invest in. Or consider it
pledgeable assets.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would yield for another
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to another question from
Senator Paterson?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President.
3693
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, in a
way, Senator, that's what I'm actually getting
to, is that apparently the disadvantage is
that there aren't enough institutional assets
that could provide the resources for greater
loans. And also they want to expand, I guess,
all of their resources, because there are only
a few assets that they can use to comply with
the edict that 5 percent of their holdings be
invested in -- be pledged to the
Superintendent of Banks to cover their
liabilities.
So what I'm trying to determine is
what is it that the federally chartered banks
have that the state chartered foreman banks
don't have that puts them at the disadvantage
that they're in. Is it size, or is it the
actual types of assets that they can use?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, the information that developed
this particular proposal comes from both the
industry, Prudential Bache Securities, who
feels that this is a restriction on the
3694
ability of foreign banks to have the proper
pledging of assets, and also the
Superintendent of the Banking Department of
the State of New York, who agrees that this is
in fact a detriment to foreign banks doing
business in the State of New York.
However, that is only one aspect of
the issue. The other aspect, which is frankly
why I've sponsored this legislation, is the
ability to drive more funds into programs such
as the Student Loan Program and the Affordable
Mortgage Program. And those two funds, as has
been explained to me, require great amounts of
liquidity, which will then provide greater
access for those loans. And that is the main
thrust behind this bill.
I understand the statement in my
memo of support, but I would urge that you
consider the beneficial use of the pledgeable
assets as opposed to the freeing up or making
the ability of foreign banks do business in
the state a little easier.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
3695
if Senator Balboni would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, Senator,
I understand exactly where you're going with
this. Because if they can use these other
assets from the Federal Home Loan Bank and
from Sallie Mae to fulfill this obligation, it
frees up some of the assets that they're
designating in that direction now. And
although it's not a particularly high
percentage, it's a large amount of money and
it can be utilized very beneficially by
residents of the state that you and I
represent.
I'm just trying to make sure that I
understand what the plight of these
institutions may be, and to make sure that
we're not providing something for some and not
doing the rest for others.
For instance, let's take just our
3696
state banks that are not foreign but are
chartered right here in the state. Are they
able to use these two entities to fulfill
their obligations in the same way?
SENATOR BALBONI: I do not know.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
SENATOR BALBONI: I continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, the Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'd just like
the Senator to reflect on whether or not he
agrees with my perception of it, which is that
there really is not the onus on the state to
make sure that liabilities are fulfilled. And
therefore, I don't know that the
Superintendent would need that same type of
pledge from our state banks as it would with
the foreign banks. Would you agree with that?
SENATOR BALBONI: It depends upon
from what perspective you speak.
I mean, there are many aspects of
the operation of a banking organization that
are of concern to our state. There is the
3697
concern about the availability to cover
liabilities. There is the concern as to
whether or not they are subject to in personam
jurisdiction for the purposes of a lawsuit.
There is concern as to what type of -- whether
or not they are charging rates that are
usurious.
There are several different aspects
of a banking organization's operation that
give concern, and therefore, that is why we
have developed the regulatory structure that
we have.
However, if you are particularly
concerned with the ability of the
Superintendent of Insurance to oversee or
monitor these types of investment, then I draw
your attention to page 2, line 12 of the
particular bill before us that states:
"Provided, however, that the Superintendent
may determine, in his or her discretion, that
any such bonds, notes, debentures, or other
obligations of the particular issuer are not
acceptable for purposes of meeting the
requirements of the subdivision."
That, in consultation with the
3698
Superintendent's office, has assured us and
them of their continued ability to provide for
the adequacy of these organizations in all
regards.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. If Senator Balboni would yield for
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I do so.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I don't think
my thought on the subject had covered the
number of areas that Senator Balboni just
covered.
I was thinking really more of
the -- this being the situation where it
applied to in personam jurisdiction and for
purposes of a lawsuit. I didn't think it
would be as difficult to accomplish in the
case of the state-chartered banks.
My question now just relates to the
3699
assets that are pledged to the Superintendent.
I wanted to know if the Senator believes that
those assets could be seized.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
let me correct a prior statement. I
apologize. I stated the Superintendent of
Insurance when I meant to say the
Superintendent of Banks. Let me just correct
that for the record.
As far as the seizure of assets,
that is a regulatory matter that is best
addressed by the Superintendent. I would
kindly and respectfully refer you to that
office as to their ability to seize any
assets.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
maybe the Senator will come with me and we'll
have a cup of coffee with the Superintendent.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
if the Senator has not met Elizabeth McCaul,
then I believe he is missing the opportunity
to meet one of the preeminent regulators in
this nation. Once again, the Governor sent us
3700
a wonderful nominee that we and yourself voted
for. She runs a great department. And she
has tremendous expertise in this particular
area.
So that's a little commercial break
in her behalf. But I think that she's got a
lot of good experience that could help on this
particular issue.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. I did vote for Superintendent
McCaul, have not had the opportunity to meet
her personally, but I will take the Senator up
on his advice.
And that concludes my questioning
for Senator Balboni.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will Senator
Balboni yield to a couple of questions, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to a question from
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President.
3701
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: First of all,
Senator Balboni, the almost decisive question
I'll hit you with first. Do you know whether
our former colleague Senator Franz Leichter
endorses this bill? Senator Franz Leichter,
I'll just point out to you, is member of the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Have you
consulted with him as to whether he would
support the securities of the entity that he
has governing authority over being used by
foreign but state-chartered banks to be used?
Do you know whether he would support this or
not?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
by way of response, I would say that knowing
of the vigilance of our former colleague, that
if Senator Franz Leichter had a problem with
this particular bill, that it would not have
passed 61 to nothing last year, it would have
in fact enjoyed some spirited debate last
year -- which it did not -- and it would have
found a troubled path before it.
No, I have not received a
3702
memorandum in opposition against this
particular measure. But I assume that, once
again, if he had a problem, he would have let
us know. So I assume he is in support of
this.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Now I want to turn Senator
Balboni's attention, if I can, just to the
actual text of this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to another question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This bill
goes beyond just Sallie Mae and the Home Loan
Bank Board, does it not?
SENATOR BALBONI: This bill goes
beyond Sallie Mae and -- what did you say?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
SENATOR BALBONI: -- and the
Federal Home Loan, does it not?
3703
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does it not.
SENATOR BALBONI: Does it not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: It includes
other entities, other than Sallie Mae and the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, would be
included -
SENATOR BALBONI: This particular
amendment?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes.
SENATOR BALBONI: If it includes
things that they guarantee, that's absolutely
correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No, my
question is, through you, Mr. President, I'd
like to call Senator Balboni's -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni -- excuse me, Senator Dollinger.
Senator Balboni, do you continue to
yield to another question from Senator
Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President, I continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This includes
3704
bonds, debentures, notes and other obligations
of unaffiliated issuers, in addition to those
of the Home Loan Bank Board and Sallie Mae.
My question is, who are the unaffiliated
issuers whose securities are going to be
pledged as assets in New York?
I understand your bill with respect
to Sallie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board. Those are federally guaranteed
securities. We know when our banks, foreign
but state-chartered banks, post those assets,
we know those assets are good, solid assets
that the depositors and the borrowers of
New York can rely on.
My question is, your bill at line
3, page 2, says -- and there's again a
drafting issue which I know is close to your
heart. It says: "Or bonds, notes, debentures
or other obligations of any unaffiliated
issuer." My question is, who are the
unaffiliated issuers? Is that a statutory
term of art? Is there another definition of
that in the banking bill? Or who are we
talking about?
SENATOR BALBONI: I do not know
3705
of specific entities. But again, what this
bill is trying to do is to try to get money
for these particular programs but also, in
addition, to let foreign banks operate with
greater flexibility.
I would also call your attention to
the lines that follow that statement. And it
says "provided that" -- this is line 4 -- "at
the time of such investment the obligation has
received the highest rating of an independent
rating service designated by the Banking
Board, or, if the obligation is rated by more
than one such service, the highest rating of
at least two such services."
And as I'm sure you know, the
rating services are among Moody's, Standard &
Poor's, and there's two others. Fitch and
Duff, and the last one, which I just had in
front of me -- well, I'll find it.
Anyway, so those rating agencies,
as you know, provide the wherewithal by which
any rating agency can determine whether or not
a particular investment is suitable for a
foreign banking investment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
3706
Mr. President, if we could just return to the
language -- if Senator Balboni would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to another question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I just want
to go back. Is the term "unaffiliated issuer"
defined anywhere in the Banking Law?
SENATOR BALBONI: I do not know.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Balboni
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do you know
whether the "unaffiliated issuer" language is
3707
included in the current language that applies
in the Banking Law to state-chartered banks,
domestic state-chartered banks?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, I do not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you continue do yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President, I do yield.
And if I may also include other
information, we do know that current
regulations allow investments in commercial
paper, provided that it has the highest rating
of every designating entity which has rated
it.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Balboni's
comment about the commercial paper. I'm
simply trying to find out who unaffiliated
issuers are. And the reason why I'm moving
down this road, Senator Balboni, I'll tell you
3708
where the end of the line is with my question.
There was a time when derivatives
were considered enormously profitable,
enormously profitable. Tremendous
investments, they were highly rated by
Moody's, they were highly rated by everyone.
And as we all know, Orange County, California,
put billions of dollars into them because they
were such wonderfully highly rated
investments. Two years later, after people
been indicted and the county had gone
bankrupt, they didn't appear to be the right
kind of investment.
My question to you is, we're
talking about unaffiliated issuers, which are
not federally banked. And we're talking about
at the time of such investment, they must be
highly rated. My question to you, Senator
Balboni, is what happens if after the time of
the investment the rating goes down? What
does the Banking Department do under your
bill?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you. The same thing that the
Department would do in any instance of any
3709
agency that is used for pledgeable assets.
And might I remind you, Senator,
that it was with your support last year of
this particular measure that I found the
wherewithal to move forward again this year,
because I knew that you had read and reviewed
the piece of legislation last year and that
you had supported it after full and fair
consideration.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, I did support it after full and
fair consideration. And I wondered at the
time -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, are you asking Senator Balboni to
yield for another question?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I will in a
second, Mr. President. I'm just going to
respond to -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No, I'll ask
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger.
3710
Senator Balboni, do you yield to a
question from Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I'd be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Okay.
Senator Dollinger, the Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I'd
like to call your attention to the bill again
and look at line number 8 on the bill.
SENATOR BALBONI: What page,
Senator?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This is page
2. It says "provided at the time of
investment the obligation has the highest
rating." Is it your opinion that under
current law the Banking Superintendent, after
approving the assets that were pledged, if the
investments deteriorate, he can then remove
his approval for the pledge of those assets?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
talking in the present, as opposed to any
other time, I would first of all say that she
may decide to remove the assets. And I am not
certain of her -- of the regulatory policies
adopted by the Department. I would be
3711
surprised if the Superintendent were not to
take that posture so as to prevent the loss of
capital for these pledgeable assets.
Having said that, you know that
there's an ongoing regulatory scheme. These
banks and agencies are audited once a year.
That is the best that we can do. We've never
had a problem, knock on wood, in this
situation. And therefore, this particular
language was again, once again, was supported
last year by this chamber, and it has also
been supported and developed in connection
with the private sector, the people who do
this as a living, that this is language that
everybody feels comfortable with.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you continue do yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator, I
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
3712
Mr. President. Senator Balboni, are you aware
that between the period of 1840 and 1932 there
were no difficulties in the pledged assets of
banks in this nation until we ran into a
substantial depression, and then the question
of what was pledged as securities for the
banks suddenly became the biggest issue in the
nation -- in fact, requiring the newly elected
president of the United States to actually
close the banks, every single bank in this
country for four days?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, I would respond by saying that
your concern appears to be not so much with
the language of my particular amendment but
rather with the structure of Article 5 of the
Banking Law as a whole.
And I would once again remind the
Senator, through the President, that you have
the ability to offer up any type of amendment
you might deem appropriate so as to prevent
this calamity at any time. However, I have
not seen any coming from your office.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni will
3713
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I do continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Balboni, you concede that I couldn't bring up
those amendments now even if I wanted to,
isn't that correct, given the current rules of
this body?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I concede that Senator Dollinger has the same
ability as anyone to propose an amendment in
what we refer to as legislation, and that
legislation can be brought before this body.
But I think that my answer was not
meant to be flip, but more pointed, in that
your concern again goes to the regulatory
structure of the Department. And though we
can always run around like Chicken Little and
say, particularly given the recent
political -- sorry, the economic climate, that
we need to take greater strides to try to
3714
provide the Department with oversight
responsibilities that will prevent these
calamities, nobody has come up with a better
mousetrap. This is a good regulatory scheme.
It has worked many, many years. The
Department, as far as I know and as far as the
private sector is concerned, is very vigilant.
We as a state have invested millions and
millions of dollars in this scheme. And
frankly, this is a wonderful discussion. I'm
sure everybody here who's not sleeping in the
chamber is fascinated by it. But this does
not really go to my particular amendment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Do you
continue to yield, Senator Balboni?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I continue to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'd like to
do one other little bit of legislative
exegesis.
SENATOR BALBONI: God bless you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The section
3715
of this bill between lines 3 and 7 talks about
unaffiliated issuers. Then, on the beginning,
of line 8 there's a big "or." And then it
says "such other assets." I assume these
assets are not those issued by unaffiliated
issuers, because we've carved a separate group
out of the statute.
And it says that with respect to
those other assets, the Banking Superintendent
is charged to figure out their aggregate
amount and determine their value at a
particular time and use that as the basis for
coming to a conclusion as to what in essence
is pledged for security.
My question, and it's a technical
drafting question, is does the Superintendent
have the same right of examining market value
when it's applied to those bonds, debentures,
and notes that are issued by an unaffiliated
issuer?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, the answer is yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So it doesn't
apply -- my concern, through you, Mr.
President, if Senator Balboni will continue to
3716
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So does this
bill say that -- there's Sallie Mae, which has
no limitation; it has the Home Loan Bank
Board, which has no limitation; it's got
unaffiliated issuers' notes or obligations;
and it's got other assets. And all of those
put together are subject to the market value
limitation that you describe's here.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, could the gentleman repeat the
question, please?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I would
usually, through you, Mr. President, ask the
court reporter to read it back, but I'll try
again.
I'm trying to figure out what
assets are involved and what limitations are
used by the Banking Department on the various
3717
types of assets. My understanding of your
bill is that if it's a Sallie Mae note, market
value of it doesn't apply, because it's
federally guaranteed. Those can be pledged.
If it's a Home Loan Bank Board obligation,
that is also pledged without limitation. We
don't look.
If they're from a particular
issuer, then the question is whether they are
the highest -- they've received the highest
rating. That's the limitation that the
Banking Board can impose on them to decide
whether they constitutes assets that may be
pledged.
Then there are other assets. I
assume it can include the gamut of everything
from physical assets to real property, and
that those assets are subject to a market
value analysis by the Banking Superintendent.
Is that correct, there are four categories of
assets that the Banking Superintendent will be
able to look at for purposes of pledging?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, the difficulty of this particular
debate -- and it's very technical in nature,
3718
and many of my colleagues want me to simply
say yes or no in response -- is that I
disagree with much of the premise underlying
your question, because you throw in ancillary
language that I do not agree with. You assume
that you can pledge these assets without
limitation. Does that mean that there's no
monitoring of those assets? In which case
your assumption is wrong.
And the overall comment, Senator
Dollinger, is that this is current law we are
discussing. And I would object, Mr.
President, to having a discussion on this
floor of current law unless there is some
connection to this particular measure that
involves current law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just in response to Senator
Balboni, this isn't current law. This isn't
my bill. Everything that's underlined in here
has been the subject of my questions.
I'm simply trying to establish,
under current law there's a market value test
required for all these assets. But however,
what your bill does, Senator Balboni, is it
3719
carves out three exceptions. One is for
Sallie Mae, which I agree with. One is for
the Home Loan Bank Board, which I also agree
with, federally backed securities. They could
clearly be pledged by foreign banks who are
chartered in New York. I don't have a problem
with that.
What I'm concerned about are these
unaffiliated issuers. We don't know who they
are, and I'm trying to figure out under what
tests are we giving the banking board to
decide whether they're assets of the same
caliber as federally backed securities from
the Home Loan Bank Board or Sallie Mae? Are
they or aren't they? I'm willing to back the
Home Loan Bank Board and Sallie Mae. I'm not
willing to let anybody put derivatives as
pledges for our banking.
And I want to find out, is this
designed to lead to speculative investments?
Even though they may be highly rated at the
time they're pledged, but they can
significantly decline in value, and then we
lose the benefit of the current law and of
your amendment.
3720
Am I correct in that analysis?
SENATOR BALBONI: Ah, the
question. I was waiting for that.
Mr. President, through you, I
appreciate the gentleman trying to clarify his
question for me. I would again point him to
lines 4, 5, 6, and 7 of bill which talks about
a separate rating by agencies for these
unaffiliated investments. This is a separate
requirement that does not follow the other
assets.
And I would also, once again, point
to the ability of the Superintendent to
oversee and monitor all aspects of these
investments through the additional language
that we provide in lines 12 through 15.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill, briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate,
as I always do, my sword fights with Senator
Balboni about the meaning of these bills and
what they are intending to accomplish. But I
think the best thing we can do to understand
3721
what this bill is really all about is that in
my opinion, this is not really a Fannie Mae -
or a Sallie Mae or a Home Loan Bank Board
bill. This is really a bill about
unaffiliated issuers.
And quite frankly, if you look at
this section of the statute that Senator
Balboni is amending, it's an amazing piece of
work. Because what it says is here's what you
can pledge as assets, the following: Notes,
debentures, other obligations of the United
States or any agent or instrumentality of it
or guaranteed by the United States or of this
state or city, county, town, village, school
district, or instrumentality. We're going to
allow them to pledge assets that are in
essence backed by the full faith and credit of
the biggest obligor in the world, the United
States, or any one of our towns or cities, all
of which we know.
Or, and it has a series of the -
the Inter-American Development Bank, the Bank
for Reconstruction and Development. These are
all Grade A securities. These are the best we
can get. But then Senator Balboni's bill
3722
says, well, we want to add Sallie Mae, which
again is a great thing to do. Federally
banked. Put the money in the bank, we got it.
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, put the money in
the bank, bank it.
But then we have unaffiliated
issuers. We don't know who they are. It's
not a term of art used in the statute as
defined. I don't know who they are. It says
provided that at the time of such investment.
All right. When they're Grade A investments,
they're receiving the highest rating. It
doesn't say what happens when the value of the
investment goes down. It doesn't say what the
history of the investment analysis is. Was it
a Class C investment that goes up to an A?
You can toss it in the account and pledge it.
I'm not sure I want that to happen.
And then, as drafted, it suggests
there's this other group of assets which in
current statute that says the Superintendent
is supposed to do a market analysis of those,
quote, other assets. But he doesn't do the
same market analysis of these, quote,
unaffiliated issuers.
3723
And then, even more confusing, we
come down to the final paragraphs in lines 12
through 14, which Senator Balboni has referred
to in response to my questions, in which he
says, This is new. This says the
Superintendent may determine, in his or her
discretion, that such bonds, notes,
debentures, or obligations of a particular
issuer -- what does the phrase "particular
issuer" mean? -- are not acceptable for
purposes of meeting the requirements of this
section. That's new law.
That in essence says, as a catchall
the Superintendent can make some decision
based on her own discretion.
I'm actually going to vote against
this bill. I'm going do break with the -
sometimes they've said that the hobgoblin of
strong -- foolish consistency is the hobgoblin
of strong minds. I'm going to break with my
foolish consistency in the past when I voted
for this bill without realizing that we were
chartering unaffiliated issuers with
questionable investment backgrounds with too
much discretion.
3724
I like the idea that we have
required that only assets federally pledged or
issued by entities in this state will
constitute security for our banks. I think
it's a mistake to invite unaffiliated issuers,
whoever they may be, to be a part of it. I
think that's a mistake, Mr. President.
I'll vote in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will the Senator yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield for a question from
Senator Onorato?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Balboni, without getting into the
technicalities that you fellows have been
involved in here, my concern is with the
5 percent that you're able to use these new
assets for.
3725
In the event -- you brought up a
good question. In the event that the
securities that are brought in go below the
5 percent, for whatever reason, what must they
then do to bring that up to the 5 percent
threshold?
SENATOR BALBONI: I do not know.
SENATOR ONORATO: There's nothing
in the bill that requires further assets be
turned over for security -
SENATOR BALBONI: No.
SENATOR ONORATO: -- if the
current securities fall below the 5 percent?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, there is
not, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr.
President, if the sponsor would yield for -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
3726
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I appreciate your discussion with
Senator Dollinger, and it does focus us in on
a disturbing issue related to the quality of
securities that may be authorized under this
bill to meet the 5 percent requirement. I
must say, though, that I'm not sure I read
this section the same way Senator Dollinger
did. And I think that the question relates to
whether or not the -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, could I -- I apologize. Could I
ask you to suspend, and Senator Balboni, for
just a moment. The stenographer has a little
problem with the equipment that we need to
take care of. It'll take maybe two minutes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No
problem.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, I believe you asked for the
floor. You wanted Senator Balboni to yield
for a question.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
SENATOR BALBONI: I yield.
3727
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: As I was
saying, I'm not sure I agree -- with all due
respect for my colleague from Monroe County's
skills at exegesis, if not accurate
recollection of famous quotations, because
it's small minds, not strong minds. I'm not
sure I read this the same way he does. And I
was wondering, Senator Balboni, if you could
help me clarify this.
It seems to me that the key issue
he was focused in on is what is the regulatory
framework for two categories of securities.
One is the category referred to in lines 3 to
4: bonds, notes, debentures, or other
obligations of any unaffiliated issuer. And
the second is, down on lines 8 and 9, such
other assets as the Superintendent shall, by
rule or regulation, permit.
As far as I can tell, the
sentence -- the phrases that follow that apply
to all of these securities. It seems to me
that the market test for an aggregate amount
applies to the bonds, notes, debentures of
3728
unaffiliated issuers as well as to other
assets. Is that correct, Senator?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you. I agree with Senator
Schneiderman. I disagree with Senator
Dollinger. For the record.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Oh. Thank
you. Through you, Mr. President, if the
sponsor will continue to yield.
SENATOR BALBONI: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And it
seems to me, then, that the critical question
here, if we are concerned about this issue of
unaffiliated issuers, is what in fact has the
Superintendent done with regard to this power
bestowed under the statute to make this sort
of determination? Have any rules or
regulations been promulgated by the
Superintendent under this statutory authority
that exists now?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
3729
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And what
do those rules and regulations provide?
SENATOR BALBONI: Don't know.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Huh. So
with regard to the issue of the issue or the
problem of the unaffiliated issuer -- because,
I mean, this is not a small problem, as
Senator Dollinger, I think, has accurately
raised. It is not clear to me from this that
there's any limitation on the issuer being a
foreign issuer. I mean, there's no limitation
in the language of this bill. This could
refer to high yield bonds. This could refer
to a lot of different instruments that may -
certainly do not rise to the level of the
federally backed obligations and other
obligations that are in the statute as it's
currently drafted.
So the question, then, is shouldn't
we try and at least determine what the
regulatory framework is for these before
passing such a statute? I'm not sure I
understand how we can vote on authorizing
these foreign banks to have their security in
the form of obligations of unaffiliated
3730
issuers without understanding what criterion,
if any, is to be applied.
Can you give us anything to
illuminate this issue? Because this covers a
lot of territory.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, the only illumination I have is
your vote on this bill last year. You voted
for it. And I'm sure that what comforted you
in that vote, after having read it
extensively, was the 120 days for the bill to
become effective. And during that time that
you would be very vigilant in making sure that
the Superintendent's office exercised its full
authority to monitor just who would be in the
category of unaffiliated agencies, and
therefore make sure that this law would work.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well,
through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I
appreciate the fact that you're illuminated by
3731
my votes, and will do my best to -
SENATOR BALBONI: Just this vote.
Just this vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: -- to
light your way in the future.
Just this one vote?
SENATOR BALBONI: Just this one
vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: All right.
Then you live in a dark world, I guess.
The question, though, that I have
here is, you know, as Senator Dollinger has
pointed out, this is something where closer
reading and more discussion may actually open
up possibilities that we didn't realize when
reviewing the bill last year. And I'm
certainly wont to admit that I sometimes
change my mind on issues or matters of this
kind.
The difficulty, I think, is that it
would be very easy -- and just hypothetically,
if this bill passed again and is not enacted
into a law, it doesn't seem to be that
difficult, and it's something that I would
suggest and wondered if you could look at, to
3732
provide some language providing some sort of
guidance or some sort of standard for these
unaffiliated issuers.
Is that a possibility should this
legislation return to us yet again?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I will take that under advisement.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Senator,
do you know how the 5 percent -- how the
designation of 5 percent as the amount to be
deposited was reached?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, I do not.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Are there
any other states -- it's my understanding that
the assets of foreign banking corporations
have expanded significantly over the last
3733
decade. And I'm wondering about, as long as
we're updating this bill, if the 5 percent
rule still applies. Are you aware of any
other states that have increased their
requirement in recent years in response to the
expansion of assets?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you. You and I, Senator Schneiderman,
had a conversation prior to the discussion of
this particular piece of legislation in
reference -
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: That was
the one where you talked to me about your
colleagues? Oh, no. Okay.
SENATOR BALBONI: -- with
reference to Colorado. Not colleagues,
Colorado, as being one of the states that has
a greater percentage, I believe 10 percent.
And it was your question to me at the time,
shouldn't we adopt the same policy.
And my only response to that would
be name the number of foreign banks that there
are in Colorado versus the number of foreign
banks that are there are in New York. As you
know, our state enjoys the reputation and the
3734
de facto crown of the financial empire of the
world. Not just of the nation, of the world.
And perhaps that is due in some part to our
regulatory structure and our requirements as
to the 5 percent. Who knows why foreign banks
come here and not to Colorado? Maybe it's
because the 5 percent, the 5 percent
requirement for the pledgeable assets. I
don't know.
But that certainly seems to be
consistent with some of the other statutory
enactments that we have provided for in the
past.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, on the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: It seems
to me that this is an important change in our
regulatory structure. And the bill is -- you
know, I think it's actually a pretty good
piece of legislation. I do have a concern
that we could fairly easily set some sort of
standards for these mysterious unaffiliated
3735
issuers.
As we're standing here today, we
don't know what the regulatory structure is,
if any, that the Superintendent has put in
place for making the assessments called for in
this statute. There's a lot of discretion
conferred on the Superintendent, as well there
should be in a situation like this.
I do think that a little more
guidance would be called for in this statute,
but I think that overall it does seem to be a
prudent scheme, and I am mindful of Senator
Balboni's appeal to the world that we remain
as the capital of finance, and so I am going
to vote in favor of the bill. In spite of
Senator Dollinger's persuasive if slightly
off-center exegesis.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
sponsor would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
3736
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, I
listened to your explanation and it seemed to
make a lot of sense to me. And I know that in
the Banking Committee, Senator Farley tells us
all the time how we have so many foreign banks
located here. And since this legislation
would seem to be helpful in making sure that
we at least keep what we have or maybe even
attract more, why won't the Assembly pass
this?
SENATOR BALBONI: Well, Mr.
President, through you, I very much appreciate
your question. I have been trying to work -
my staff and I have been trying to work with
the Assembly Banking Committee. I have
discussed with Assemblywoman Aurelia Greene,
and I have tried to put this on her A list of
bills. We are -- it's still early in the
session, Senator, and I am hopeful that we can
have this reach the light of day.
But I'll tell you this, Senator
Stachowski, and I'm very sincere in my
request. A letter from you or a phone call
3737
from yourself with your expertise in this area
would be very helpful to the chairwoman of the
Assembly Banking Committee, and I would ask
that you consider doing that.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I appreciate
that warm and fuzzy answer, but I was looking
more in terms of did they give you any reasons
why they wouldn't pass this last year.
Because we passed it unanimously last year.
And I was just wondering if, in the course of
your conversations at the end of session when
you were trying to get your legislation passed
and this bill leaped out at you as being the
wonderful piece of legislation that it is,
what was their response to you as to why they
weren't -- did it fall through the cracks, was
there some part of the bill didn't like, et
cetera, et cetera.
I don't mean to make it shorter,
but I know that you've answered a lot of
questions, and I just thought maybe they gave
3738
you a reason or two why they wouldn't pass it.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, the silence was deafening. Don't
know why.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski, on the bill.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Unlike
Senator Dollinger, I voted for it last year, I
plan to vote for this legislation again this
year. I wish I knew why the Assembly didn't
pass it, but I don't. I can't base all my
opposition on an answer that I didn't get.
So with the fact that we do have
the most foreign banks -- I don't know what
they have in California, but I know that in
New York we have a lot and that it's always
being mentioned in Banking Committee. And
since this doesn't seem to have any real
downside that I can see, especially since the
sponsor wasn't even told why they wouldn't
pass it, I will continue to support this bill,
and I see no reason why I shouldn't.
Thank you.
3739
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I just rise to strongly disagree
with my colleague Senator Schneiderman and to
disagree with the sponsor as well.
Senator Schneiderman says we've got
to do this to stay the capital of the
financial world. I would suggest that just
the opposite is true. The reason why we're
the financial capital of the world is because
everybody knows that our banks have to pledge
assets that are the best assets in the world,
those backed by the full faith and credit of
the United States of America. And I would
suggest to all those who think having
unaffiliated issuers' assets be pledged to
banks as part of their security, think of all
the dotcoms that are were highly rated stocks
a year ago. Would you like to have your bank
pledging the assets of dotcoms?
I'll use an example quite close to
home. I would suggest to Senator Balboni,
it's unfortunate for Rochester, New York, but
3740
last year at this time, Xerox Corporation was
selling for $70 a share. In December, it was
4 and a quarter, $4.25 a share. Is that the
kind of asset that we want pledged as security
for our banks?
I think that opening the door to
this free enterprise system will actually
reach just the opposite goal that Senator
Schneiderman suggests. It will make our
banking system more subject to speculation
rather than less, it will decrease the world's
confidence in New York's banking system, and
it will be a potential erosion of our
preeminence. The reason why we're there is
because you know, if you bank in New York,
your money is sound.
If we allow unaffiliated issuers,
even under the restrictions of the Banking
Department, to enter into the pledging of
assets, I think we step away from being the
world's financial capital. Banking business,
as Senator Farley knows, is built on
dependability. The most dependable assets are
those guaranteed by the taxpayers of this
nation and of this state. And any retreat
3741
from that, in my judgment, is a serious,
serious policy departure and a potential
serious mistake.
I would urge everybody to think
about this more than once, more than twice.
And even if you did vote in favor of it last
year in the stampede of 61 votes presumably in
the late-night hours or in the later part of
June, I would ask everybody to reconsider and
take another look at it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect 120 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote. What a
surprise.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly,
Mr. President.
I left one thing out. And that is,
3742
I think that every fiscal conservative would
stand up and say we don't want dotcom stocks
pledged as security for our banks. We don't
want derivatives, we don't want all these
affiliated issuers. Even if some rating
service someday says, God, they're a great
investment, dotcoms were a great investment a
year ago. I would suggest that a true fiscal
conservative, someone really interested in the
future of banks, rethink this legislation.
I vote no, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Stachowski, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Well, I
wasn't really going to explain my vote. But
since I'm voting yes, and Senator Dollinger
railed that they're going to use dotcom stock
as collateral, I would think that the Banking
Department in New York would be very selective
of which items they would let them use as
collateral. And I doubt very much that they
would let them use items of the nature that
Senator Dollinger mentioned that would have
3743
questionable resources.
And I have trust in the regulatory
ability of our Banking Commissioner and that
Department, so that I will continue to vote
yes in spite of the all of the histrionics of
my good friend and colleague Senator
Dollinger.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
to explain my vote.
There are many foreign banks in the
16th Senate district from all over the world.
And we're very proud of the stability of these
banks, and they represent a true United
Nations of the banking world. And on their
behalf, I'm delighted to support Senator
Balboni's bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Balboni, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
3744
just very briefly, to clean up the debate.
I am surprised at the inconsistency
of one Senator's vote this year. But I am
surprised by that same Senator's inconsistency
on the issue of financial institution
solvency. Because in this session there is a
bill sponsored by that unnamed certain Senator
who is changing his vote today that actually
lowers the requirements for banks from
$6 million to $2 million, but only in
Rochester. So apparently it's okay for
everybody else, but not for people in
Rochester.
Now, I'm not going to say who the
Senator is. But it's -- so as he excoriates
us for our votes in favor of this bill, you
might want to take a look at S970 and see just
a little bit of inconsistency.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote
yea.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Even though I'm
not the aforementioned Senator, since I'm from
3745
New York City, I do want to say that the
reason that I am voting in the negative is I
think that New York is in many ways -- I was
going to say the only game in town. But I do
believe that foreign banks are going to want
to have a presence in New York. And I think
fiscally the responsible thing to do is to not
change this requirement.
And I had another point which I
just -- which just went out of my head, but
give me a moment and it will come back in.
I guess it's gone forever. But it
was almost as good as the other reasons why
I'm voting no on this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane will be recorded in the negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
2. Senators Dollinger and Duane recorded in
the negative.
The bill is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate conference of the
3746
Majority in the Majority Conference Room, and
the Senate will stand at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate conference of the Majority in the
Majority Conference Room.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
would you please recognize Senator Mendez.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, I
will, Senator.
Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you, Mr.
President. There will be an immediate
Democratic conference in Room 314.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Minority Conference
in the Minority Conference Room.
The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 3:06 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:10 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask the members to find their
3747
places, staff to find their places.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar 296, by
Senator Marchi.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
296, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 6816, an act to amend
Chapter 395 of the Laws of 1978.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marchi, an explanation of Calendar Number 296
has been requested by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR MARCHI: I invite your
noticing that the -- this has been substituted
for -- with the Eric Vitaliano bill, but on
the same subject matter. And the bill extends
the ban on the storage and transportation of
liquid natural gas and liquefied natural or
petroleum gas within the City of New York
until the year 2003, April 1.
Back in 1973, there was a disaster
3748
not attributable at that time to either one of
those items, but the building that it was
contained was supposed to receive liquid
natural gas and petroleum. There were some
solvents in there. But there were 40 people
killed in an internal explosion within the
tank. The tank just imploded, and 40 people
were killed. There are still -- there were
families throughout Staten Island that lost
loved ones in that explosion. And with it, of
course, the concept of having liquefied
natural gas or petroleum became abhorrent.
And there were stories that if it
ever exploded with that material in it, it
would have killed people in the path going
into Manhattan and over into Brooklyn, and the
casualties would have been measured in terms
of tens of thousands.
So this is whether it's storing it
or whether it's the tracking plans for
bringing in liquefied natural gas or petroleum
has been subject to a moratorium. And you may
answer why in 1973 -- we did pass legislation
in 1978 because it was inconceivable that
anybody would propose to bring it back in
3749
again. But then talk began to be revived that
it was not the fault of natural gas and that
it would serve a useful public purpose in
having this back. This struck a raw nerve in
Staten Island, and as a result, of course, it
became wholly unacceptable that it be used for
that ultimate purpose.
So we have been passing bills on a
two-year basis. And to pass it indefinitely,
we don't know what technology may bring into
play. And -- but it would seem that it's
appropriate to do this. We have never had in
any difficulty in passing this legislation in
either house. As a matter of fact, the
Assembly Bill is before us, having been
substituted -- my own bill being substituted
for Mr. Vitaliano's bill.
But we've passed it regularly, and
I would hope that it meets with your
approbation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I don't want to minimize the gravity of
concern that we should all have, it being
3750
nearly 30 years after the disaster that
occurred that killed 40 people in this state.
And similarly, just the issue of the transport
and the housing of this type of substance
would be something that we should always take
very seriously in the shadow of that disaster.
So if my colleague and friend from
Staten Island would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marchi, do you yield to a question?
The Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm a
little surprised that if the event took place
in 1973 -- I thought it had taken place in
'71, but -
SENATOR MARCHI: No, we passed
the first bill on this in 1978. Because talk
had subsided and it didn't appear to be an
issue anymore. Then when it burst into full
force again on the assumption that that was
being planned, the first of the bills went in.
And it's been -- I agree with you,
it's a non sequitur. It wasn't caused by the
evil that we're designating in the
legislation. But its specter remains, and I
3751
don't think anybody would dispute that,
including my friend and my companion
legislator in Brooklyn, Senator Gentile.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
SENATOR MARCHI: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, in
1988 there was the study that showed that a
lot of technological achievements had been
reached in the area of housing this natural
gas substance, such as it is, that it
dissipates into the air with greater ease,
it's actually safer than the gas that we use
in our homes, and it's easier to transport
than it was.
So there being a lifting of the
moratorium in every other area of the state,
do you think it's necessary to keep it in New
York City and extend it for another two years?
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, you know,
it's a perfectly legitimate argument that you
3752
make. But it's a very chancy proposition.
And we have never had any broad-scale
legitimate auspices that have been supported
by governmental agencies, regardless of
politics. That they all shrink back in horror
when they mention the availability of that
substance.
And that probably explains why we
are on a short stay of two years rather than
extending it. There may be a technology that
resolves this to the satisfaction and the
accommodation of policymakers for the public.
But so far, we haven't had it. And I assume
that my colleague Senator Gentile has
experienced the same phenomenon.
And whenever they start going not
possibilities that go with the tracking and
mapping of approaches, the same fears arise,
and they rear their ugly head, and we have to
acknowledge their presence. And it's a
reassurance to the public.
How long this should go on, I don't
know when we reach the point where we can
safely assure the public in the City of New
York. I hate to think what would happen if
3753
you had an occasion of even minor,
comparatively speaking, results within the
city itself, where it's crowded. It's just
not an acceptable -- we have not had a
rationally acceptable reason for distancing
ourselves from this policy.
And that's why we're doing it on a
two-year basis. I admit that this is a
difficulty. But we're not foreclosing it
forever. And circumstances change. That
gives us an adequate basis to change and adapt
our policy to reflect that reality. And then,
of course, I would not be against it. But
we've had governors come and go and people
come and go from both parties and no one has
ever tried to disabuse us -- not that they
should have. Maybe they couldn't.
But it was a frightful experience,
and one that has not been forgotten in my home
community, that's for sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, please excuse an interruption.
Senator Skelos, why do you rise?
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be na
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
3754
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:
Immediate meeting of the Senate Finance
Committee, immediate meeting of the Senate
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room, Room 332.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I am most apt to take the word of my colleague
from Staten Island who understands this issue
far more comprehensively than I do.
But I wanted to suggest to him that
this is a two-year period that could become
very interesting in terms of the energy
situation here in New York, with what's gone
on in California, and we discussed that a
little earlier today with Senator Rath. I
wanted to suggest that the LNG fuel is a
reasonable alternative when you have peak fuel
demand, as opposed to what would have to be
utilized if we don't use LNG fuel, which would
be these diesel-powered situations which are
very dangerous and also pollutants to a
certain degree.
So that being the case, and when
3755
you add to that that there are three plants in
and around the New York City area -- one in
Long Island, one in Astoria, and one in
Greenpoint, Brooklyn, that are operating very
safely with the LNG fuel, I wonder if this
extender would not put us in a difficult
situation should we start to have some of the
peak demands for energy that have been the
case in other areas of the country.
And if Senator Marchi would yield
for another question.
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: My question
is, do you think that this particular two-year
extender might become very critical if we
begin to have those problems? In other words,
this could be a real crucial two-year period
if there's a peak demand for fuel and LNG is
not an alternative we could turn to and the
alternative that we do turn to may be already
agreed to be more harmful.
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, my counsel
reminded me of the fact that the Fire
Department has this under active
consideration, and they are studying
3756
alternatives.
But you can understand the
reluctance that we have, Senator Gentile and
myself, to gamble on something like this
unless we have definitive and dispositive
provision for the use of those facilities.
These facilities, it looks like an inverted
melon that's been cut in half. Maybe it's the
type of the construction. But the only thing
that exploded in there, with 40 deaths, was
some solvents that exploded because of some
mystical interaction. It wasn't involved at
all, at all.
So it's a very tenuous subject to
raise. If the Fire Department -- pursuant to
your suggestion, I will ask. But certainly we
would require some very exacting -- because
they're supposed to furnish us with rules and
regulations for the safe operation of the
facility. Certainly we don't want to risk it.
I mean, I don't think anybody in this chamber
would. It was a ghastly event, and we don't
want to see its reoccurrence.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, you still have the floor.
3757
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I think Senator Marchi certainly
satisfactorily addressed the questions. But
I'm somewhat mystified by why we would be
thinking in terms of depriving us of this
alternative that we might need. We really
don't know what will transpire in the next two
years. Hopefully we'll pass a budget in that
time.
And the inability to use that fuel,
when Senator Marchi is pretty sure that it
wasn't even really the catalyst for the
disaster in 1973, and when the legislative
commission in 1997 and 1998 pretty much
directed us that we don't need this
moratorium, we don't have it in any other part
of the state, and where there were three
exceptions, they've operated with a high
degree of certainty that there will not be any
harm, I just don't see what would not be
prudent about extending -- I mean about not
extending this time period. Particularly in
this particular biennial period where who
knows what energy needs our state would have.
3758
So that's my thought on the issue,
Mr. President.
SENATOR MARCHI: I have no
reluctance to considering other alternatives.
But if it includes the utilization of that
facility, you perhaps might want to ask
another Paterson how he felt about it at the
time, you know.
But I know, I've gone through the
same mental cogitation over it myself. But we
certainly consider anything at this point that
would jeopardize -- because we're talking
about thousands of deaths. We're talking
about an awesome -- you know, the only thing
comparable is a nuclear explosion of a kiloton
bomb, you know.
We're dealing with a chancy
proposition, one I don't think anybody here
is -- will seriously entertain and validate.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, why do you rise?
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will the sponsor yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marchi, do you yield to a question?
3759
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Marchi,
one of the sitings of the liquid tanks is
located directly in my district, in Astoria,
adjacent on the Con Edison property. And
there's contemplated now with the deregulation
that Orion and another agency intend siting
some more generating plants in a very, very
close proximity to the current site of that
liquid nitrogen storage tank.
And, I mean, I've passed it many,
many times, and the tank appears to be
submerged partially underground, and it has a
large mound of dirt above it. And I notice
that during -- since the explosion that took
place with 40 lives, that they have required
different types of materials to be utilized
now.
Do you have any information that
could satisfy me regarding did they do
anything further of the existing plants that
are in operation today to comply further with
safety regulations to safeguard the current
3760
plants that were built in a close proximity to
that tank?
SENATOR MARCHI: In response for
the Senator's request, I don't know what the
mix is with yours. Is it petroleum or natural
gas that you're on? I don't know where it
originates from. Because this could -- this
prohibits its inception or its way from 1973
or '78, whenever we passed the bill.
The Fire Department is examining,
and they have not finalized, if I can use the
term, the conditions under which we could
consider such a proposition.
So -- but I'd be very concerned.
And I'd certainly support you if you have
something positive to impart to us on that
problem.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: If the Senator
will continue to yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marchi, do you yield?
The Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Basically what
3761
I'm concerned about right now, is that I
understand that most of these have had pretty
safe records so far. But what we're dealing
with now is a completely different set of
circumstances. In view of the fact that there
are two or possibly three additional
generating plants being contemplated being
built on the very site that this current
liquid nitrogen tank is currently located,
what my concern is, is will this have an
additional safety factor now applied to that
tank with the operation of three additional
plants in very, very close proximity to this
liquid nitrogen plant storage complex?
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, if the
Senator can elicit an expression from the
people who have validated this process. But I
could suggest that they check with the Fire
Department, because they are still working on
that.
The state would have to approve on
the question of the validation of the plant
that you're speaking of, new plants coming on
line. But the Fire Department has a
responsibility which has not been addressed,
3762
what are the conditions under which it would
be safe.
So I'd rather be very careful until
its validity has been established definitively
disposed of. Because otherwise, you could
have a terrible tragedy.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you,
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes. Thank
you, Mr. President. On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: In 1973, 1973,
we had 40 people killed in Staten Island
because of the explosion at the LNG tank
located there on Staten Island. That was
1973, 40 people killed.
I agree with Senator Marchi,
there's no sense in taking chances here. If
we had 40 people killed in 1973, we in the
last ten years in Staten Island have grown by
17 percent in the last ten years. In fact,
3763
we're not only the fastest growing county in
the City of New York, we are the fastest
growing county in the State of New York. And
maybe we shouldn't announce that publicly,
Senator Marchi, but that is the fact, we are
the fastest growing county in the State of
New York.
And if in ten years we have grown
by 17 percent, can you imagine the increased
density we have had if you compare it to the
population of Staten Island of 1973? And
should an accident of this type ever happen
again, should we not pass this bill, I can
just imagine the multiplicity of deaths on
Staten Island that would occur because of the
increased density that we now have on this
island. 443,000 people on Staten Island, in
the latest census numbers.
So I believe -- unlike some other
colleagues, I believe that this is a prudent
measure for the people of Staten Island and
certainly something that is worthy of passage.
Now, for example, Senator
Marcellino had a bill earlier this year that
removes some regulations and I believe a
3764
moratorium on LNG tanks in his area of the
state. And I supported that bill. I
supported that bill because, in deference to
Senator Marcellino, he knows more about his
area than any one of us. And if he felt that
that was the right thing to do for his area,
then I supported him on that.
But I believe, Senator Marchi, you
above anybody knows Staten Island more than
anyone in this house, myself included. And I
believe that you are correct in estimating
that this is a prudent measure to take. This
is a prudent measure for Staten Islanders, a
prudent measure for anybody in the City of
New York.
So I agree with you. I will vote
in favor of this bill. And on behalf of the
people of Staten Island, I want to thank you,
Senator Marchi.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if I could just have a moment, would Senator
Gentile yield for a question?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, I will,
3765
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator Gentile, I'll explain it to
you the same way I did to Senator Marchi, that
it would be very insensitive of any of us to
minimize the effects of that tragedy in 1973
and not to take all steps to try to eliminate
that type of thing from happening again.
Senator Marchi indicated earlier
that it really wasn't the LNG fuel that caused
that horrible catastrophe. My understanding
is that it was the mylar lining in the tanks.
And when the workers were going in to clean
the tanks, there was a horrific explosion, but
it only killed individuals who were standing
in and around the tank. It wasn't as if there
was an explosion that injured people a longer
way away from that, as in a kind of a nuclear
power plant explosion.
And so my question to you is, does
the technological improvements just in LNG
fuel use, even since 1973, and also the
3766
understanding of how to operate those tanks
impress you at all that since this has been
established around the state and there's a
moratorium only in New York City and there are
three exceptions to that in the New York City
area -- one being in Long Island, one that
Senator Onorato referred to in Astoria,
Queens, and one in Greenpoint, Brooklyn -
that, you know, perhaps it's time to lift the
moratorium? Or does the haunting memory of
what happened that day and what it did to that
community still prohibit us from really taking
any action to restore that plant to its prior
operating status?
SENATOR GENTILE: Well, Senator
Paterson, I don't believe that -- and I'm not
saying that we will never, ever restore that
plant to its usage. And I believe Senator
Marchi indicated the same. And that's why he
has made this a two-year extension every two
years, so that we can take a look at this
issue on a regular basis.
The fact remains, Senator Paterson,
that there were certain dangers present at
that site in 1973. I have not investigated
3767
the site to see if those dangers are still
present or not. Even with the improvements in
the handling of liquefied natural gas, I still
believe in deferring to Senator Marchi's
judgment and the judgment of my colleagues in
the Assembly -- Assemblyman Vitaliano, who is
sponsoring this in the Assembly -- that this
still poses a danger to the people living in
and near that tank in Staten Island.
So will it ever be in use again?
I'm not sure, Senator. I'd be willing to
entertain that in the future with some hard
evidence; that is, the safe operating plant.
Because it may be different than the other
plants that are still in operation today. I
don't have the facts on that.
But I'm willing now at this point,
because of the horrific accident that did
occur there, to defer to the prudent side of
this and say that we need to at least continue
this moratorium for another two years and then
examine that question once again at the end of
that period or during that period.
So the answer is maybe in the
future, but not now.
3768
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
would my distinguished colleague, who -- this
is my second tour of being a colleague of
Senator Gentile's. I hope that that weighs in
his decision to yield for another question.
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, if we
were in the courtroom together, as we had been
earlier on, I would defer to a question then,
and I'll defer to a question now.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I think
the answer was yes, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. In the end, I think that it's the
best cooperation to defer to Senator Marchi's
judgment, which has always been impeccable in
this chamber, and to that of Senator Gentile.
I just want to feel assured that we're doing
the right thing here.
And I want to take up the time
element with Senator Gentile. As I said to
Senator Marchi, there are a number of energy
crises in different states, highlighted by
3769
what's going on in California, in a 46 percent
increase in the rates for power in that state
implemented just yesterday. There's a lot of
discussion as to whether or not New York could
have that same problem. We've been assured by
a lot of officials around the state that we
won't have the problem. But it certainly was
of a magnitude that it was discussed in the
past couple of days.
And in the next two years, the LNG
fuel would be considered by most experts in
the area to be preferable than to the
diesel-powered fuel, which is known to be a
hazard, has been known to create waste, is
harmful. And if we were to reach a point
where we needed alternatives during peak
energy periods, certainly the availability of
LNG fuel in as many plants as possible in
New York City would probably not be in dispute
that it's a more apt alternative to the
alternative of using diesel power.
So my question to you is, are
you -- can you assure me that we can take that
risk, that the greater risk is a repeat
tragedy such as the one that was witnessed in
3770
1973?
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, I'm
glad you asked me that question. Because it
gives me the opportunity to let you know and
let others know that Staten Island is
contributing to the overall electric
generating power in the City of New York. We
are not saying -- we are not saying that we do
not want to help in this energy crisis.
Certainly Staten Islanders have
done their part, and they will do their part
in the future. Indeed, we have one of those
ten electric generator plants sited in Staten
Island. The ten that are going around the
city, one of them is sited in Staten Island.
Now, the siting is the issue that we're
fighting. But necessarily we are not arguing
with the fact that electric generation or
energy generation is needed in the City of New
York.
So Staten Islanders are ready and
prepared to do their part. We've done our
part as Staten Islanders for the entire City
of New York for 53 years in collecting the
city's garbage and putting it in the Fresh
3771
Kills Landfill, for 53 years. Now that we
have finally closed the lid on that landfill,
so to speak, after 53 years of promises, it
would be certainly a burden to the people of
Staten Island to then, a week after we closed
the landfill, to say now we're going to reopen
the liquefied natural gas tank on Staten
Island. I think that is really dumping on
Staten Island in a new sense, Senator.
So in many ways, we are willing to
help as Staten Islanders. But in the same
way, we ask that you do not put us in the
position of either a health risk or a risk of
serious injury.
And that's I think what Senator
Marchi is proposing here today, that we take
the prudent course.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I have a final question for Senator Gentile,
if he's willing to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile, do you yield?
SENATOR GENTILE: Absolutely,
3772
Senator. Go ahead.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then, Senator,
what do you think about the idea that perhaps
we were to put in legislation that would
continue the sunset for Staten Island and to
continue the moratorium but leave the other
four boroughs alone, since the other 57
counties in the state have abandoned the
moratorium?
In other words, since there was
this kind of tragedy on Staten Island -- and I
agree with you, that sometimes it's the
message that is bewildering and confusing to
the constituents as much as the scientific
evidence -- that perhaps we respect that in
the area of the borough in which you and so
many great New Yorkers live, but we
discontinue the moratorium in the other four
boroughs of New York City.
SENATOR GENTILE: Well, Senator,
I'm not sure how the residents of the other
four boroughs might feel about that, if the
moratorium only continued in the borough of
3773
Richmond.
Nevertheless, you give me an
opportunity to now to say something on behalf
of my Brooklyn constituents. And certainly I
don't think my Brooklyn constituents would be
that pleased if a moratorium were lifted
everywhere but Staten Island.
So, Senator, again, I come down on
the side of Senator Marchi and the prudent
course, in a city of 8 million people -- now
we're talking about the entire city of
8 million people -- to take the prudent course
and follow Senator Marchi's lead in passing
this moratorium for the entire city.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: I can't wait
until Senator Gentile becomes Governor.
Because I want to see how he explains this
when the other 75 counties in this state have
abandoned this moratorium after exhaustive
3774
research and thought, in 1997 and 1998. The
commission actually started researching this
in 1988.
And I think that the other
residents -- because I want to speak on behalf
of upstate New York, which I don't get a
chance to do here often, Mr. President. And I
think that certainly no one would allow for
LNG fuel to be used in their regions unless
they were comfortable and assured that there
really was a high degree of safety. Even the
incident that was the catalyst really for a
lot of fear and anxiety through a major
tragedy in the city's history in 1973 was
promulgated as much by other factors than
really the LNG fuel.
And I just want to suggest that
with the potential of an energy crisis, that
there are some greater risks that we'd be
taking if we use other alternatives, such as I
described from diesel power. And I just want
to further suggest that we just be mindful of
the fact that the overwhelming part of the
state right now allows these facilities to be
in place, and we're very assured that we can
3775
do it without any type of incident or
accident.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: No, I just
wanted to -- on the note that Senator Paterson
concluded.
All we had in that chamber that
exploded were solvents. It wasn't liquefied
natural gas or petroleum. The speculation -
and I should bring you some of the clips that
we had from newspapers at that time. The
citywide papers said that the effect, even
missing Staten Island, but the thrust of the
explosion, with a structure of that size,
giving way to an explosion within liquefied
natural gas and petroleum, could tear right up
into Manhattan, not even hitting Staten
Island, and go right up to where you live, and
that there would be the loss of thousands of
lives.
Now, maybe that was journalistic,
you know -- I don't know. I'm not -- I may
have no pretense to give you an analysis of
the destructive power. But I can invite your
3776
attention to what was published at that time,
and it was the prediction for the entire city.
In fact, you made a good point. Maybe it's
something that the whole state should be alert
to.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
just a point of clarification. Senator
Marchi, did you say Manhattan?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh. Then
let's vote for the bill.
Thank you.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If Senator
Marchi would yield, I have a couple of
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marchi, do you yield to a question from
Senator Stavisky -- excuse me, Stachowski?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: It was
the gray hair, the similarity that got me.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I'll let
3777
that slide.
Anyway, I'm kind of confused. But
then again, as in Finance, so correct -- you
know, as I ask you this question, if you've
already answered it, just let me know.
But I know that you have this
moratorium, and we're fearful of the effect
that this would have. And then I listened to
Senator Gentile. But I know that there's -
besides the storage space in Astoria there's
also a storage space in Greenpoint, Brooklyn,
and in Holtsville, Long Island, for LNG. And
that these shaving plants serve as a storage
spot for when the pipeline doesn't produce
enough or doesn't have enough liquid natural
gas to deal with the consumption.
And also, that liquid natural gas
is used for clean-air vehicles, like the new
buses that they want to put in New York City
because of the air pollution because of the
diesel. And I would think that with Staten
Island growing so much, they must have a
similar problem with diesel exhaust, et
cetera. Maybe I'm wrong, you can correct me
on that too.
3778
So my question is, if these plants
have been there, the three of them, for 20 or
30 years and there's never been a problem and
there's only been eight problems in the world
with LNG in the last 20 years -
SENATOR MARCHI: We had a big one
in Russia, didn't we?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes, they
did. They also had a nuclear power plant that
caused all kinds of problems. And the
interesting thing in that nuclear power plant
was that if you were real close, just like
with the bomb, you were very badly affected.
If you were a little farther away, you had
some damage. But if you were in another
certain area, your health and exposure to
cancer was less than anybody else in the rest
of the country. Interesting little tidbit I
thought I'd throw out in the middle of my
question.
However, back to my question. If
there's been no problems at these sites other
than the emotional response, which I can
understand -- and I'll accept that if that's
the answer -- what other reason other than the
3779
emotional effect to the people would we have
for not doing away with this moratorium?
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, the
moratorium would yield in the event that the
Fire Department and others who are -- who go
into this problem in depth recommend that
there is safety in dispensing with it.
Certainly it should be considered. I don't
argue that. But we've had no -- I know that
the Fire Department is against it now. And
we're resting on their recommendation on the
circumstances that we have.
All the -- nothing happened an inch
away from the building. It all happened in
this enclosed structure. And the bill
explicitly provides for the transportation of
this substance within -- on city streets.
So I think it has to be -- a
determination has to be made on an informed
basis. I don't profess to be -- perhaps I've
done a lot of studying in my life, but that
has not been my field of pursuit. But -
well, let's see what they have to offer. I
haven't seen it yet, and I certainly don't
want to -- and neither does Senator Gentile,
3780
who has a direct responsibility, or the
Assembly, which voted unanimously on this
matter.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Senator. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, on the bill.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Basically,
even though the NYSERDA recommended that we do
away with it, and the fact is that there are
three existing storage areas that help provide
LNG for clean-air vehicles, for example, and
things that are needed in the city in that
case, and for whatever other uses they use it
for, and the fact is that the highway system
is already available, specifically named
highways are available for transit in and out
when the pipeline can't bring enough in its
job, the fact is that if the local legislators
think that it's still a good idea and the
local representative thinks that the emotional
part overrides the -- I would imagine we would
consider NYSERDA's report as the scientific
data and the history of the other facilities
as the scientific data, well, then I'll
3781
support my colleagues Senator Gentile and
Senator Marchi and vote along for this
moratorium even though I have logical
questions why I'm doing it.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, why do you rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr.
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I also
appreciate the insight and wisdom that Senator
Marchi brings to this and all the other pieces
of legislation he speaks on here. And Senator
Gentile, who is mightily endeavoring to follow
in his distinguished footprints.
However, it seems to me that we
have a situation here where the state is
suffering. We have serious environmental
problems, in my district and a lot of places
and a lot of poor communities in New York.
And the need for clean-air vehicles powered by
LNG is not insignificant. This is obviously a
bill that requires us to balance risk and
reward, and obviously it's -- this is always a
3782
difficult thing.
I know that when I was a young
lawyer, I worked on litigation relating to
nuclear plant mishaps. And at that time there
was a vigorous movement to shut down nuclear
power plants in this country. And I remember
one of the attorneys representing the
manufacturer of the plant standing up one day
with the New York Times headline that a 747
had crashed killed and 300 and some odd people
had been killed, saying, "Listen, we're not
going to ban air travel." There are some
risks. There are some risks, and you have to
make a decision as a society whether the
benefits outweigh the risks.
And I must say, having looked at
the report -- which I understand the Fire
Department was a part of the study group that
was represented in the making of this
report -- it just seems to me this is a
moratorium whose time has come. We've had a
long time to evaluate this. We have other
plants that have not had an incident.
Obviously the remnants of the personal tragedy
lingers on in the minds and hearts of people
3783
on Staten Island. But with all deference to
the well-stated and sincerely held views on
this, I think that environmentally we really
do have to move forward. And I think that it
is hurting our state that we are using things
like diesels that we really need to replace,
particularly in poor communities in New York
City and the surrounding areas. There's a
tremendous problem. Our air pollution has
gotten worse and worse. We have severe asthma
problems, we have severe health problems all
around the New York City metropolitan area.
And LNG is not the solution to those problems,
but it certainly is a part of the solution.
So I think I'm constrained by that
to vote against this bill. Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2, this
act shall take -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin.
3784
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I realize
you don't have much gray hair, like Senator
Stachowski, but -
SENATOR BRESLIN: I don't jump up
quite as quickly, either.
In all deference, again, to the
best Senators in the house, Senator Marchi and
Senator Gentile, I appreciate their concerns
for such a tragic occurrence 24 years ago.
But so much has changed since then. And as
someone who deals with the transportation of
volatile substances, I can assure you there
are other petroleum products that are much
more serious and much more of a risk. And
that the use of LNG in today's day and age is
not a risk. And that's evidenced by the fact
that New York State is the only state in the
United States that's had any sort of a
moratorium over it.
And for that and other reasons, I
will be voting against this piece of
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
3785
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negative votes.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I'm going to respect my two colleagues who
represent Staten Island, because sometimes the
real onus of a tragedy is the fear and anxiety
that it creates. And I'm going to vote for
the bill. It's not really my heartfelt
feeling.
My feeling is that if you go back
and examine the tragedy that was the catalyst
for this moratorium, it was an accident in the
tank when the tank had no LNG fuel in it.
There was no fuel in the tank. It was a
solvent that combined with the mylar lining,
there was an explosion, and it killed 40
people in the tank. It was a horrible,
horrible disaster.
3786
But as Senator Schneiderman pointed
out, we would never had gotten to the moon if
we had heeded what happened after the Apollo X
tragedy in 1967. What we as Americans did was
we pulled together, we learned from our
mistakes, we made sure there wasn't a
possibility of another tragedy, and then by
1969 we had Apollo XI, and that went to the
moon.
And all I'm saying -- and I'll vote
for the bill, but all I'm saying is there are
some tremendous needs that we have around the
state that we're ignoring by continuing this
moratorium in a couple of specific areas when
the rest of the state doesn't require them.
I vote aye, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Lachman, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR LACHMAN: To explain my
vote.
This is a very difficult bill for
me. I had hoped it would be extended by
Senator Marchi across the Verrazano Bridge
3787
into Brooklyn. I would also hope that this
bill is considered a first step and that
eventually the transportation of hazardous
materials would be incorporated in the bill
that would include all five boroughs of
New York City and all counties in the State of
New York.
So at this point, I reluctantly
will vote for the bill, but as only a first
step to the elimination of the transportation
of hazardous materials throughout the city and
state of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I certainly always respect the
opinion of my colleague from Staten Island,
Senator Marchi. But on this I'm one of the
people who lobbied the MTA specifically to use
clean-air buses, because at least half or more
of the bus lines in Brooklyn end in my
district, which is downtown Brooklyn. And
I've asked them to use clean-air buses because
we have a tremendous problem with pollution,
and the largest percent of that pollution
3788
comes from automobile traffic in downtown
Brooklyn. And buses contribute a lot to that.
So we really need to have clean-air
vehicles. We need to utilize them much more
in our city. And while I certainly understand
Senator Marchi's fear and concern about the
safety issue, I also have a very real problem
with pollution.
So I'm going to vote no on this
extension of the moratorium.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Malcolm Smith, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Mr. President. On the bill.
I -- actually, I agree with Senator
Lachman. I believe and I hope that -- Senator
Marchi has introduced this bill and it would
obviously serve a purpose to Staten Island,
but I would hope that at some point, perhaps
in another year or two, we'd do some amendment
and have it expanded to the rest of the five
boroughs.
In my particular area, we had some
concern about the exporting of hazardous
waste, strontium 90, which is a bone-seeking
3789
agent. And it was sort of in the heat of the
night, in the dark of the night that they came
in and shipped this stuff out to Utah, and
there was a great concern as it moved from
through the neighborhood. And there was lack
of input, lack of supervision.
So as Senator Lachman said, I also
would hope that this is sort of a first step.
I think it's the right step. And I just think
perhaps next year or sooner we might be able
to amend the bill and add the other five
boroughs.
But I am voting aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith will be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 296 are
Senators Breslin, Montgomery, Schneiderman,
and Stavisky. Ayes, 56. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to reports of standing
3790
committees, I believe there's a report of the
Finance Committee at the desk. I ask that it
be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
return to the order of reports of standing
committees. There is a report of the Finance
Committee at the desk.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports:
Senate Print 3994, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act making
appropriations for the support of government.
And Senate Print 3995, by the
Senate Committee on Rules, an act to amend the
Military Law.
Both bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: All bills
are ordered directly to third reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar 330.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 330.
3791
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Finance, Assembly Bill Number 8315 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 3994, Third Reading Calendar 330.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
330, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8315, an act making
appropriations for the support of government.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there is a message of appropriation and
necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
and appropriation at the desk.
All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
3792
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos, an explanation of Calendar Number 330
has been requested by Senator Dollinger.
Senator Stafford, to explain.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I rise here at 5:05 p.m. in this month of -
what month is it? -- March, March, to explain
our first emergency appropriation bill. And
this bill appropriates approximately
$4.6 billion to meet scheduled state payments
for the period April 1 through April 22, 2001.
The bill appropriates
$368.9 million to fund state administrative
and institutional payroll requirements and
related Social Security costs for elected and
nonelected state officers and employees of the
Executive branch, the Legislature, and the
judiciary, and to make payments to employees
3793
and work-for-pay and sheltered workshop
programs.
It appropriates $304.5 million for
the state employees' fringe benefits and fixed
state costs, $246.2, million for nonpersonnel
service requirements of State agencies, the
judiciary, and the Legislature and, finally.
$570 million for payments on new and existing
capital contracts.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, why do you rise?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I'd like to
see if the Senator would yield for a few
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Stachowski?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, on
the appropriations for payments, Social
Security, on the institutional payroll, on one
of them, April 5th, it's -- the appropriation
3794
is $9,300,000 and on April 19th it's
$10,600,000. Do you know why it's different?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I think you'll
probably find there are more days involved.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
Senator would further yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: In the area
of TIAA-CREF, $19,000 is put in for benefits.
Do we know why it's so low?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I apologize.
This is the first time that I haven't listened
to a question. And I assure you I will. Go
ahead.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Okay, I can
do that again. In the area of employees that
are covered that are in the Teachers Insurance
Annuity Association and College Retirement
Equities Fund -- I figured I'd give you the
3795
whole thing rather than the initials -- we
have a payment of $19,000. Does that
appropriation cover all the employees in
there?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Is it all
the state employees, or does it include the
SUNY and CUNY employees or just the state
employees?
SENATOR STAFFORD: All state
employees.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Senator. I'm going to go to another area now,
if you would continue to yield.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I was going to
sit down.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Actually, I
have a couple of areas I'd like to bounce
around to, and then I'm going to take a break
and let some other people ask questions that
they have. But -
SENATOR STAFFORD: I can't
believe it.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Well, we
just figured that you were resting so long
3796
this afternoon, that you're ready for this.
Because your staff people had assured me of
that in Finance. That's why I saved all my
questions for when we came out to the floor.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Ask them,
then.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Well,
indirectly I think I am.
However, in transportation -- and I
don't know about your region, but I know in my
region they were expecting a number of
projects to be let in April. And usually if a
project's going to be let in April, there's
some advertisements so the bids put out in
March. And so far nothing has been put out.
And I don't know if it's budget-related or if
it's something else is going on with DOT,
because DOT is a strange outfit, particularly
in my region.
However, in the budget is there
money for getting the construction season
going; that is, is there money to start some
of the construction projects that are on the
schedule for this year?
3797
SENATOR STAFFORD: I find again,
as I mentioned earlier, I've got to stop
talking to my counsel, because I get confused.
But I have the same answer. There is over
$250 million in this bill for projects. And I
would only point out also that you might
recall that we had a transportation bond
issue, and that did not prevail. So I think
we've had to really work through this.
And I would also point out that I
deal with most of the DOT north of Albany, all
the way to the Canadian border. And even when
they work over in Quebec, I make sure I, you
know, work with them. And they're not strange
at all.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: You must
have a far better understanding and
relationship with them than we do in our area.
Because, see, we always have this problem.
And maybe it's just because we're so close to
Ohio. I'm not sure. But, see, in Region Five
when we asked the director, Do you plan on
putting some items out, and maybe we put it in
3798
writing in a letter, and we get a letter back
saying we're going to let out these projects,
and then all the people in the construction
industry start calling our office saying, You
know, they not only aren't letting anything
out yet, they haven't even put the
advertisement in for bids.
See, I'm kind of a simple guy.
When everybody tells me they're not being bid,
and that's their business, that's how they
make their money, all the construction
people -- and there are various parties, so
it's obviously not political, this exchange of
ideas -- I say, well, let me try to find out
why. And usually when you write a letter and
they say they're going to put all these things
out to bid, you would expect they would put
them out to bid.
Now, probably in your area, because
you have such a much better relationship, if
they tell you they're going to put them out to
bid, they probably do. But, unfortunately, we
don't have that same kind of cooperation
currently.
But as long as that money is in
3799
here, I'll move on. And hopefully that will
take care of that area. And hopefully they
will start putting projects out to bid.
And I'm aware that the bond issue
failed. I'm also aware that some people
supported it strongly and other people sat on
their hands. And I'm not going to say who sat
on their hands, whether they're in this
building or some other. But some people sat
on their hands and other people raised money
and went out big for it, but it wasn't enough.
Anyway, in the area of snowmobiles
I see that we have $500,000 for the snowmobile
fund. Is that a major part of that? Is that
like the end of the payment? Do you know what
that money is used for? Because the season is
over, and that would be more of your specialty
anyway. But we do have a lot of snowmobilers
out my way.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, first,
first, I have to point out that you and I
should have the same result from the
department, because I'm simple too.
Now, as far as snowmobiles, as far
as snowmobiles, you have more snow than we do.
3800
You get around 14 inches more than we do where
I live. But the answer is it's really for
trail maintenance and goes to the snowmobile
clubs. The industry is quite an industry up
in our area.
Don't you have snowmobiles?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I'll take
that as a question, and I'll answer it. Yes,
we do. As a matter of fact, we have a lot of
snowmobilers. We have a lot of people that
want to develop trails and slowly they're
starting to. However, you have a much vaster
trail development in your area and it's a
major part of your tourism. And I know a lot
of people from my area that go all the way out
to yours to enjoy the wonderful snowmobiling
opportunities you have there. And they're
probably the second-best location, yours, for
my constituents, only second to the Canadian
trails, who put more money in and have even
better trails than we have in New York State,
believe it or not.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I won't
argue, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3801
Stachowski has the floor. Would you like -
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes. And
I'd just like to touch on one other area. And
I'm sure that this particular area, Senator
Kuhl would rather be down here than the Acting
President.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'll bet he
wouldn't.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Oh, for this
particular question, I'll bet he would.
But anyway, there's some money in
this appropriation for a partial funding of
the New York State Wine and Grape Foundation.
Now you see why I said he would want to be
down here for that, because I think he has a
particular interest in that and also had a
particular hand in moving it along, so to
speak.
Can you tell me how much and what
they're using this three-week appropriation
for? Is it to make sure that it continues?
Is it to move on some major part of it? I'm
not quite sure, and that's why I'm asking.
SENATOR STAFFORD: As you know,
advertising is very, very important in our way
3802
of life and in our economy, and this will
provide funding for advertising and the like.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Senator. I don't want to monopolize all your
standing time right now. I will probably be
back to you in a little bit, but I'm sure that
a lot other of my colleagues have questions,
so I don't want to tire you out before you get
a chance to answer any of theirs.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, why do you rise?
SENATOR LACHMAN: I'd like to
hone in on one part of this, the Mass
Transportation Operation Assistance Fund. I
believe $60 million is allocated to commuter
railroads and to the Transit Authority in
New York City. Am I correct in that?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I will yield,
Mr. President. I'm glad to.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, I was just about to ask. You're
asking Senator Stafford to yield to a
question?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
3803
Senator has indicated he will yield.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay, thank
you.
SENATOR STAFFORD: We just want
to stay with the program.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Sure.
SENATOR STAFFORD: As always -
no, no, no, not always -- you're correct.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
will the Senator continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Is it correct,
Senator Stafford, that approximately
$35 million of this aid is going to commuter
railroads and $25 million is going to New York
City transit?
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's
correct.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Through you,
Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator
would continue to yield.
3804
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator
Stafford, are you aware of the combined
ridership and the separate ridership for the
commuter railroads and for New York City
transit?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, can Senator Stafford give me the
numbers?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'll get you
the numbers. I'm very aware of both the
transit authority and also the commuter
railroads. I ride both. And I can usually
tell the difference.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, will the Senator continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LACHMAN: I ride both
3805
also.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Good for you.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I'd like you to
check the numbers that I have, however. And
the numbers that I have are a major
discrepancy. Approximately 2 billion people
ride the New York City transit facilities,
whereas only 200 million ride the Long Island
Railroad and Metro North. That's a tremendous
discrepancy.
Now, I ride the Long Island
railroad in the summer, because I have a
summer apartment in Senator Skelos's district.
But I think when you give the commuter
railroads $10 million more in appropriation
and they have a total ridership of 200 million
people, and you give to the New York City
Transit Authority only $25 million, which is
$10 million less than the commuter railroads,
and their ridership is 2 billion, would you
agree that is somewhat unfair?
SENATOR STAFFORD: No.
SENATOR LACHMAN: You would not.
Mr. President, through you, will the Senator
yield again. Why do you not think it's
3806
unfair?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another -- excuse
me, Senator Lachman. Excuse me just a minute.
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's what I
was -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford -
SENATOR STAFFORD: I was hoping
that the distinguished Senator who has a place
out in the Hamptons -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Excuse
me, gentlemen -
SENATOR LACHMAN: No, no, no, in
Long Beach. As Senator Schedule is aware.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Oh, excuse me.
I misspoke. I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:
Gentlemen, you're not listening. You're not
listening, gentlemen. Let me just
interrupt -- Senator Stafford, let me just
interrupt so we understand each other.
The rules of the house are very
specific: Do not interrupt the presiding
officer of the chamber. So I would hope you
3807
don't continue to interrupt when I ask a
question, and that you will answer when I ask
a question.
So, Senator Stafford, do you yield
to another question from Senator Lachman?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I certainly
would. And I certainly understand the
interruption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: You may
proceed with a question.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Through you,
Mr. President. My question to Senator
Stafford is, do you think equity is being
served when New York City transit, which has
two billion riders, receives only $25 million
and the commuter railroads, which have 200
million riders, receives $35 million out of
the $60 million package?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, what
I -- Mr. President, I will continue my answer
now, because I was going to give the answer.
And I'm sure the Senator didn't mean to
interrupt. But this is just a temporary
cash-flow situation, why these funds are being
made available to these various entities. And
3808
it really has nothing to do with exactly how
the funds are going to be disbursed. But let
me -- final, how all of the funds will be
disbursed.
But let me explain that we're
all -- we all sometimes can be blinded, and we
sort of become a bit provincial. I know I do.
I know I do. But I certainly would urge you
to take a look and realize how important it is
for those commuters to go into New York to
make New York what it is, the capital of the
world, financial center of the world, the
cultural center of the world. So I would just
ask you to really do your best to keep the big
picture.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: In an attempt
to keep the big picture, and recognize the
authority of the President of the Senate,
would Senator Stafford continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
3809
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator
Stafford, do you know if the Nassau and
Suffolk buses that are not part of the Long
Island Railroad receive any aid from the
$35 million or from the total package of
$60 million?
SENATOR STAFFORD: There is in
the overall budget, but not here.
SENATOR LACHMAN: So the Nassau
and Suffolk buses aren't included in terms of
receiving additional aid -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Not here.
SENATOR LACHMAN: -- if they're
not part of the commuter services, but you say
they're in the overall budget.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Right. Will
be. Will be.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I know. We
haven't gotten to that. I'm sorry, Mr.
President.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'm sorry,
too. Excuse me.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There's
been a lot of learning.
3810
SENATOR STAFFORD: Lot of stress.
Lot of stress.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I am going to
reluctantly vote for the bill. But I think
there is a major discrepancy here when you
allocate $60 million total and the commuter
railroads receive $35 million and New York
City transit receives $25 million and there
are buses in Nassau and Suffolk County that
receive nothing. This is a major discrepancy.
And as I mentioned before, we have
a summer apartment in Long Beach in Long
Island, and I want the buses of that area to
be aided by the state. I do see the big
picture that Senator Stafford has asked me to
look upon, and I see it's a picture that does
not emphasize equity, but inequity.
But rather than voting against the
entire Rules Committee recommendation, I will
reluctantly vote for it. With the
understanding that I hope in the future, the
3811
aid coming to New York City transit will be
commensurate with the ridership of that
organization and agency. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, why do you rise?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. If the Senator would
yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield a question from Senator
Hassell-Thompson?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Certainly
will.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator. Through you, Mr. President, it
is my understanding that the funding out of
the Office for Prevention of Domestic
Violence, Sections 41 and 42, which cover the
batterers' intervention program and the
domestic violence hotline, these two have
never been included in the emergency
appropriation bills in the past years. Can
you explain why these programs have been
3812
included this year?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yeah, they
were scheduled to receive a payment, so the
payment is included in this budget. It must
be they weren't scheduled to receive a payment
before.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Malcolm Smith, why do you rise?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield
for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Smith?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Always a
pleasure.
With regard to the Lower Manhattan
Commercial Revitalization Program, Mr.
3813
President, through you -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Lower
Manhattan what?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Lower
Manhattan Commercial Revitalization Program.
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's not in
this bill. That's in the next bill.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Oh,
you're lucky, Mr. President. I'll be back. I
was all set, too.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith waives his time.
Any other Senator wishing to speak
on the bill?
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR STAFFORD: We'll see
who's lucky.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
3814
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President. My understanding is that the
earlier document, one of the drafts that had
been circulated with respect to this, had
talked about funds for the Investigations
Commission. And my understanding is in the
final appropriation there's no reference to
it. Is the Investigations Commission still
funded for the -- is there an extender in here
of funds for them?
SENATOR STAFFORD: As I mentioned
earlier, Mr. President, what this emergency
appropriation bill does is any agency, entity
in government that was scheduled to receive a
payment, we have included this. This was
included in the budget. This doesn't have
any -- just because something isn't included,
it doesn't mean that it's not functioning.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will Senator Stafford continue
to yield for another question?
3815
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I
know that we're continuing to fund the Cattle
Health Assurance Program at Cornell. And my
question is, are there specific funds in here
for -- to cover the possible outbreak, which
could be, of course, catastrophic here in
New York, a major dairy-producing state, if
the European disease for hoof and mouth
disease actually found its way to New York?
SENATOR STAFFORD: The answer,
Mr. President, is yes, herd health is
included.
I would only suggest this, Mr.
President. And this is such a fine line. And
of course I've been here long enough,
sometimes I don't know what is right. You
just do your best. But I would urge everyone
not to overreact concerning the issue that you
just raised. I don't mean it isn't serious,
and I don't mean it isn't something we
shouldn't watch very carefully. But an
industry is involved here, and it's very, very
3816
serious.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Right. I
share Senator Stafford's concern. And I think
if you'll yield just to one more question,
there's just one more -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford yields to one more question, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In this bill,
could you just briefly describe the continuing
payments or whether there are any changes in
the payments for health insurance programs or
the Family Health Plus, the Child Health Plus
programs, the whole gamut of programs, are
there any alterations, budgetary alterations
for any of those programs in this bill, in the
appropriations bill?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Once again, no
alterations in this bill, only -- it includes
those payments for entities', agencies'
programs that were due payments.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, just on the bill
briefly.
3817
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I've had a
tradition in this house of voting against the
extenders, and I'm going to continue that
again this year. It seems to me that our
budget process in this state, which has been
described to be in various forms of illness
itself, is one that calls for some solutions.
And one of those is to say that this
acknowledgment through an emergency
appropriation bill for the next three weeks,
that we can't get the job done, I would
suggest, Mr. President, we haven't even
started the job. We haven't even begun the
conference committee process. We passed our
one-house budget resolution, and that's all
we've done.
I think the people of this state
could easily look at this house and say that
we've dropped the ball. The ball hasn't begun
begin to roll, it hasn't even been dropped
yet. And I would suggest while certainly
extenders have become the norm in this state
in the last 20 years, this year in particular
3818
is a particularly egregious violation of our
constitutional duties and our ability to get
to a budget.
I would suggest that the best
solution for that, Mr. President, lies in this
house. I'll say it now and I'll say it again.
Until the Majority of this house is willing to
come to the Minority and put together a budget
with the Minority and Majority in this house
acting in unison and the Majority and Minority
acting in unison in the other house, we can
send a budget to the Second Floor, and I don't
care if he line-item-vetoes every single
appropriation, I will stand here with my
Republican colleagues and stand up for the
power of this Senate, working in conjunction
with two-thirds of the Assembly, to overrule
every single one of these vetoes, and we will
have a budget that we can declare to be the
best policy budget in this state, and we will
take back from the Governor the power to
control appropriations.
I would suggest that what stands in
the way of the Legislature in fulfilling its
constitutional duty and standing up to declare
3819
the will of the people of this state, as we
should, is the partisanship that prevents us
from linking arms on budget matters. I would
suggest that there are billions and billions
and billions and billions of dollars in this
budget that members of the Democratic
conference would gladly join our Republican
colleagues -- whether it's tax cuts, which
whether it's emergency spending, whether it's
spending for programs, I think you would find
that we would welcome the opportunity to
participate in that process and join you in
sending a budget to the Governor that is
veto-proof.
And the day we do that, the budget
will be done on time and the Governor can veto
anything he wants, whether it's this Governor
or any other, and this Legislature, this house
will stand up and we will take back the
constitutional power given to us by the
people. Until we do that, we will never get a
budget done on time. We will never be able to
resolve the impasse. And we will fail the
people of this state.
I repeat something I've said often.
3820
The greatest victim of late budgets is not the
people in the state who work for it, not the
vendors who sell us goods, it's the people who
vote for us and the confidence that they have
that we can do the job. The greatest victim
here is our public credibility. I'm not going
to participate in destroying or eroding that
credibility any further. I regret that we're
at this stage.
I really think it's a
constitutional failing because of excessive
partisanship. We can solve that problem right
here in this house, and yet nobody seems to
want to do it. Welcome the 25 of us into the
fold, and we'll give the Governor a budget
that he can't touch. And the minute he does,
we'll overturn his veto and he'll never do it
again.
I would suggest that this is the
problem we have in this state. It ought to be
rectified. It can be rectified. Let's join
arms and do it. Until we do that, I'm not
going to vote for these extenders again. I
vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3821
Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Just briefly, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: Certainly
echoing the comments of my colleague Senator
Dollinger are quite in order, and I think that
probably goes for all members of this
conference.
However, I do want to indicate an
aspect of this appropriation bill which
continues to fund the Elderly Pharmaceutical
Insurance Coverage program, better known as
EPIC in this state, in the amount of
$15 million. Certainly that is a positive
sign that this house and certainly the
Governor are continuing to commit themselves
to funding the pharmaceutical coverage plan
for senior citizens. And so I'm pleased to
see that that is in this appropriation bill,
that seniors can continue to rely on the EPIC
program as we have designed it, beginning this
past January.
Now we need to take the next step
3822
in the next budget, and that is to include the
cap on out-of-pocket expenses. That's a
debate to come. But at least now on this
issue, I'm pleased to say that we have an EPIC
extender in the appropriation bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, why do you rise?
SENATOR BRESLIN: Would Senator
Stafford yield -- through you, Mr.
President -- for a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, would you yield to a question from
Senator Breslin?
The answer is yes, the Senator
yields.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I yield, by
all means.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I've been
reviewing Section 46, which deals with the
Municipal Assistance Corp., and I just had a
couple of questions. The debt, what is the
current outstanding balance of the New York
City -- the MAC debt, if you know?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'm sure that
you really want to know that, because I can
3823
really understand, you know, just how
important that is and -
SENATOR BRESLIN: It's been
bothering me.
SENATOR STAFFORD: No, no, I'm
answering, Mr. President.
And I can -- you know, it just
really impresses me, you know, that somebody
from Albany, you know, would be -- see, I
remember when we passed Big MAC. You know,
Felix Rohatyn came up here with Judge -
Judge -- he was -- as a matter of fact, he was
Senator Wagner's administrative assistant, and
after that he was appointed -- Judge -- what
was his name, the judge that came up here? He
was in the firm that Theodore Sorensen is in.
Anyway, they came up and they did a tremendous
job, and we passed the Big MAC legislation,
and now -- Rifkind. Simon Rifkind. It was
Judge Rifkind that came up and did such a good
job.
And actually, New York now has done
so well under Mayor Giuliani, the last eight
years has been tremendous -- don't scowl, now.
Come on, you've got to agree with some of
3824
this.
So anyway, my answer is it's in the
billions.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question
from Senator Breslin?
SENATOR BRESLIN: I remember
having lunch with Jay Feeney years ago, and he
was telling me about your efforts.
When do you expect -- with New York
City doing so well, when do you expect that
New York City will finally pay off that debt?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I would hope that things would continue to go
as well as they have gone, again, with the
leadership that we've had the past eight
years, with the Mayor and the Governor.
And I might add it's very
interesting, I would emphasize that there were
many of us who were not from New York City
that voted for Big MAC. I mean, I supported
that. I'm very proud of that. That was very
important. So I'm so pleased you brought up
3825
that point.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, would you continue to yield?
SENATOR BRESLIN: I think that it
belies the collegiality that exists between
upstate and downstate, from Plattsburgh to
Albany to New York, wouldn't you agree,
Senator Stafford?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Collegiality,
Mr. President, collegiality is important. And
that's why some of us try to stand up -- oh,
he's gone.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRESLIN: If Senator
Stafford would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR BRESLIN: In a different
area, I notice there's a -- in Section 48
there's an appropriation for the State
3826
Insurance Fund. And I was just -- apparently
during some other administrations some monies
were used, and I was just wondering whether
there comes a time when we'll take care of
that debt to the State Insurance Fund.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Actually,
these aren't debts. These are actually backup
funds for contingent guarantees as far as the
Insurance Fund is concerned. And we hope they
won't have to use these funds.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Well, again,
one last question, through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to one last question
from Senator Breslin?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Is that 1.6
really an appropriation? Is there money
placed aside for that?
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's -- Mr.
President, that's an excellent, excellent way
to put it.
SENATOR BRESLIN: The answer is?
3827
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Are you
asking Senator Stafford to yield to another
question, Senator Breslin?
Senator Stafford, do you yield to
another question from Senator Breslin?
SENATOR BRESLIN: I was waiting
for the answer to the first one.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I think
the answer is yes.
SENATOR BRESLIN: The answer is
yes.
Just through you, Mr. President, I
would just like to commend Senator Stafford
for the straightforwardness and the clarity
that you have expressed to your fellow
upstater. Thank you very much.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
the Senator certainly -- I want to just
emphasize that I appreciate that and I'll
continue to make sure that he's able to thank
me.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, why do you rise?
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
3828
will the Senator yield to a few questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Onorato?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
answer is yes.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
I'm very, very concerned regarding the
intervenor funds that are part of this
emergency funding. I see here that there's
$40,000 is being provided for the electric
generator intervenor account. Do you know
what types of accounts are being funded?
Right now, how many of them -- is this old
money or is this new money?
SENATOR STAFFORD: This is -- as
I mentioned earlier, this is funding for those
obligations that have come due, are due during
this period. And this provide funds for
intervenors.
SENATOR ONORATO: Again through
you, Mr. President. What I'm concerned is -
right now we do have a case down in Queens
County regarding this, this is why I'm really
3829
concerned about it -- whether or not they will
be eligible for this emergency appropriation,
or will they have to wait for a new
appropriation?
SENATOR STAFFORD: As I pointed
out, I see your question, but it just -- the
funds that are needed during this period will
be there. The funds that are needed for a new
appropriation will be there in that
appropriation.
SENATOR ONORATO: And I have one
more follow-up on another area.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
The Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: This is again
with regard to the -- as you know, I'm on the
Labor Committee, and we have a program that's
being funded to the tune of about $750,000.
And it's called the -- taking it out of the
Unemployment Insurance Fund, occupation fund,
to be used to pay for occupational training.
Part of it is coming from the
Federal Disaster Relief Fund. How much do we
actually get from that Federal Disaster Relief
3830
Fund for pay for some of these programs? Do
you have that information available?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'll have to
get you that information.
SENATOR ONORATO: You don't have
that, okay.
Okay. Also, do you -- through you,
Mr. President, one more question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: How many
projects will be awarded as part of the
$750,000 award?
SENATOR STAFFORD: We don't know
the exact number. But these are for the
projects that have already been awarded.
SENATOR ONORATO: These are
already in the system?
SENATOR STAFFORD: You got it.
In the pipeline.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer, why do you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I have a
3831
couple of questions. Well, actually, on two
different subjects. One will be on 4101
schools and the other will be just on general
school aid.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Oppenheimer?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I certainly
will yield, Mr. President, but I can't hear.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay,
there. I'll talk louder.
Let's first look, if you will, at
the general support for public schools, which
we all call school aid. And as we all know,
it's appropriated on a fiscal -- no, on a
calendar-year basis. No, it's calculated on a
school-year basis, but it is appropriated on a
fiscal-year basis. And this presents certain
confusions.
Now, the payments are done actually
in two different State fiscal years. So we
call the first payment, which is 70 percent of
the payment, the body, and then the 30 percent
of the payment we call the tail. And so we're
now into the tail.
3832
And so after these payments -
after the tail payments are made to the school
districts against this appropriation, how much
school aid funding is still going to be
outstanding for the 2000-2001 school year?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Around
30 percent. Three or 4 billion.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh, so
we'll still have the tail to pay in the
next -
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's right.
I've been here 36 years. It's almost
impossible to keep it straight in your head
how that goes. But you actually have
explained it in what you say. I've never used
that particular -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: The body
and the tail?
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's right.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm very
environmentally sensitive to animals.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I am too.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I
think you agree with Judge DeGrasse's
3833
decision, it's very complex and it doesn't
work.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:
Senator -- Senator -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If I may
ask you another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: This is
very entertaining, but the rules call for you
to go through the chair.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I know.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:
Appreciate that.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I know.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Are you
asking Senator Stafford to yield to another
question?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
Stafford would yield to another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, would you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means,
Mr. President.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Now, there
are school aids that are payable out of the
State Ed now, the school ed, but there are
3834
others for which no payments are made from
this appropriation. Am I correct?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Let me go back
again, please. Mr. President, let me go back
again. I always like to keep things simple.
And that's easy for me. And one of my
colleagues here said it was for him too.
This is monies appropriated for the
payments that are due or obligated during this
period. If the funds aren't due, aren't
obligated, aren't planned, then it isn't
included here.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. Then
when will the next payment of state aid be
due? Is it in July? That is my question, if
he will yield.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAFFORD: There will be
a payment in April, Mr. President, I
understand.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
Senator will yield, through you, Mr.
President, isn't this the April payment that
3835
we are making?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Exactly right.
And see, Mr. President, I'm able to again
emphasize, you seem puzzled. Now I can really
clear it up for you, I think. Look at all
these people here. You got to have the
answer?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAFFORD: But once
again, once again, this is from April -- what
does this cover, from April 22nd? You see,
there will be a period from the 22nd on. Now,
possibly we'll pass a budget. And then, of
course, the payment would be in the budget.
But there still will be another payment, it
appears, in April. This is only for the
three-week period, if I've got it right.
Someone mentioned the other day,
too, and I want to apologize whenever I made a
mistake. I said we want to change the fiscal
year from April until May, and that gives us
two months. And I guess I didn't quite figure
it right. I wanted to make sure that I
cleared that up.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: We are
3836
merely human.
If the Senator would yield for
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield again?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Then the
question is, when will we begin to make the
payments for the 2001-2002 school year?
SENATOR STAFFORD: That will
be -- now, I don't want anyone to smile,
because I'm dead serious. But that will be
when we pass a budget.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
Senator will yield again.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I know
that's the answer, Senator. Therefore, my
question is, how are school districts supposed
to put out budgets without the knowledge of
what their state aid for education will be?
3837
SENATOR STAFFORD: Senator, I
have pointed that out so many times. And I
would like to go to your district and be in
the back of the room when you explain it,
because maybe you can explain it better than I
can. And if you can, I certainly will take
your explanation.
I have my own, and I don't think
yours would be the same as mine.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I'll
speak on the budget in a minute on that. But
let me just turn, if I may, to the 4201
schools for just a minute. As many of you
know, this concerns me. A third of my family
is deaf and have gone through the 4201
schools.
After the payments are made from
the 4201 school appropriations, what
percentage of total payments will have been
made for the current year? Is that similar to
the payment schedule of the regular school
aid? If the Senator would answer.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
3838
this does not cover all of the payments, and
we expect there will be another payment.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: In this
budget year.
If the Senator would yield for
another question, then.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Does the
money that is going to the 4201s, does that
reflect the $7.3 million increase that the
Governor has written into his coming budget?
SENATOR STAFFORD: No, because -
now, Mr. President, this allows me to again
explain what we're doing here. See, this
isn't what the Governor has proposed for his
budget. This is just monies that are owed or
obligated at this time to keep government
viable.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. A
couple of more small, small questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3839
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
4201s are not on the same schedule as our
general school aid, when will their next
appropriation, emergency appropriation come
up?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I was wrong.
The very first time I've ever been wrong.
This one, it would be May or June.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay,
thanks. And my last question is when will we
need to make the payments for the 853s and the
4201s and the special acs? Are they going to
be made in this emergency -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
we don't make payments to them. They are paid
by the school district.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. On
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I
3840
think we've explored what the problem is here.
Aside from the general statement which we have
been talking about about late budgets and how
we really could avoid late budgets.
But the late budgets really do
wreak havoc on a lot of our school districts.
And they go out to a vote in many of our
school districts without the knowledge of what
will be available to them from the state aid.
And it is really a deplorable situation. The
school boards make guesstimates and the
superintendents of schools make guesstimates.
And it's really unfortunate, I
mean, that we are unable to reach a conclusion
in a reasonable amount of time. I personally
feel there is nothing that delays us from
reaching a conclusion on this budget except
that none of us seem to have the will to move
ahead and do it in a prompt fashion.
I certainly have the will. I'd
love to join with other people who did.
Because I truly believe this is something that
doesn't have to be, these delayed budgets.
I'll be voting for this, because I think the
alternative is not acceptable to me. But I'm
3841
really unhappy about it.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, why do you rise?
SENATOR BROWN: If I may, Mr.
President, I'd like to yield to Senator Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Senator Brown.
Mr. President, through you, if the
sponsor would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Smith?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Mr. President.
Just a couple of questions, through
you, Mr. President, with regard to Section 47,
veterans' affairs. We're talking about a
appropriation of $285,000. And the question
simply, is this particular amount sufficient
enough for the blind annuity for the veterans
3842
program?
SENATOR STAFFORD: See, once
again, Mr. President, I point out that -- this
is veterans' affairs? I point out that this
is the funds that are due at this time or
obligated that were planned to be paid. So I
would say yes, because that's in the plans.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: That's
fine. And one other question through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Do we
know, Mr. President, when these payments will
be made or is there a set schedule of some
kind?
SENATOR STAFFORD: This is just
like any other situation. When you pass a
budget that appropriates the money, the money
is available to be spent. It is then up to
the Executive branch of government to spend
3843
the money. And the Comptroller cuts the
check.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: If the
sponsor would yield for one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:
Hypothetically, Mr. President, if in fact this
appropriation is adopted -- and I'm sure it
will be -- if we get to a point where this 285
is not expended, or perhaps there's a need for
additional money beyond what we're talking
about appropriating before the extended date
comes, how would we then handle that?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Was the
question about -
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: If you
made a mistake in calculations.
SENATOR STAFFORD: The question
is if the money isn't spent then how will we
handle that?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Basically
3844
if you made a mistake in calculations -- Mr.
President, through you -- what would we do?
Would we have an emergency extender or would
we do deficiency -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, of
course whenever you have mistakes, they of
course have to be corrected, there have to be
revisions. There are mistakes every day,
there are mistakes in the main budget. I
think about the only place they've never made
any mistakes is my office.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Mr.
President, through you, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: It's not
that I want to continue to ask the sponsor the
same question, but I'm just trying to get to
the end of my road here. And I'm still not
clear, Mr. President. If there is a point
where we need to -- if this 285 is not
adequate come the extended period, what is the
3845
program and what is our plan on making sure we
fill that gap?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'm always
very, very disappointed, Mr. President, when I
have -- it appears that it's the opinion of
some that I might not be responsive. Because
if there's anyone who wants to be responsive,
it's me.
And I guess I'll try again. I'll
try again. All you can do is do your best.
You know.
Now, if there is a situation where
there was a mistake, well, we'd have to revise
that. And I guess the way to revise it would
be send up a revised bill, send up another
bill. Or it would be in the next
appropriation bill.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Mr.
President, I'm going to try one more time,
through you, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question
from Senator Smith?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
3846
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Let me -
if I may, Mr. President, allow me to paint a
real picture. The question simply is if on,
let's say, June -- no, let's say May 25th the
285 is expended, there is no more for the
blind annuity for veterans, who we all know
deserve this annuity more than anybody in this
state, the question becomes, for my own
edification, for the benefit of the veterans,
what in fact do we do if we are not at the
extended period and we have expended the 285,
how do we fill that gap, whatever amount that
may be calculated?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
people are always -- sometimes you notice I'm
not looking at the people, but I'm talking to
my microphone. And people are constantly
correcting me about that. Would you please
try to do that? Because I can't hear.
Now I'm going to have to do
something about that, I think. Maybe it might
not be your fault.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: It might
3847
be my mike.
SENATOR STAFFORD: There you go.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: It might
be the mike. Mike is -- you know, Mike treats
me one way, Frank treats me another.
But allow me -- I will -
SENATOR STAFFORD: We expect the
Governor will fully fund the payments for the
blind veterans.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Senator.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith, on the bill.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: There's
no doubt in my mind, Mr. President, that as it
relates to especially Section 47 for the Blind
Veteran Annuity Assistance Program, there's
clearly a need for this $285,000. I don't
think anybody would debate that. My only
concern is, and I think it extends to every
single area in which this bill is looking to
appropriate some gap financing, which is what
3848
we're talking about hear -- and that is simply
just as we stand before you today talking
about we need an extender, the bottom line is
just like we did our deficiency bill a few
weeks ago, or maybe it was last week, you
cannot always estimate what you think the
amount -- or the appropriation amount that you
might need.
The question becomes then what do
you do when you have made a calculation that
is -- has not reached a goal or has reached a
goal before your deadline? And I'm only
saying I think it is prudent on behalf of the
State, it's prudent just fiscal planning, that
we should go through the process and, when we
do these calculations, have a process or
procedure in place -- not an ad hoc process
where we think we'll call the Governor,
perhaps, or talk to the Comptroller or perhaps
we'll have a special session for the purpose
thereof. The bottom line is there should be
something in place so that we don't have to
expend any time, which of course costs. That
costs as well.
And I think if we begin to go
3849
through this process year after year, there
are some things that we can do to streamline
this process, to make some calculations such
that down the road we don't find ourselves
having to do certain things over and over
again, and there will be a streamlined process
and perhaps the budget in its allocations will
be a lot more expedient and also hit the mark
more accurately.
Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, why do you rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I would
defer to Senator Brown, since he has deferred
to Senator Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Well, the
chair usually decides who is recognized,
Senator Schneiderman. And I'm recognizing you
at this moment. Would you care to proceed?
Or you can waive your time at this point too.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No, I just
wanted to extend the courtesy to Senator
Brown. But I will abide, as always, by the
ruling of the chair.
If the sponsoring gentleman would
3850
yield for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Schneiderman?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'll be very
glad to, as long as we're serious.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you
very much. Through you, Mr. President, I will
keep my side of that if you will, sir.
The first question I have concerns
something that seems to me to be notably
absent from this bill. I just want to make
sure my understanding is correct. New York
State's Superfund program will expire, will
run out of funds, as far as I'm aware, at the
end of this month. Is that your understanding
as well?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
the Senator is correct to a degree. There
will be cash, but there will be -- need an
appropriation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman.
3851
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, I'm not sure I understand.
There is no appropriation, as I see it, in
this bill for the Superfund, is there?
SENATOR STAFFORD: No, there is
not, Mr. President.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And that
seems to me to be a notable gap. What, if
anything, are -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, are you asking Senator Stafford
to yield again?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, I'm
asking the Senator to continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Where is
the money for the Superfund program going to
come from if we don't include it in this
legislation?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
once again it gives me an opportunity to
3852
explain, once again, exactly what we have
here. We have a bill that provides funding
for money that is planned to be spent or that
is obligated.
What the Senator is talking about
will be part of the budget negotiations and
will be a new commitment and appropriated in
the budget. Therefore, I don't see the gap.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: The
difficulty I have with that response is that
in other areas what we're attempting to do is
keep critical state programs running until we
are able to pass a budget. In the Superfund
program there are sites, as I understand it,
that are in the middle of cleanup that will
run out of money, according to the Department
of Environmental Conservation, at the end of
3853
this month.
And I frankly don't understand why
that is not as significant as the other fine
programs provided for here -- the golden
nematode program and others. We can't afford
to lapse the Superfund program. I think it's
is a very critical program to the state. And
I don't understand how -- what we're telling
to people in the middle of a cleanup who are
going to run out of funds, to communities that
are trying to start a cleanup that are going
to run out of funds.
So it does seem to me to be an
omission and a gap. And I'm afraid I don't
understand -- and if you could enlighten me as
to why there is no gap when we run out of the
money in the middle of cleanups as of the end
of this week. I just really don't quite
understand that.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Is that a
question, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: If you
didn't hear a question, sir, I'm sure that
Senator Schneiderman will be happy to rephrase
it.
3854
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yeah, please.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President. This legislation
that you've been discussing for some time now,
we've been discussing for sometime now, is, as
I understand it, an effort to make sure that
critical state programs receive funding until
we can pass the full budget. Why is it not -
why is the Superfund program treated
differently than these other programs, such as
the golden nematode program, when there are
communities in the middle of cleanups who are
going to run out of funds, communities about
to try and start cleanups?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I'd respond, first, any that are in the middle
or, if it's an ongoing project, there is
available funds without this bill.
As far as new funds, new
commitments, this will come from the new
budget that we pass.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3855
Stafford, do you yield to another question
from Senator Schneiderman?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Where are
those funds? Where are the funds? You said
there are funds for cleanups that are
underway.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
you know, someone, you know, asked me that
type of question the other day, where are the
funds? I'm sure there's all sorts of general
funds, there's all sorts of bank accounts,
there's all sorts of bond funds. And if the
Senator wants to sit down and go over that
with us, we will show him exactly where it is.
And that's the answer.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
3856
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I hope
that we will be able to discuss this, because
as far as I'm aware, this is an omission in
this piece of legislation I hope that we can
address.
On another issue, the Hudson River
Valley Greenway Communities Council, $50,000
is being allocated, which is 25 percent of the
entire annual budget. And I'm curious as to
why it's necessary for us to appropriate
$50,000 as a part of this emergency bill for
three weeks.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I am no authority on budgeting and
expenditures. But I've learned a bit from
osmosis. And that's about the only way some
of us can learn, those of us who are simple.
But I would explain to you that,
you know, when there are appropriations and
there's a budget, that is entirely up to those
who have the responsibility of expending the
funds. Some funds for certain reasons or
purposes possibly are spent in -- wait a
minute, now. Well, right after the budget.
Others may be each month sort of an equal
3857
amount. Other times, there's a large amount
spent. Other times, funds are withheld until
there's a reason.
Possibly there was a reason the
Greenway for right now to have those funds
expended, because there was -- it was
necessary.
So I hope that explains. And
that -- I realize that's kind of, once again,
a broad stroke with a conceptual brush.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And I had
a related question, a similar question, in
connection with the DHCR federal
weatherization program, where the Executive
recommended $12,350,000 for the whole fiscal
year, and we are appropriating here
$11,200,000, so almost all of the money. How
3858
was the inquiry conducted, what was the
process of inquiry so that we could ascertain
what program gets what in this bill?
SENATOR STAFFORD: What's the
agency? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear.
Weatherization? Sure, that would be -- that's
something that's very important up in my area.
Mr. President, excuse me. That would be enter
into contract.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Excuse me,
I couldn't -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Enter into
contract.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, my question, though, is
how was the inquiry conducted -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, just a minute.
Senator Stafford, do you yield to
another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, once
again, we'd have to go to those who are
responsible and talk with them. It's
administering the funds. Every agency I
believe that's in the -- where is it? It's in
3859
the Division of Housing and Community Renewal.
That's administered very, very well, and has a
very good staff. They really do the job. I
know they do the job in my area. And of
course they, I'm sure, made professional
decisions why this money was included in the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Was
there -- were there written submissions to the
various agencies to advise your distinguished
finance staff as to what was necessary for the
next three weeks, or was this done through
conversations? I just want to understand the
process by which these numbers, which vary all
over the place -- some programs get a very
3860
small amount for this three-week period, some
get a very large portion of their fiscal year.
How was this information gathered? Were there
written submissions?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I would
answer the distinguished Senator, and also
your distinguished staff, that what this is
all about is administering a department. Now,
when bills are sent up, there certainly are
memoranda and there are materials. This is
always done. It was done in the routine
course of business.
And I do want you to know that our
distinguished staff is always very, very well
advised by the distinguished Executive staff.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the distinguished
sponsor would yield to another -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
3861
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Coming
back to the issue of school aid, was there any
discussion that you're aware of in the process
of coming up with the numbers in this bill of
the need to provide more funds for high-need
districts around New York State than were in
last year's school aid formula?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Once again,
Mr. President, I go back to what I said
earlier. And this is why no matter how old we
are, sometimes we have to go over things and
go over things and go over things. And over
things. But this budget provides funding for
those obligations that are presently there and
for funds that were planned for this period.
Nothing different as far as -- there isn't any
change as far as a new budget is concerned.
Policy does not -- a change in policy -
that's what I'm trying to say. A change in
policy is not entered in when we have these
bills.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well,
through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would yield for another question.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
3862
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So I
thought that in some cases funds were made
available for this three-week period based on
the projections, going forward, of what the
agencies needed. And what I gather you are
saying now is that this -- that we're sticking
to the appropriations that have been
previously made.
I'm a little bit confused. Does
this extend in every case the budget that was
in place as -- that's still in place, the
fiscal-year budget that's still in place, or
does this look to the proposed new budget in
some cases, in some cases not?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
this does get complicated. And the first
thing you know, we're moving into academia.
But let me explain it this way, please. You
have to also understand that this is, in
effect, a minibudget, if you think about it.
And if we didn't pass this minibudget, then
government would not go on and would not be
supported.
3863
But it's done with no new policy,
and it's on the basis of what is needed as far
as the last budget is concerned.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: However,
my understanding is that in some cases there
is policy being made in the sense that we're
looking to the current needs, projecting
forward -- if contracts are to be let, what
the needs are for this fiscal year. And we I
assume take from that the analysis the
Governor has done for the proposed budget
that's upcoming.
Or correct me if I'm wrong, my
understanding from your answer is that in some
cases we're continuing the funding from last
3864
year and in some cases we're providing a
different level of funding based on the
analysis for the fiscal year that's about to
start.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
this is what's required to keep government
running for three weeks.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. Thank the sponsor for his
stand-up answers.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'll always
stand up.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, why do you rise?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Will the
sponsor yield for a couple of questions? I'm
sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Stavisky?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
3865
SENATOR STAVISKY: The
independent living centers, there are 35 or 36
of them throughout the state. Does the
appropriation that we're about to approve this
evening assume any changes in the number or
the programs in these independent living
centers?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Once again,
Mr. President -- but I'll make my answer very
brief -- as I mentioned, this is only -- not
only, but this is making available funds for
government as it exists to continue.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Without cuts.
SENATOR STAFFORD: No, there
would not be cuts.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
a couple of other -- one other question about
the independent living center.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, would you yield to another question
from Senator Stavisky?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I've been
3866
listening to Senator Stafford's repeated
explanations, and I think we can assume then
that the payrolls will be met, including the
cost of living adjustments for the staff of
these independent living centers?
SENATOR STAFFORD: No, there
would be no new COLA as far as that funding
goes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: So there would
no COLA increases for the employees.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Not in an
emergency bill. That would be something in
the main bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
if Senator Stafford would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The Consortium
for Worker Education is an important program
in the City of New York. Does the Consortium
for Worker Education appropriation assume a
continuation at the 2000-2001 level, or does
3867
it reflect the Governor's proposed cut in
his -- that was announced in his Executive
budget?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I would again point out -- and as I've
answered so many times, I'll just say it's at
the current level. Thank you.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I didn't hear
the answer.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Current level.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The current
level, not the Governor's Executive budget.
Okay, I thank the -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, do you wish to speak? I have a
list going. Senator Paterson is next, Senator
Duane is after him. And then you'll be next.
Okay?
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. I'd like to inquire of the
distinguished chair of the Finance Committee
if he would be willing to pause in his
deliberations and answer a few questions.
3868
SENATOR STAFFORD: I certainly
would. And I didn't realize that you were
going to be distinguished. But you always
are.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
we've appropriated annually about $75 million
in Court of Claims insurance. And in this
particular situation and this extender, we've
probably appropriated a quarter of it in one
shot, over $18 million -- actually, over -
nearly $19 million. And my question is, why
would we be putting forth 25 percent of the
resources for really this extender which
covers a three-week period?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I have the highest regard for Senator
Paterson. And I'm sure that the reason you
didn't hear the answer to that question at
least three times here this evening is because
you were tied up. And I understand that
completely.
The reason being, in my opinion -
remember, I said I learned the budget process
3869
by osmosis. And that's why the two of us who
work in Finance, that's the way we learn, your
Senator and myself. And very often, a budget
passes and then maybe the funding is all
expended the first couple of months. It may
be divided over the next twelve months. It
may be all spent in the middle. It just
depends on when the funds are needed.
And of course it's up to the
Executive branch and the Comptroller branch -
the Department of Audit and Control, they make
these decisions. So really, that's the
answer. And I don't think anyone should be
concerned if, you know, the numbers are not,
you know, in a way that looks like it would be
spread out during a certain period.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the chair would be willing to suffer
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
3870
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I was
wondering, since there was a huge recovery in
a case brought against the State for
$13 million -- I believe it was the Guido
case -- if we had legislated to accommodate
that payment right away or whether this was
just our standard procedure.
SENATOR STAFFORD: The funding is
there for the obligations that we have. And I
couldn't give you the exact cases here. I'm
trying to be specific and clear and
responsive.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right. All
right, Mr. President, if the Senator would
yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: See, I just
raised that because I wanted to know if our
initial funding was based on anything that was
current or if that's the just the way we chose
3871
to do it.
And another example of this is the
workers' compensation insurance. It averages
out to be about $191 million. And we are
going to pay $115 million, which is about
61 percent of that amount, and we're going to
do that in the first period. It's
60.5 percent, to be more specific.
And since we have a 12-month
period, of which this is not even a month, I
wondered if that was our standard procedure or
whether or not that's economically sovereign
for us to do that at this particular time, to
put that particular amount of money into
workers' compensation.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, once
again, I believe we make two payments into
workmen's compensation a year, and this is
one.
And, you know, let me also
explain -- because the more I stand here, the
more I find I have to clarify my answers. And
I think that's healthy. That's healthy. But
as I would point out now, it doesn't
necessarily -- every agency is different,
3872
every obligation is different. And also, just
because we make the appropriation, that
doesn't necessarily mean that it will be
spent. But it's there for when we need it.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. Senator Stafford is right, we make
two payments. I guess one is in April, one is
in September. So if we made 60 percent on the
front end, actually that would average out
pretty much to be pretty equal.
If the Senator would yield for
another question.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator,
because we have a cross-cultural interest in
this body, and earlier Senator Breslin from
Albany asked a question about the Municipal
Assistance Corporation, which existed in
New York City, then I thought that, being from
New York City, I would ask you a question
about Fort Drum, which I understand is about
20 miles southeast of Watertown, near
Carthage, New York.
3873
And because we had such a military
presence at Fort Drum many years ago, we have
a special school aid grant to that particular
area. And now that there are far fewer
military personnel in that area, I was
wondering why we're still funding that -
using that same formula for the funding of the
Fort Drum school grant.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
first I have to mention this, and this is the
last time I'll digress. I was stationed at
Fort Drum once.
SENATOR PATERSON: Really?
SENATOR STAFFORD: You know, I
thought you'd want to know that.
SENATOR PATERSON: I do want to
know that, Mr. President.
SENATOR STAFFORD: This actually
is, Mr. President -- the bill is passed on the
basis of last year's budget, and this is the
tail that we talked about earlier.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if I could digress for a moment, is Fort Drum
3874
really 20 miles southeast of Watertown?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I don't think
it's southeast. It's about -- it's Senator
Wright's district. But I think it's about
three or four miles, five miles from
Watertown. Seems close. It's bordered by the
Black River, the Indian River, and one other.
But it's a nice area.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
Mr. President, if the Senator would continue
to yield.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: So then there
is a good reason to continue the funding at
Fort Drum as it's been?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes, Mr.
President. The budget passed last year, and
it's being continued.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3875
Stafford, do you yield to another question
from Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PATERSON: The preceding
question from Senator Oppenheimer on the 4201
schools, they mean a lot to Senator
Oppenheimer, they mean a lot to me. And my
question is, we've continued the funding there
pretty much the same as it is in spite of the
fact that one of the problems that the 4201
schools, particularly the ones around New York
City, have is that in spite of the fact that
teachers in New York City are underpaid,
they're paid more money than they are at the
4201 schools.
And it's our point of view that
many of the teachers -- and it's a specialized
training that they receive, but then they
leave for better jobs -- maybe not better
jobs, but jobs that pay better. And I
wondered if it wouldn't be a bad idea, when we
talk about the real budget, to talk about
increasing the funding to pass along some of
these resources to some of the employees who
really could benefit from it. And the
children would benefit from it also if they
3876
have teachers that stay for longer durations,
who are more aptly compensated for their
efforts.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
the Senator's point is well taken. It's
something very, very important, and it would
be an issue that would be considered in the
budget when it is taken up.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I'd like to move along to the small cities
grant, if Senator Stafford is willing to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I am certainly
willing to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: And I'm
willing to ask.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Good for you.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm not clear
in the legislation what is the designation and
3877
the size that meets the threshold for small
cities as opposed to larger cities. Give me
some examples. Who are we actually talking
about?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
these would be cities with less than 125,000.
Now, I can name one for you. Do you want me
to name one?
SENATOR PATERSON: Please.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Plattsburgh.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
And that was a direct answer.
I understand that was the scene of
the Battle of Plattsburgh, Senator.
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's right,
1814 and the Revolutionary War. In fact,
Plattsburgh saved the nation.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: It did in 1980
as well, Senator, when the U.S. hockey team
beat the Russians there, if I remember
correctly. Oh, sorry, that was Lake Placid.
Mr. President, if the Senator is
continuing to yield.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
3878
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, at
what point will it become necessary for the
school districts who are planning out exactly
what personnel they're going to need and what
resources that they would require, and also
for them to set their budgets for the
2001-2002 period, at what point in the year do
you think it will be absolutely necessary that
they have the information they will need based
on what resources they will receive from this
process that we're starting tonight?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
being here 36 years, this is a very sensitive
question. And you may recall my answer to
Senator Oppenheimer. And I would say the same
as to Senator Oppenheimer, I am as concerned
as anyone. I would like to be in Senator
Paterson's district when he explains. But of
course you don't have exactly the same
situation, although you have a serious
situation. Now, I know what I'm going to say.
But I don't think you'll say what I'll say.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3879
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No, I don't
think I will, Mr. President.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would be willing to yield for
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR PATERSON: I saw eight
designations of programs that we will be
funding in the areas that we would define as
housing. I saw one I really hadn't seen very
much before, and it related to the urban
homeowners counseling and the rural homeowners
counseling to the Neighborhood Homeowners Fund
and also the Rural Homeowners Fund. And I
wanted to know a little bit about what those
programs accomplish. I believe that they
provide services to people would want to
purchase property, but I wanted to know what
else they entail.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I -- people are going to think that I planted
this question with Senator Paterson. Because
3880
if there's one department -- and there are
many others, but if there's one department
that really does the job under a Commissioner
from Buffalo, Joe Lynch and his able staff,
it's the Department of Housing and Community
Renewal.
And I assure you that they are
doing an excellent job. And if you want to
sit down with me sometime and get some exact
detail on who is assigned to what and who is
doing what and who is doing the weatherization
and who is helping those who need assistance
in rental, I'm sure that we can get that for
you.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator is willing to yield for another
planted question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question
from Senator Paterson?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
new regulations that we passed in 1997,
3881
particularly to rental and major capital
improvements, and at which point apartments
move to market rate, would that be part of the
type of information that individuals would be
receiving from these types of programs?
SENATOR STAFFORD: The answer is
in the affirmative, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Stafford would yield for another
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I was
interested in your discourse with Senator
Breslin a little while ago, and talking about
the Municipal Assistance Corporation and also
the money that comes back to the city in sales
tax before it transfers through the MAT fund.
And my question is, the original
projections for when the MAC debt would be
3882
paid were to 2005. Now, in 1987 it was at
$8 billion. And now we have it down to about
$2.5 billion. Are we still on course to pay
the MAC debt by 2005?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I first didn't say a thing about sales tax. I
want to make that very clear. I said that it
was in the billions and I said that yes, we
are on course.
And then the final question Senator
Breslin asked me was when it would be, you
know -- what was the final question? When it
would be paid. And I said yes, the -- I
didn't say yes, but the answer is yes. I said
that he put it better than I could put it.
And I voted for that.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Stafford would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
3883
SENATOR PATERSON: Then, Senator,
if we're on course, then do we really need to
hold the money in the MAT funds before the
sales taxes go back to New York City? Or is
that a good collateral for if there were a
nonpayment toward the MAC fund?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I was just
very pleased here, because the answer is what
I thought the answer was. Or is. And that
is, it's required by law, by the bond.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: My next
question, if the Senator would yield, again,
in your conversation with Senator Breslin, the
two of you discussed the contingency
guarantees. And you said at that time -- I
believe this is what you said -- that that
really was not a debt. And my understanding
was that it was a debt to the Insurance Fund
because of our arrears in the late 1980s.
Could you clear that up for me, Senator?
Through you, Mr. President.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I said that it's a guarantee and we hope that
3884
the funds will not have to be expended.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Because of the
fact that we probably would not have to pay
it, is that the reason that it appears late in
the government operations part of the budget
for, I believe, $700 million? And at that
point it is not really backed by any cash, but
I guess it would be if we ever had to call on
it; is that correct, Senator?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
on the bill.
I want to thank Senator Stafford
for his answers.
3885
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: And that's it,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Duane?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, I wanted to focus
at first on the Crime Victims Board. I know
that there's $3.5 million in the
appropriation. I'm wondering if any of that
money had to be put in because of our
enactment of hate crimes legislation last
year.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well,
actually, Mr. President, this item would of
course obviously go to the Crime Victims
3886
Board. And there's no additional funding
because of the legislation we passed, and
there would be nothing specific. But if there
are claims, of course they will be handled by
the board.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: I know that this
is money to take care of expenses, payments
already incurred. Is there any way that the
board has kept track of, though, what
categories the payments have been, whether,
you know, some are for robbery or some are for
hate crimes? Do they actually delineate it
that way?
SENATOR STAFFORD: That might be
available. I don't have that right here.
SENATOR DUANE: Okay, thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, I
wanted to continue with the Crime Victims
Board.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question?
3887
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm curious as to
whether or not -- the only thing that I see in
the budget is the $3.5 million in this
emergency appropriation. Is there a formula
which the board uses that determines how much
money goes to New York City or how much goes
downstate and how much of it will be used
upstate? Is there a breakdown like that in
the request made by the board?
SENATOR STAFFORD: It's
interesting -- Mr. President, it's interesting
the Senator asked that, because I was thinking
about that today. I was wondering how really
determinations are made.
And it would appear to me that they
just take case for case and make it on the
basis of each case.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, just to follow up on that. But
does the board itself keep statistics on where
the money goes or -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
3888
I would again suggest possibly this is
available. I don't have it here.
SENATOR DUANE: And just -
finally, just so I can tell -- on the crime
board. I have a couple of other questions,
but on this, through you, Mr. President -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question
from Senator Duane?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: If the sponsor
just could tell me what he believes the lag
is; in other words, the money that's being put
in for these incurred reimbursements or
payments, from what period of time were those
cases adjudicated that the payments come due
now?
SENATOR STAFFORD: A six-month
lag, Mr. President.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'd like to ask just a few
questions about the AIDS Institute emergency
allotment. Is there any one program or -
3889
well, probably it would be more than one
program since there's a $7.6 million request.
Is that across the board, or are there
specific programs which the emergency funds
are needed to fund? And if you have that
information, if you could maybe give me an
idea of how much is for each program.
SENATOR STAFFORD: What it is
here, Mr. President, the various contracts
that they've entered into that are due, that's
really how the money is being paid. As far as
any detail, I'd be glad to get any additional
information you'd like to have.
But as far as that -- as far as any
detail on exactly -- these are contracts
entered into -- and these are the contracts
with the community service providers.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, just to clarify it.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR DUANE: I know that the
list may not be available. But there would be
a set of contracts worth $7.6 million as
opposed to a certain percentage of payouts on
3890
contracts sort of across the board?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I am
a little concerned because -- through you, Mr.
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I am concerned in
that we're doing an emergency appropriation on
this. Is it prudent for us to only cover
three weeks, or has actually an appropriation
which would cover contracts going beyond three
weeks been included in here as sort of a
safety net?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
as I mentioned earlier, these are obligations
or contracts, but there's no question that we
can have upon here that can go beyond this
period. It's not just locked in just for this
period.
3891
SENATOR DUANE: And just a final
question through you, Mr. President, on the
AIDS part of the allocation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Is any of this
money for ADAP?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
that funding does not have to be appropriated,
and it's not in here.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield specifically on -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
The Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: -- specifically
on Child Health Plus, if we could just shift
gears a little bit.
I was trying to figure out on the
information that I had what the annual
insurance-premium cost per child is for Child
3892
Health Plus. And maybe I just can't do it
from the detail provided to me about this.
But do you know what the annual cost is,
premium per child?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
it varies because of the various areas of the
state and the various insurance carriers.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, you continue to yield?
The Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: I was going to
ask then if this is sort of a minimum, but I'm
assuming that the $21.2 million is again
something that would cover for a longer period
of time no matter what insurance coverage each
of the children had. So we're talking about a
ballpark rather than a specific figure for
these three weeks; is that correct?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
this would be for whatever premiums are due
for the three-week period.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I
3893
want to just go to one final area that I'm
very interested in, if the sponsor would
continue to yield, Mr. President.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: And this has to
do with the Section 8 area. And I don't -- I
actually, I'm going to sort of have an
open-ended question on this for the sponsor.
How is it possible that we would need to
appropriate money for a three-week period on
the Section 8 program since it's sort of tied
up also with applications made to HUD for
funding and the actual contracts that were
entered into? How could we have a three-week
shortfall on that?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, Mr.
President, it's not a shortfall, it's what's
needed for that three-week period.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
3894
SENATOR DUANE: It just strikes
me as weird that we need money for these three
weeks. I mean, how could we not have
anticipated that earlier than today?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
what this is is to allow government, support
government to continue as usual. These will
be -- these are obligations during that
three-week period just as if we were going on
as usual, if we were like in a fairyland and
had a budget.
SENATOR DUANE: That's for sure.
Thank you, Mr. President. On the
bill, if I may.
You know, I very much appreciate
the Senator's information on, while it's only
for a three-week period, you know, a very
complicated emergency request. And there's,
you know, a great deal of detail that needs to
be, you know, kept together on it.
However, I think that begs the more
important question of how it's possible that
just today -- and some people got information
about this earlier today, and some people just
had information with the actual legislation
3895
put on their desks just a short time ago -
how it is that we did not anticipate this
shortfall that we would need an emergency -- I
mean, I'll accept that it's not a shortfall.
But in order for me to understand what it is,
I have to think of it as a shortfall -- but
this emergency appropriation to let government
keep running, how it is that we didn't
anticipate that this was going to happen
before today. That just seems very imprudent.
And I can't help but to think that
if the financial watchdogs, the bond people
were looking at this, they would say, Gee,
those New Yorkers really do not have their act
together if they need, you know, to ask for
emergency funds for the Legislature for three
weeks. I mean, I could see -- if we had at
the beginning of this quarter been able to
predict, and I don't know why we couldn't,
that we were going to run out of money and
have to do this, well, I think the prudent
thing to have done would have been to do that
months ago in the beginning of the quarter.
Even if we'd done that as one of the first
things we did in January. If the budget
3896
people had been looking at this through the
early winter, through November and December, I
can't imagine that they didn't see this
coming.
I came from a place where we would
often do budget mods, but we didn't do them on
an emergency, crisis basis. We actually
anticipated them. Oftentimes we would have to
take money -- though I was never happy about
this, but we would have to take money from
other programs to pay for programs that we
were going to have the shortfall on. But we
did it a quarter before, so that we had time
to negotiate out exactly how it would be. And
there would be some give and take between the
executive branch and those of us who were on
the council. It was actually a good way to
really look at programs and how they were
being funded. And it was always used as an
educational tool as we looked to the next
year's budget.
But it was never that it was an
emergency appropriation where we only had, you
know, a day or, in the case of some of us,
just, you know, a few moments to look at it.
3897
I mean, while I was sitting here while other
people were asking about areas that they were
very interested in, I had to pore through some
of it to see what was going on. And I just
don't think that's an appropriate way to do a
budget.
I hope that this is the last time
we ever have to do something like this. I
think we should learn our lesson. Because
frankly, I don't think it makes us look too
good. I think it makes us look like we don't
have our act together. And I think that's
something that the bonding agencies care about
very deeply, is whether or not we have our
financial house in order. And to have to make
emergency appropriations for three weeks on a
day's notice just doesn't seem like a very
good way to do business, frankly.
So I'm going to think about it, but
I think I'm going to vote no on this, because
I don't think this is the way it should be
done. And I don't think that my no vote is
going to make this emergency appropriation go
down the drain. But if it is, it might be
worth it. It would teach us a lesson that we
3898
shouldn't ever let things get to this point
where we had to do an emergency appropriation
for three weeks. It just doesn't seem like
the right way to do business.
And I think we should really take a
hard look at what the problem is. Maybe it's
the Executive branch, maybe it's us. I don't
know. But it just doesn't seem right to have
to do this on an emergency for three weeks on
a one day or less notice.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, you're next on the list.
Just for the benefit of the
members, I would remind you that this debate
started at 5:06, so you may want to -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Keep it very
short?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Well,
it's -- you can take six minutes if you want
to. But you may just want to organize your
thoughts accordingly.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, all
right. I'll try to be as brief as possible.
Mr. President, if the chair
3899
would -- the Finance chair would yield for a
couple of questions, please.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Sure.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator Stafford, I note that the
children and family block grant, there's
funding in our continuation budget. However,
there's no language to accompany the
appropriation. So I'm just curious as to what
that means. Does that mean that we are not
funding the exact programs that -- i.e., the
block grant, or are we funding those programs
in a different way? Because there is -- you
don't have language to accompany the
appropriation for the block grant.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
the reason that there is not language in the
appropriation bill is because the language is
in this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, excuse the interruption. We have a
lot of noise in the chamber, a lot of members
having conversations. So if we could have
staff take their seats. And, Senator Larkin,
if you'd take your seat, please. Senator
3900
Fuschillo, if you just would like to -- there
are discussions at a rather lengthy distance
here taking place, and it's very, very
difficult to hear everybody, so -- thank you.
SENATOR STAFFORD: And, Mr.
President, I would note that the program will
continue as it has been continuing.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Mr. President, through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So, Senator
Stafford, even though the block grant expires
on the 31st, you're continuing appropriations
beyond that -- i.e., this bill -- without
language to accompany it. So is there any
problem in terms of the funding of the
programs that are within the block grant based
on there being essentially no block grant at
that point, at the end of the 31st?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
the language in the bill allows us to continue
3901
the programs as they have been conducted.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Mr. President, if Senator Stafford would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Senator Stafford, in the section of the bill
for the Office of Mental Retardation and
Development, as you know, a number of the
community service providers in my district -
and I would imagine throughout all of our
districts -- often there is a delay in billing
which causes a delay in their funding, and so
they often run out of money before it's -
before they are reimbursed, and run into
trouble.
So I'm just wondering if this
budget covers an event where a program may
actually run out of money and have to get, you
know, additional funding on an emergency
basis.
3902
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's a good
point, Mr. President. Any provider that
submits funding or submits requests for
funding during this period will be covered by
this legislation.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Mr. President, just one more point that I
would like to raise with Senator Stafford.
In the event, Senator Stafford -
Mr. President, through you -- in the event
that a program needs some emergency funding
and they're not covered beyond the -- this
budget, what do they do? Is there some sort
of a circuit breaker for them?
SENATOR STAFFORD: It's a very
good point, Mr. President. This includes
contingency funding.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: It does
include contingency funding in this bill?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, for how much, if Senator Stafford
will -- can you -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question?
3903
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
each contingency would be different. As far
as setting forth any actual contingencies
specific, it's not in there. But it's
programmed in there for the need.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. And
one last question that I have is regarding the
youth opportunity centers and the -- there's a
funding for the reimbursement to Indian
tribes, and that's very important. I'm very
happy that that's in. But usually it's not
part of our extension bill. However, youth
opportunity centers, I'm just wondering how
did you calculate how much they actually will
need and if that will cover those centers that
are under -- which ones of the projects are
covered? You have here -- it says it's a
local funding, it covers local programs. But
I want to make sure because I think there's
one, a program in Brooklyn, and I don't know
how much -- where there goes, this money.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, excuse me.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR STAFFORD: The specific
3904
projects, we don't have here. But we'll be
glad to try to get them.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. I
appreciate that.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Excuse
me, Senator Montgomery. Senator Skelos, why
do you rise?
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, I
know that two hours has elapsed. And pursuant
to Rule IX, Section 3(d), I'd like to move to
close debate at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Deputy Majority Leader has essentially called
the question, so the Secretary will call the
roll.
Senator Connor, why do you rise?
SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President,
we'd like to cast a party vote in the negative
against the motion to close debate.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Party
vote in the affirmative? Okay, the -
SENATOR CONNOR: And if I may
recognized to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator,
there's no explanation, no debate on the issue
3905
at this point. Party vote in the affirmative,
that's a majority. Essentially the debate is
closed.
SENATOR CONNOR: Okay, thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: You want
to explain your vote on the bill?
SENATOR CONNOR: No, to close for
the Minority. The rules say that after the
question is called, the Minority gets to close
and the Majority Leader gets to close.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if I could perhaps correct the distinguished
Minority Leader, I think that relates to
Section C if we are still within the two-hour
limit.
SENATOR CONNOR: Section C of
Rule IX?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yup.
SENATOR CONNOR: No, if no
Senator shall -- the president shall declare
the debate closed, except that thereafter the
Minority Leader may speak once or may yield
the floor to any Senator and may be followed
by the Temporary President, who make speak
once. The main question shall put thereafter
3906
immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Let me
find the right section, Senator, and I will
explain it to you.
Senator, what you have to do is
skip down to paragraph -- on page 24 of the
Senate Rules, if you look down under
subdivision (d), you will find that when -- it
talks about when any bill or concurrent
resolution shall have been under consideration
for two hours, including all amendments
thereto, shall be put in the order for any
Senator to move debate.
That is where. We have received an
affirmative vote of the Senators. And so
debate is closed. There is no provision for
any additional debate beyond the two hours
under that particular motion.
Now, you can explain your vote.
And when we take -
SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President, I
can explain my vote?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Yes, on
the bill. Not on the motion. Okay? That's
the ruling of the chair under that motion.
3907
So we will move to the Secretary
will call the roll on the bill.
SENATOR CONNOR: I appeal the
ruling of the chair, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: That you
have the right to do.
The Secretary will call the roll on
the -
SENATOR CONNOR: Slow roll call,
please, Mr. President.
SENATOR SKELOS: Point of order.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Yes,
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, I
don't believe the rules apply to a slow roll
call on appealing the ruling of the chair.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Give me
just a minute.
Senator Connor. Under the new
rules -- and there has been a change. That
would have been appropriate under the old
rules, but it is no longer appropriate under
the new rules -- a slow roll call is not
available. So it's not a ruling of the chair,
it just is not available.
3908
So it specifically sets that forth
on page 22 in Rule VIII-6(b). It only
provides for slow roll calls in certain kinds
of situations. In a procedural motion like
this, it is not available.
So with that, there is -- we need
to read the last section of the bill.
THE SECRETARY: Section 53 -
SENATOR CONNOR: No, Mr.
President, we haven't voted on the motion to
appeal the ruling of the chair.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Correct.
You're correct. So the Secretary will call
the roll on the appeal of the ruling of the
chair. A vote in the affirmative is a vote to
overturn the ruling of the chair. A vote in
the negative is a vote to uphold the ruling of
the chair relative to a closure of debate and
slow roll call.
So all those in favor of voting to
overturn the ruling of the chair, signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President,
to explain my vote.
3909
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, to explain his vote.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The reason I appealed the ruling of
the chair was not to subsequently request for
a slow roll call, which I recognize, as the
chair has pointed out under the new rules,
does not apply. But as I read the rules, in
voting on a motion a member may explain his
vote, his or her vote. And my attempt to
explain my vote was on the vote on the motion
to close debate. Whereupon, I was casting a
party vote in which to explain why.
It's my understanding of the
rules -- and that's why I appealed,
respectfully appealed the ruling of the
chair -- that a member is entitled to explain
his or her vote on a motion. Even as I do
now, Mr. President.
And in view of that, I will be
voting to overrule the chair.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
3910
to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm voting to
overrule the ruling of the chair and also, in
explaining my vote, to point out that at the
point that the chair ruled to appeal the
ruling of the chair, other than to put it on
the record, I wanted to attempt to convince
the chair that the rules were not being
adhered to properly, that there was just an
error that the chair made.
But I didn't get a chance to
actually do that, even though our rules do
allow for time to explain to the chair why we
thought the chair would have been in error.
And I thought that the chair was in
error because the "thereafter" that's
mentioned in Section E really related to what
would happen after the two-hour time had
elapsed. There was no way it could have been
before the two-hour time had elapsed, because
there would have had to have been a time at
which it was mutually agreed upon that the
Minority Leader and the Majority Leader would
3911
have closed debate.
And all I'm saying, Mr. Chair, is
that the reason the two hours was established
as a time to call the question was to create
the opportunity at that point for the
Temporary President and the Minority Leader,
for the two leaders to in a sense sum up what
had been the relevant points made on both
sides in the two-hour period.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I respectfully
disagree with the Deputy Minority Leader. I
believe our rules provide that once two hours
of debate have expired, it's appropriate for
any member to move to close debate at that
time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: All those
in favor of -
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
point of order.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm just not
clear. Was Senator Skelos casting his vote,
3912
or explaining his vote?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We're
just about to take the vote, Senator. And so
you are out of order, it's not a proper point
of order.
So all those in favor of
overturning -
SENATOR PATERSON: Point of
order, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: State
your point of order.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator Connor
explained his vote. I therefore want to
explain my vote.
I'm just asking if Senator Skelos
was explaining his vote, because he never
voted.
SENATOR SKELOS: You didn't hear
me say I'm explaining my vote?
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
SENATOR SKELOS: I apologize.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: All those
in favor of overturning the ruling of the
chair signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
3913
SENATOR CONNOR: Party in the
affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Party
vote in the affirmative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Party
vote in the negative.
The ruling of the chair is upheld.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 53. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR CONNOR: Slow roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Are there
five members who are requesting, agreeing to a
slow roll call? There are five standing,
thank you.
The Secretary will call the roll
slowly.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
3914
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BROWN: I'm going to be
voting no on the emergency appropriation bill
that -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, point of order. I'm just having
some difficulty hearing Senator Brown, if we
could just have -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: It's not
a proper point of order, but your point is
taken, Senator Dollinger.
It is very noisy in here. So if
the members would please quiet down and listen
to Senator Brown. Thank you.
Senator Brown.
3915
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'm going to be voting no on the
emergency appropriations bill that we just
discussed. Similar to Senator Dollinger's
feelings and comments when he asked some
questions and to spoke to the bill earlier, I
lament the process.
I, like Senator Oppenheimer, would
like to see a budget passed on time. I
believe, like Senator Dollinger, that both
houses of this Senate should work together to
pass the budget on time.
I have enjoyed working with my
colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans,
and feel strongly that this process of passing
late budgets year after year, and these
extenders that we do, is flawed. And like
Senator Dollinger said, one of the reasons why
it is allowed to happen year after year is
because of the partisanship that exists in
both houses of this Legislature. I think in
working on an important item like the budget,
both houses of this body should -- both
parties in this body should come together,
3916
should work on a budget that we could present
to the Governor, and have that budget
negotiated with the Assembly.
Because of the process, I will be
voting in the negative, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown will be recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was indicated as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, to explain his vote.
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, Mr.
President. I guess one way or the other I'm
going to sum up on this bill. And I guess
this two minutes is the way to do it. I
suspect that the other way would have been
quicker, but I guess if that's the way we're
reading the rules, that's the way we're
reading the rules.
I'm going to reluctantly vote for
this, because I don't want to be accused of
wanting to shut down government. But the fact
3917
that we're doing this, is it progress in the
budget process? I guess three-week extenders
are progress over the two-week extenders we
did a couple of years ago when the budget
didn't pass until August.
The real fact of the matter, Mr.
President, is this Legislature has got to stop
waiting for the Governor and do the job of a
Legislature and negotiate between the two
houses a budget. That's why we had conference
committees set up in past years. Pass a
budget. And if the Governor vetoes things,
let's get together. If we have negotiated a
budget, let's enact that budget. And there
are obviously ways, if the Legislature has a
consensus budget between the two houses, it
really doesn't matter what the Governor does.
And I heard earlier in today's
debate reference to the fact, but we
appropriate the money and the Executive
decides how to spent it. Well, that's not the
way it works. There was a case, I believe it
was Anderson against Carey, when the late,
great Majority Leader of this house, Warren
Anderson -- I don't mean that he's late. He's
3918
still with us, thank God. But he's not the
Majority Leader anymore. But the great
Majority Leader Warren Anderson in fact sued
the Governor about impoundment. And we know
the Governor cannot impound funds that the
Legislature determines are appropriated and
ought to be spent.
That's the way we ought to do it.
We shouldn't keep the people of this state
waiting month after month after month. We
shouldn't leave our school districts guessing.
We shouldn't be the laughingstock of the
nation because our budget's going to be months
and months late. And we shouldn't have to go
through this kind of debate every two or three
weeks, making extensions.
We ought to do our job, do a
budget. If the Governor doesn't want engage
now, then he can do what he has to do and we
can do what we ought to do later. That's the
only way out of this. We have to demonstrate
to the public we're serious about this. And
we can handle it. And if what is holding us
all back, my colleagues, 200 and some
legislators, is that we have absolutely bought
3919
in to only three men in a room can do it, then
we're not doing our job.
I submit respectfully that all 211
legislators putting their minds together have
the capability and capacity to do a fine
budget for the people of the State of New
York.
Therefore, Mr. President,
reluctantly I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I spoke on
the floor about this bill and said that this
bill was a part of the continuing shame in New
York. And I guess I've learned something in
3920
the last two days. Yesterday we debated a
whole bunch of bills, remember, where they
used the term "shall." And we concluded that
it didn't really "shall," it meant "may." And
what really meant was it may, at its own
discretion, do it.
Well, the Constitution and the laws
of this state say that we shall pass a budget
by April 1st. And we now know for sure that
the word "shall" doesn't mean "shall." And I
would suggest, as I have suggested a number of
times, Mr. President, there's an easy solution
to this. Lock arms as Democrats and
Republicans in this chamber, pass a veto-proof
budget. We'll give you the votes so that
Senator Bruno or anyone on that side can go
down and negotiate with this Governor or any
other Governor and tell him if he doesn't like
our spending, he can get out his little pen
and he can line-item veto anything he wants,
because there are 41 votes in this chamber to
put it back in.
And the day we do that, we'll
restore the balance of power between the
Governor and the Legislature, and we'll stand
3921
up and say that Democrats and Republicans in
this chamber can decide what the right thing
is for the people of the State of New York.
I'm discouraged the lights have
gone out behind the symbol of the state right
behind the President. I would suggest public
confidence is waning just as fast. I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The floor
is yours, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Oh, I didn't hear
you say that.
I just think it's odd that
yesterday we had a bill for a law which had
previously been passed and there was an
extension and we didn't know whether the study
had been done and whether the program had
started, and nobody knew about it. But it was
3922
all based on law, which the Health Department
had just completely ignored.
I -- I find myself just shocked
that we just blithely do late budgets. We're
voting, you know, on a day's notice on a
budget shortfall for three weeks. It's -- I
was going to say it's comical, but I think
that the stakes are too high for us to call
this comical.
I can't believe that we are unable
to get our act together in order to have more
than a day or an hour's notice for an
emergency appropriation to last for three
weeks right on the verge of what everybody
knows, that we're not passing a budget on
time. It's really, I think, a sad day here in
the Legislature once again. Laws that we pass
that are ignored, emergency appropriations on
a moment's notice for three weeks, and a
budget which everybody is already
acknowledging, even though we're not at the
deadline yet, that's going to be late.
I mean, what else can we do wrong,
what else can we do that's embarrassing. No
wonder we don't get the respect from the
3923
people of the State of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: How do
you vote, Senator Duane?
SENATOR DUANE: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane will be recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Espada, to explain his vote.
SENATOR ESPADA: Mr. President,
to explain my vote.
We often hear the virtues of
efficiency and what is prudent sung out loud
here in these chambers. And of course my
colleagues have indicated through their
explanations the shame that we all feel in
this house. But the fact is that it's worse
than what has been said. Because there seems
to be no regard for timetables, no regard for
the needs of the institutions that serve the
people that put us here, in terms of their
cash-flow needs, in terms of how they conduct
their business.
And so here today we're not only
3924
practicing bad business for the people that
provide the vital services out there -- this
extender, these sweeps, these transfers don't
accomplish that. They simply are conveying
the message that already is out there, is that
we no longer live by any rules here. We don't
even listen to the people that sent us here.
Therefore, I have to vote no on
this extender.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Espada will be recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: To explain my
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, to explain his vote.
SENATOR FARLEY: You know, I
think it's totally irresponsible to vote
against this. Nobody likes a late budget.
Nobody likes the fact that we have to do this.
But, you know, there's thousands upon
thousands of state workers who won't get paid,
there's all kinds of people that will be hurt
3925
if this emergency appropriation is not passed.
I think it's absolutely essential.
And I applaud Senator Connor for voting for
this, because it really is irresponsible to
not vote for this.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile, to explain his vote.
SENATOR GENTILE: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
I agree with Senator Connor, our
leader, in that I will reluctantly vote in the
affirmative so as not to shut down government.
But I also agree with my colleagues that the
system is flawed. We should have had the
budget conference committees already underway.
I agree with Senator Dollinger that we in this
state, in this Legislature, should take the
3926
lead. We should take the lead with the other
house, have the budget conference committees,
come up with an agreed-upon, veto-proof
budget, present that to the Governor.
And I guarantee you, the media in
this state would sit up and take notice.
You'd see that in every editorial in every
newspaper in the state of New York, that the
Legislature has taken the lead on the budget.
And frankly, I think the people of the state
of New York would sit up and take notice.
And by doing that, by having a
veto-proof budget where this house and the
other house, in budget conference committees,
together come up with that budget I believe
will revolutionize the way we do government in
this state and will restore the dignity and
reputation that we so sorely lack in this
chamber with this process.
I vote reluctantly aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3927
Gonzalez, to explain his vote.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
Well, here we go again to make it
that the budget is not on time. It's
something that is sad because we continue to
fall into that pit. We should be able to do a
budget on time if we all got together to do
it. And I think that we need to do this.
I am going to vote in favor of the
extension. But I really would like to see
that we all get together, do our budget on
time, and do what we have to do in this body
no matter what the Governor does, and vote for
the people of the State of New York.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gonzalez, in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
3928
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, to explain her vote.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. I'm very new here, and
that's very obvious to everyone in the room.
But what is not as obvious is that I'm
embarrassed. I'm embarrassed because I'm a
part of a body that somehow -- not because we
don't pass this budget on time, because I have
been in this city -- I was in city government,
and we didn't always pass the budget on time.
But there was not the attitude of
comfortableness that there seems to generate
in this room that whenever we pass the budget,
that's okay.
Now, this resolution I have to
support. I have to support it because
somewhere in here, all of the programs and the
people that I care the most about are going to
be affected. That wasn't accidental, I'm
sure. But my discomfort in supporting this is
that I have the strong feeling that in June,
we're going to be back here doing this again.
Because I don't get a sense that from a
mind-set we are any closer to where we need to
3929
be than we will be in June or in July.
So it's going to be very
embarrassing for me when I go back to the
district this week, and they will ask me, how
did we do on the budget, and I will have to
say to them, We didn't pass it, and we're no
closer to passing it than we were in January.
And that is very unfortunate, and it's truly
embarrassing. And I have to accept that,
because I have accepted to be a part of this
body.
But I will hope that somewhere
between now and June that some of this
attitude of comfortableness will begin to
disturb some of the people on both sides of
this aisle and that we will come closer to
making a decision about a budget that affects
millions of people in the state of New York,
and we won't feel so comfortable and so blase
about it because we threw a few coins at a few
of the programs to make us all feel good for
the next three to six weeks.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, how do you vote?
3930
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I'm
voting in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, in the affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, to explain his vote.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. I'd just like to say to my
colleagues, listening to this whole debate, I
think I may have a solution to this entire
problem, though it may be politically
untenable.
A few years ago, on the way back
from Yitzhak Rabin's funeral on Air Force One,
so the story goes, Newt Gingrich was forced to
sit on the back of the plane. And as a result
of his disenfranchisement and the problem he
felt associated with that, he decided to shut
down the government. And it happened. And
there was a tremendous, tremendous political
fallout. So much so that I daresay it will
never happen again. Because that the public
3931
was completely intolerant of.
And so I would suggest to all my
colleagues here -- and this is very dangerous
politically, but I think it would work -- that
if we had some kind of constitutional change
in New York State and banned the legislation
that is before us right now -- you can no
longer do emergency extenders, can't do it.
And I understand what Senator Farley was
referring to in terms of state employees not
getting paid and how it's unfair to them
because they don't have a role in this
process. I understand that.
But I suggest to you that that
remedy is so extreme that no one would dare
not negotiate, no one would dare -- as was the
case before a certain point in time when we
started having this institutional inertia that
drove us to late budgets year after year.
There were never late budgets, it's my
understanding. And so if we can get ourselves
back to a situation like that by making it
absolutely politically impossible not to have
an on-time budget, then we won't find
ourselves in this position.
3932
In the meantime, voting no on a
bill like this is a dangerous thing to do, and
it's not the right thing to do, because these
individuals need to get paid and government
does need to keep functioning. But something
radical has to happen here. And that
something radical may be the solution that I
just outlined.
In the meantime, I'm going to again
call on everybody to have a seat at the table,
as Senator Dollinger referred to -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, how do you vote?
SENATOR HEVESI: Just to sum up,
Mr. President -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Your two
minutes is up, Senator. Yes or no?
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
for the reasons I articulated previously, I'm
going to vote with great reluctance but in
favor of the bill before us.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
3933
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Briefly to
explain my vote, Mr. President.
As I noted before when I spoke on
the transportation parts of this resolution,
there is a great deal of imperfection. The
imperfection exists in the process and the
time for this budget as well.
But I also realize that more people
will be hurt if this resolution goes down in
defeat than will gain anything, so I also have
to vote reluctantly for this resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
3934
SENATOR LACK: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
3935
SENATOR MEIER: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, to explain his vote.
SENATOR ONORATO: I'm going to
vote for this bill because I don't believe in
punishing people who have absolutely nothing
to do with the budget process that we're all
involved in, and that includes approximately
249 legislators who have no or very little
input into the actual budget process.
We're going to find out today was
the last day that they are going to be paid.
They are going to be penalized for not being
3936
included in the process of the budget. And I
think it's high time that we were all
included. If we're going to be penalized for
not passing a budget, I think everybody,
including the Governor and those people who
put the budget together, should be penalized.
And if they're looking for
assistance, I hereby volunteer my services to
lock myself in a room with them and cook for
them to make sure that they don't go hungry
while they're debating on how to get this
budget done.
Ladies and gentlemen, I vote yes on
this budget.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer, to explain her vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: To explain
my vote.
If Senator Onorato is doing the
cooking, I will also volunteer for that room.
3937
What to say. I want to echo what
Senator Thompson said, in that it's
embarrassing to be in this position. I find
it very embarrassing being the president of -
past president of a good government group and
participating, being a part of this. And it's
hard to explain. As I said earlier, I really
think it's just that we don't have the will to
get it done. And maybe it's because our
constituents aren't complaining like they once
did, because we moved the timing of the
education money coming into our districts.
But I remember years ago there was quite an
outcry, and we tried harder.
I don't know what the answer is. I
think we need some kind of arbitration or
mediation to move us to do what we all think
we ought to be doing, because we all have to
go back and we all have to face our residents
who all are saying, Why the devil haven't you
passed a budget? And we're all embarrassed,
it's not just this side of the aisle.
So I think we have to think of a
way to force ourselves to do the right thing.
I'll be voting aye, because we certainly have
3938
no option but to vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, to explain his vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
to explain my vote.
I think that the best vote for me
to take is to vote in the affirmative. I
don't want to be responsible, as Senator
Onorato said, that people who are not involved
in the budget process and don't take any
responsibility for it get punished under the
system.
But I think it's important to point
out that they are getting punished under the
system. Not as directly. They don't know the
real pain that is being accrued to them from
this budget not passing on time. And we can
go through a number of different ways, and I
3939
don't have enough time to enumerate all the
ways that the residents of this state are
punished because this budget doesn't get
passed on time.
And we in the Legislature know it,
and we used to respect it. We used to be very
afraid to see a budget not passed on time.
They would stop the clock sometimes to make
sure it was technically passed on time. If
the budget were two or three days late, people
were worried about being reelected. But
that's not the situation now.
We argue back and forth, is it the
Governor's fault, is it the Legislature's
fault. I've decided it's the fault of the
devil. That is the reason that the budget is
not passing on time.
And it's the small compromises,
it's passing extenders just like this that
allow us to go home thinking that we've
actually done something. But the reality is
that we're perpetuating a system where we have
lost respect for government. And we as
legislators, as Senator Connor pointed out,
are not taking our roles seriously and we're
3940
not defining our roles. There always have to
be people among us who lead, people among us
who make decisions, because we all can't do -
negotiate in a room with 211 people. But we
are drowning in an orgy of self-compromise.
We've given away too much authority to others,
and it's about time we started taking it back,
because it gets progressively worse.
So I'll vote for this with the
understanding that at some point, as others
have said, the Legislature is going to have to
step up and take responsibility for our
actions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, how do you vote?
SENATOR PATERSON: I vote in the
affirmative, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson will be recorded in the affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3941
Sampson, to explain his vote.
SENATOR SAMPSON: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
I like to be a realist. And every
year for the last five years, since I've been
coming to this chamber, I know we're not going
do pass the budget on time. And, you know, we
have to be real about that. And until we have
an opportunity to really join in the
process -- it won't happen in my lifetime, it
may not even be in my child's lifetime. But
we have to realize this is the process that we
have to go through and we have to deal with
it. And until we get involved in the process,
you know, we just have to grin and bear it.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote
aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Sampson will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3942
Schneiderman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. I agree with the sentiments
expressed that it would in some respects be
irresponsible to vote against this budget.
However, I think it's also irresponsible for
us to have gotten to this point. I don't
think that we should believe our own press.
And what strikes me dramatically,
being relatively new to the Legislature, is
what appears to almost be this mutual sort of
self-deception that we practice here. We are
not doing that good a job for our constituents
and for the people of the State of New York in
this Legislature. We have a great spin
mechanism. Maybe we're spinning better. But
we're doing worse.
The notion of the casual attitude
towards the late budget is just astonishing.
I mean, if we were -- and I know that many of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
spend a lot of time praising the private
sector and the discipline of the private
sector, but we certainly don't have it here.
And what is the substance of what's
3943
going on in this state? We have very serious
economic difficulties. Central and Western
New York have lost a million people in the
last decade. We have extremely high taxes
without necessarily getting corresponding high
levels of services, and we have the greatest
gap between rich and poor in the entire
industrial world in the State of New York.
We are not doing that good a job on
the substance. And I think that the budget
process is a very big part of the reason why.
We accept failure too easily. We talk about
standards for our schools and for our
students. I don't want -- my daughter, in the
second grade, has a much higher level of
standards presented to her by her teachers
than we seem to have in the New York State
Legislature.
I'm going to vote for the bill, but
I think we really have to take a serious look
at the problem with this process. I do not
know what exactly has to be done, but
certainly unless the public outcry becomes a
little greater, I'm afraid we're not going to
take the action we need to take.
3944
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, how do you vote?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I vote in
the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Ada Smith, to explain her vote.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Hope springs eternal. Every year I
return to Albany with the hope and expectation
that maybe this year we will do a budget on
time. Thirteen years, and I've been
disappointed every year. But I'm not giving
up hope, because I believe we have it with
within our power to make that change.
Reluctantly, I vote in the
3945
affirmative for this extension. And hopefully
next year we will be able to meet that April
1st deadline.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Malcolm Smith, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Mr. President.
Mr. President, if this was a
corporation called the State of New York and
we were the 61 board of directors and we knew
that our quarterly dividends was tied to what
performance and fiscal measures that we would
put in place, all of us would not be doing
what we're doing today.
Anybody who follows budgets, anyone
who is involved in that process understands
that extenders will do nothing other than run
up your budget and your budget will actually
run away from you. Which will happen
inevitably based on what we are doing here
today.
3946
I'm going to be voting in the
affirmative, but I am more concerned with the
model in which we are managing the fiscal
affairs of this state, how we are coming to
our budgetary numbers, the actual equations
and estimations that we are using to get to
that point.
And I believe that it is going to
be very important, as the 61 board of
directors, members, of the corporation of the
State of New York, which is what basically we
are, we need to do a little bit better in
terms of our management of our fiscal affairs
and how we come about determining what our
numbers should be.
Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith, how are you voting?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: I'm
voting yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
3947
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, to explain his vote.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, to explain my vote.
First of all, I'd like to thank
Senator Stafford and the Majority staff people
that took part in the debate. They were very
courteous and got us the answers that we were
looking for. Whether they were entirely what
we were looking for or not, everybody was
cordial and forthcoming with answers, and I
thank them for that courtesy.
I think it's another sad year for
us. The fact is, you know, we had our
economic forecast meeting a week ago when we
did our look at a one-house resolution, budget
resolution. Part of the debate was that, you
know, we're late, we're supposed to have an
avail number, we're breaking the law. But it
wasn't we're breaking the law, it's they're
breaking the law.
And the fact is there's three
parties involved, the Senate, the Assembly and
3948
the Governor. And nobody out of the three is
moving forward to get this thing facilitated.
The truth is, we have to get somebody to
facilitate this process a little bit better or
we're not going anyplace. We have the option
of doing conference committees. Both
one-house budgets are passed.
That we don't have an avail number
wouldn't be the first time we started down
that road without an exact number. I believe
the first time we did conference committees we
started the conference committees out without
an agreement on the avails number. And that
was agreed upon at a big conference before we
started, and then we proceeded with the
process.
Hopefully in the very near future
we may embark on that process again and name
members to the conference committees, have
the -- I think we usually refer to it as the
mother ship, have their meeting and agree on
an avail number, and then assign a number to
each conference committee and let's get going.
I don't want to see us keep coming
back here, in this case in three weeks, or
3949
after the three weeks are over, and have to do
another emergency appropriation bill to fund a
lot of these things. And although school
districts don't have to borrow anymore, pretty
soon we'll be into their budget process and
they won't know what they're putting out for a
school budget because they'll be up against it
and it will be hard-pressed for them to pass
it in some areas.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: How do
you vote, Senator Stachowski?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: My vote will
be in the affirmative, because it's the
responsible thing to do.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3950
Stavisky, to explain her vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Continuing
with what Senator Malcolm Smith said, if we
were a board of directors of a large
corporation, the shareholders would be suing
us for malpractice, it seems to me.
We have a court decision that has
to be implemented concerning school aid.
There are many other important issues:
Transportation, aid for those people who have
not had the same kinds of opportunities that
others have had. And yet we continue year
after year along this sad path.
As Senator Paterson said, he blamed
it on the devil. I blame it on the phrase
"the devil is in the details." And it's the
details that we have to work out.
And, Mr. President I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky will be recorded in the affirmative.
SENATOR STAVISKY: A very
reluctant yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Continue
to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
3951
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker,
excused.
Senator Wright.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator Stafford, when asked,
referred to we have on-time budgets as
fairyland and we certainly don't have a
fairyland here. It's my fifth year here, and
I'd refer to it more as being dysfunctional,
the 61 members of this house, the 150 members
of the other house. And an inability to act
as statesmen, an inability to compromise, an
inability to negotiate, an inability to get
together, and an inability to serve the people
of the State of New York.
3952
But to not vote for this would
penalize many, many people who are not
responsible for our actions and in fact
disagree with our actions. So we have to make
changes. We have to have that ability to take
a step forward, deal with people on the
opposite side of aisles, deal with people in
the other houses, deal with the Executive
branch. And until that happens in a very
collegial way, nothing will be accomplished.
I vote in the affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
I've been listening -- with your permission.
I've been listening to many of the
recommendations and the suggestions on how we
might better handle ourselves.
And many of you have great
observations, and you're absolutely right. We
can do it better. And we in the Senate have
shown the way to do it better. We did a
budget reform package I believe last week for
the fourth year in a row. The Assembly
3953
refuses to take up any budget reform that
would get us an on-time budget.
I've heard suggestions that let's
just do it. We're prepared to just do it.
The Assembly isn't. The Speaker passed a
resolution that from my recollection, if you
priced it out, increases spending $8.2 billion
more than the Governor's proposed budget.
The Governor says -- and he's
absolutely right -- that that will return us
to the losing ways of the previous
administration. And I have to apologize to my
colleagues in the Minority that it was a
member of your party that created a $5 billion
deficit that we inherited, this Governor
inherited and we inherited. How did that
happen? That happened because, Mr. President,
people had no conscience that related to
control. Spend, spend, spend.
This state gets in trouble by
overspending. If we followed the lead of the
Assembly resolution, we would be headed for a
huge deficit back to the losing ways of the
'80s and early '90s. We're not going to do
that. We will be here for as long as we have
3954
to be here to do it right.
And we passed a budget resolution.
It was $1.2 billion over the Governor's
recommended budget. Pricing that out over the
years, it was $2.3 billion. We think that's
realistic and reasonable.
Mr. President, it's time for us to
be realistic, it's time for us to be prudent,
it's time for us to do the people's business.
And it is not up to us to just shut down
government. It's up to us, the elected
representative of the people, to govern. And
that is what we are doing, Mr. President.
And the debate and the discussion
has been extremely enlightening and I think we
are all better for the last several hours that
we've spent together. And be prepared
tomorrow to spend a lot more very pleasant
hours exchanging thoughts and ideas, because
we will continue that discussion with the
other two bills that are part of what we're
contemplating for the people of this state
over the next several weeks.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3955
Bruno will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, to explain his vote.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I agree a thousand percent with Senator Bruno.
I vote aye.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Continue
to call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
3956
the results.
SENATOR BROWN: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, why do you rise?
SENATOR BROWN: After listening
to the leaders and my colleagues explain their
vote, I request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown will be recorded in the affirmative.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52. Nays,
3.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President, if
I may request unanimous -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Just a
minute, Senator.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
3957
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
331.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Finance, Assembly Bill Number 8316 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 3995, Third Reading Calendar 331.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
331, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8316, an act to amend
the Military Law.
SENATOR BRUNO: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
Senator Duane, why did you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: With unanimous
consent, I would like to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 296, Bill 3156.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator Duane
3958
will be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 296.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
328.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Finance, Assembly Bill Number 1301A and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 901A, Third Reading Calendar 328.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
328, Assembly Budget Bill, Assembly Print
Number 1301A, an act making appropriations for
the legal requirements.
SENATOR BRUNO: Lay the bill
aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
Senator Bruno.
3959
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, is
there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Yes,
there is.
Return to motions and resolutions.
The chair recognizes Senator
Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes. On behalf
of Senator Saland, please place a sponsor's
star on Calendar Number 253.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: At the
request of sponsor, Senator Saland, Calendar
Number 253 is starred.
Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Mr.
President. On behalf of Senator Johnson,
please place a sponsor's star on Calendar
Number 237.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Calendar
Number 237 is starred at the request of the
sponsor.
Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, on behalf
of Senator Marchi, I would request that on
page number 21, I offer the following
3960
amendments to Calendar Number 270, Senate
Print Number 3326, and ask that said bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendments to Calendar Number 270 are received
and accepted, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
there being no further business to come before
the Senate, I would move that we stand
adjourned until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, Senate stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 8:03 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)