Regular Session - April 24, 2001
5821
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 24, 2001
11:09 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
5822
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Today
the invocation will be given by the Reverend
Peter G. Young, of the Blessed Sacrament
Church in Bolton Landing.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
Dear God, as we gather in this
beautiful 80-degree day, with the budding
flowers and the trees, we are reminded of Your
regenerative power and the renewal that You
offer to all of our great people in New York
State.
May we again accept this love and
again grow with You and be able to serve You,
in Your name, now and forever.
Amen.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Reading of the Journal.
5823
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, April 23, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, April 22,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Without objection, the Journal stands approved
as read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President. On behalf of Senator Bonacic,
please place a sponsor's star on Calendar
Numbers 231 and 298.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
bills will be starred.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Are there any
5824
substitutions at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Yes,
there are.
SENATOR KUHL: If there are,
could we make those at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 23,
Senator Saland moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Children and Families, Assembly
Bill Number 4203 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 1834, Third
Reading Calendar 255.
SENATOR CONNOR: Point of order,
Mr. President. I just heard that Senator
Saland moved to discharge. I thought we
abolished motions to discharge.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
chair recognizes the Minority Leader.
SENATOR CONNOR: For my point of
order, which I already stated.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: On
your point of order.
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
5825
rules of this house were adopted and amended
so as to affect motions to discharge that were
for the purposes of circumventing the
committee process and bringing a bill to the
floor for a vote and passage.
This is not the purpose of this
particular motion. Therefore, the rules as
amended and adopted do not impact this
particular motion.
SENATOR CONNOR: If I may say
briefly, Mr. President -
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: -- I'm from the
strict constructionist school of legislative
interpretation, and I read the rules and they
say what they say. I suggest that they be
perhaps drafted better next time, because I
don't think presiding officers or courts
should have to engage in such liberal
interpretation.
But I guess I'm just a
conservative, Mr. President.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Thank
5826
you for that opinion, Senator Connor.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 25,
Senator Balboni moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Local Government, Assembly Bill
Number 5691 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 2867, Third
Reading Calendar 303.
On page 26, Senator Farley moves to
discharge, from the Committee on
Transportation, Assembly Bill Number 6570 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 1992, Third Reading Calendar 323.
On page 29, Senator McGee moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Judiciary,
Assembly Bill Number 3960 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3722,
Third Reading Calendar 360.
And on page 30, Senator Padavan
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Judiciary, Assembly Bill Number 3995B and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 3747, Third Reading Calendar 361.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
5827
substitutions are so ordered.
Senator Kuhl, why do you rise?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. At this time could we adopt the
Resolution Calendar, with the exception of
Resolution Number 1400.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
motion is to adopt the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of Resolution Number 1400.
All those in favor say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: All
those against, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Resolution Calender is adopted.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. I hereby give notice as
required by Rule XI of the current Rules of
the New York State Senate that I will move an
amendment to Rule XV, relating to the ethical
standards of officers, employees, and members
of the New York State Senate.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
5828
notice is hereby received, and it shall be
filed in the Journal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, now could we
adopt Resolution Number 1400 and have the
title only read.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Trunzo, Legislative Resolution Number 1400,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim May 14 through 18, 2001, as School
Transportation Personnel Appreciation Week in
the State of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: I would just
like to open up this resolution to all members
of the Senate, if they so wish to be on the
resolution, and adopt it.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Trunzo, as is the custom of the house,
5829
we will leave the resolution open for
cosponsorship. Anyone who wishes not to be on
it, please notify the desk.
The question is on the resolution.
All those in favor please signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Also, Mr.
President, I believe there's a privileged
resolution by Senator Montgomery at the desk.
Could we have the title of that read, and I
move for its adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Montgomery, legislative resolution commending
the Brooklyn Club of the National Association
of Negro Business and Professional Women's
Clubs, Incorporated, upon the occasion of its
5830
34th Annual Founders' Day Awards Luncheon.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President, could we announce that there will
be an immediate meeting of the Education
Committee in the Majority Conference Room,
Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Education
Committee in the Majority Conference Room,
Room 332.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Could we have the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
5831
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
12, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 200, an
act to amend the Penal Law -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
82, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 1094, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
that bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
148, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 832, an
act to amend the Family Court Act.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
that bill aside, please.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
170, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 1912, an
act to amend the Executive Law.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside,
5832
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay it
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
196, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 2131, an
act to amend the Town Law.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
201, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 2953, an
act authorizing -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
217, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1772 -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
277, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 427 -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
5833
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
284, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1136 -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
286, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3071 -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
305, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1208, an
act -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
320, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3612 -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
355, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3185 -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
5834
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
356, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3188 -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
361, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Lopez, Assembly Print Number
3995B -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside that bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
374, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 2406 -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside the bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
385, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2862 -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Lay
aside the bill.
Senator Johnson, that completes
5835
the reading of the, so to speak,
noncontroversial calendar. What be your
pleasure?
SENATOR JOHNSON: It's certainly
a misnomer, yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
Now may we have the controversial
reading of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Secretary will read.
SENATOR JOHNSON: If you can
start with Calendar 201.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Secretary will read Calendar 201, by Senator
Marchi.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
201, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 2953, an
act authorizing the New York State Urban
Development Corporation.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President,
we have the felicitous opportunity for
advancing a great initiative in the City of
5836
New York. We've had some very dutiful and
productive efforts exercised in Washington,
especially by Senator Moynihan.
And this addresses the question of
the development of the combined Penn Station
and the Farley Post Office into one great
center, which will be probably the most
important nexus of transportation facilities
in the world -- certainly in the United
States, and I would imagine in the world. It
facilitates access to the remotest corners of
the earth and centralizes services in a very
exemplary way.
I have a very fine letter of
support, memorandum in support, by -
subscribed here by Anthony Piscitelli on
behalf of the City of New York, who has
invested $25 million in this as part of a
larger nexus of participation. And there is
not one penny from any area of this state
that's involved in it.
I'll just read this rather rapidly,
on the provisions that the City of New York
has outlined, which is expressive of the
$25 million that they themselves invested in
5837
this, as being ultimately extremely important
to the people of this state. I hope also my
colleague Senator Duane, who is on -- is noted
as a member of the -- or notified of the
action taken by the local control board in
getting the -- clearing their responsibilities
under the terms of this act.
And this legislation will permit
the Urban Development Corporation to issue
bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed
$155 million and the Pennsylvania Station
Redevelopment Corporation, PSRC, a subsidiary
of the UDC, the Urban Development Corporation,
to borrow up to $160 million from the United
States Department of Transportation or other
federal agency and to accrue unpaid interest
as permitted by the Transportation
Infrastructure to Finance an Innovative Act -
which I will refer to as TIFIA,
parenthetically, for the purpose of financing
the design, construction, and rehabilitation
and development of the portion of the James A.
Farley Post Office Building into a modern
transportation and commercial center, also
known as the Pennsylvania Civic Project.
5838
The debt service upon such bonds or
notes shall be secured by -
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Can we
please have it quiet so we can hear the
distinguished Senator's explanation of the
bill.
Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR MARCHI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The debt service upon which such
bonds and notes shall be secured by or payable
from will include revenues derived from
leasing, retailing, advertising and other
operations of the Pennsylvania Station Civic
Project. Such bonds and notes shall not be
general obligations of the UDC nor of the PSRC
and shall be payable solely from the
Pennsylvania Station Civic Project revenues.
The existing Penn Station
facilities are currently overcrowded,
inadequate to handle projected growth in
ridership, which is now over a half a million
a day, and will include the projected growth
of improvements which will be enormous, also
considering that it brings you right into
5839
contact with the airports that you will be
leaving on.
The Pennsylvania Station Civic
project will provide improvements of the
existing transportation facilities for Amtrak,
the Long Island Railroad, New York City
transit riders as well under the TIFIA
program.
The senior financing component of
the project must have an investment grade
rating. The importance of New York, even
though that we are not directly affected
fiscally, financially, or any ultimate
residual responsibility, is the fact that our
taking this action today will inure to the
credit of this house and the New York State
government, and that this will be of
immeasurable value in the promotion of the
sale of bonds to give this activity.
This Pennsylvania Civic Project
will provide improvements to the existing
transportation facilities for Amtrak, the Long
Island -- and to be eligible for funding under
the TIFIA, the senior financing component for
the project must have an investment grade
5840
rating.
We will be providing the very best,
the very best that -- in terms of performance
and expectations in bringing this to a happy
conclusion. Issuing nonrecourse UDC bonds
backed primarily by annual payments from the
Port Authority will provide the prerequisite
rating.
In addition, the New York City
Economic Development Corporation, on behalf of
the City of New York -- this is the City of
New York, the New York City Council, and the
Mayor of the City of New York -- entered into
a funding agreement with the Pennsylvania
Station Redevelopment Corporation for
$25 million, and this allocation is staggered
over the life of the project.
So we have an exceptional event
taking place that will result in a beautiful,
beautifully designed adaptation of existing
facilities and the improvements that are made
thereon to accommodate, to accommodate the
activities that will be taking place there and
the expedited treatment and operation of
passenger travel, making this an objective
5841
that will be noticed around the world. And
the lessons learned therein will be imparted
around the world.
So really, it's not so much our
credit for proceeding with this legislation,
although we deserve our measure of it, but
it's the earnestness and the quality of UDC's
presence in this operation and the assurance
that it extends to the beneficial intervention
by a subscribing public out there.
So I invite your consideration.
There are not many questions to be answered
here, because we've had expressions from
labor, from every quarter of the compass, all
attesting to their support of this, stretching
all the way from Washington to here. So that
it's a joyous event for all of us to be united
in its support.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Thank
you, Senator Marchi, for that explanation.
Senator Smith, why do you rise?
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President. Would the esteemed Senator
from Staten Island yield for a few questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
5842
Senator Marchi, would you yield for a
question?
SENATOR MARCHI: Oh, from my
senior member on my committee?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Smith, the Senator yields.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you
very much.
Senator Marchi, did you know James
Farley?
SENATOR MARCHI: I knew James
Farley very well.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: And what did
you -
SENATOR MARCHI: And I remember
at the Alfred E. Smith dinners we would be
locked into -- once I missed the entire dinner
because we were locked into a personal
colloquy. But he was a very good friend of
mine, and I believe somewhat related even to
our Senator. But you knew of Senator Farley.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you -
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, Postmaster
Farley.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Would the
5843
Senator continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: I note that
there are six members of the board, two
appointed by the Governor, two appointed by
the Mayor, and two appointed by the
appropriate federal agencies.
Have any of these board of
directors been appointed yet?
SENATOR FARLEY: That I don't
know. I don't think so. This will sound the
clarion call to action on every part.
As a matter of fact, there's a
serious -- the reason we're advancing this
now, the Assembly will be taking it up during
the course of the day in their committee.
Mr. Gottfried, I believe, is the sponsor
there. And hopefully we will be able to have
this bill delivered by the end of the week.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
Would the sponsor continue to
5844
yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
Could you possibly tell me what is
the projected or estimated completion date?
Do you have any idea?
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, the given
estimated completion date by -
SENATOR ADA SMITH: I'm sorry,
Mr. President, I can't hear.
SENATOR MARCHI: The answer to
the question about the estimated completion
date, they say 48 months, four years. I don't
know if you can put that in the bank or not.
But, I mean, they have every -- every single
reason to give this expeditious concern and
full implementation.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Just a couple
of more questions. Would the Senator
5845
continue?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Would you
have any idea how many jobs will be created
with this project?
SENATOR MARCHI: I really don't
know what the long term is. But the
implementation has been a guesstimate, and I
suppose it's the best estimate that we now
have, is about 7600 -- 7,600 jobs. That's an
approximation.
But certainly, again, we'll have an
expanded population to -- well, to -- the
implementation not only of the basic services
that they are serving and extending, but the
operation of the various facilities. There
will be ancillary facilities for the people
coming and going through, and that will be of
great benefit. People will stop there to eat,
be able to stop to do a lot of things, and to
make purchases and -- so that that is an
5846
expanded number. But I have no guesstimates
as to that.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Will the
Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: I have
visited some sites such as the Greater
Pittsburgh Airport, which has an expanded
retail operation, some of the other states
also. Will this be the same kind of facility
when it is completed?
SENATOR MARCHI: Well,
conceptually. You've got to remember that
Staten Island has a bigger population than
Pittsburgh. But considering that we're the
nexus of about 15 million people, when you
take in Connecticut and North Jersey, I mean
that area alone, plus expedited transportation
for people around the country that travel by
rail or buses or anything else that finally
5847
hooks into a connection, gives you an idea -
well, you see a tiny micropreview of what will
this be when it's fully implemented relating
to your experience in Pittsburgh.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Mr.
President, would the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Certainly.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Recently, a
few years ago, we were privy to the new,
faster Amtrak train that will go from -- I
know from New York to Buffalo and make it
quicker for us to come to Albany for those of
us who may want to take the train.
SENATOR MARCHI: Right.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Will this new
facility be able to accommodate that train and
the additional passengers that will be
probably taking the train because -
SENATOR MARCHI: That will be one
millimeter, one tiny percentage of 1 percent.
Consider the total impact -
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
5848
Senator Marchi -- Senator Marchi, could I
interrupt for just one second, please. Ladies
and gentlemen in the chamber, please pay
attention to the two well-spoken but
soft-spoken individuals who are on the floor
discussing a very important matter. Please
give them your attention; please take
conversations outside.
Thank you, Senator Marchi. Please
proceed.
SENATOR MARCHI: Most -- most
assuredly.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you
very much. Would the Senator just yield for
two more questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, would you please -
SENATOR MARCHI: I yield for two
more questions. Or however many you may have.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you
very much.
Senator Marchi, have they completed
a finance plan? Because from what we've
discussed previously, there was a large amount
of money that was not yet there for this
5849
project. Have they -
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, there are
various sources contributing to this. The
City of New York has invested or will be
investing, during the term of the elapsing in
the construction, $25 million. But there are
inputs coming from Washington, from various
sources. So it's multifaceted.
And there are 250 million in
federal grants and appropriations -- and I
mentioned that Senator Moynihan played a very
significant role in that development;
155 million in Empire SDC bond revenues
secured by leases; 140 million from the U.S.
Department of Transportation alone, secured by
leases; 125 million from the U.S. Postal
Office; 40 million from federal highway and
NSTA; 35 million, MTA; 25 million, New York
City, and 20 million line of credit secured by
leases. Nothing -- no -
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
The last question is, has a
developer been selected for this project?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, do you yield to one last
5850
question?
SENATOR MARCHI: Staubach -
Roger Staubach's group. And it's scheduled to
open 2004.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Senator Marchi.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Smith, on the bill.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: I'm very
pleased that this is finally coming to
fruition, and I'm hopeful that the Assembly
will take this into consideration this week.
And I look forward to being there with Senator
Marchi when the ribbon-cutting actually takes
place and the building is ready and we can
board the trains and come to Albany in a
faster manner.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Thank
you, Senator Smith.
Senator Onorato, why do you rise?
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
would the sponsor yield to one question for
me, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
5851
Senator Marchi, do you yield to a question?
The Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Marchi,
this is going to be an approximately four-year
project, and I'm sure that the current tenants
that in there, some of them are going to have
to shut down their operation while this takes
place. I'm concerned, will the current
tenants that are going to be displaced, will
they have first option to get back into the
facility again, or is this going to negate all
of the current leases that are operating at
the station now?
SENATOR MARCHI: We don't have
any direct report on that. But I'm certain
that every effort will be to accommodate.
The post office is in there, but
they're voluntarily relocating, so they'll
solve their own problem. There does remain a
problem of dimensions, the specifics of which
I'm not acquainted with. But I'm sure that
every effort will be made to minimize serious
dislocations.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
5852
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, do you yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I believe the sponsor referenced
this before, but I was wondering if we could
clarify in whose district the project is.
SENATOR MARCHI: It's in your
district, Senator. And I'm aware of that.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, certainly.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor reached out to the Senator in
whose district this project is going to be
completed.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
5853
Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: No, I didn't -
in response to the Senator, I didn't -- the
bill was entrusted to me because I was
chairman of the committee that had -
SENATOR DUANE: I'm sorry, I
can't hear.
SENATOR MARCHI: I said I did not
go beyond the parameters of the request that I
received from those who were sponsoring this
bill. It was -- it's a State Department bill,
and no further instructions.
Certainly I made reference to you
earlier. And I am very proud that you're a
member of that. And I noticed your name on
the notice list for the environmental impact
statement circulated by the -- your community
board.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
5854
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor mentioned to the State
Department -- I think he said State
Department, although I'm not sure why
they're -
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, it is. I
received -- this is a department bill.
SENATOR DUANE: -- if he
mentioned to them that he wasn't the Senator
from that district but that in fact I was the
Senator from that district?
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi?
SENATOR MARCHI: No, I didn't
mention that. I assume that the -- there was
a request on the part of the Finance
Committee, because they said that this
involved a financing of a substantial amount.
And they said no, that they couldn't do -
that this did not fall within their purview,
because the State of New York is not involved
fiscally.
But obviously there is a very
important factor, which I'd be very happy to
5855
extend to you by letter or any other way of
your participation in the resolution of this.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
SENATOR MARCHI: I'm chairman of
the Committee on Authorities, Commissions, et
cetera, et cetera.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Marchi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, I do. I
will.
SENATOR DUANE: I just understood
the sponsor to say that there was no state
involvement in this. But I think that that's
not correct. I'm wondering if maybe the
sponsor might want to restate the state's
involvement in this project.
SENATOR MARCHI: There is no -
none of the funding for the activities that
are going to take place, Madam President, are
the responsibility -- in fact, there's a
5856
disclaimer -- let's see.
Such bonds -- and I quote
directly -- "Such bonds and notes of the Urban
Development Corporation and the Pennsylvania
Station Redevelopment shall not be the debt of
the state and the state shall not be liable
thereon, not shall they be payable out of any
funds of the state. And such bonds and notes
shall not be the general obligation of the UDC
Corporation nor of the Pennsylvania Station
Redevelopment resulting from the operation of
the James A. Farley building or facilities or
to or associated with the James A. Farley
building, including Pennsylvania Station."
They are subject to -- there could
be a review by, what is it, the Public
Authorities Control Board, which probably one
of the reasons I was -- I initiated that board
many years ago. Many, many years ago.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, Madam
5857
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm confused in
that we are here on the floor of the New York
State Senate voting on an act authorizing New
York State UDC to issue bonds. Does that not
then imply that the state is involved?
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, there are
MTA funds. There are -- there are -- you can
conjure up something, but there's no direct
involvement. You could never bring action
against the State of New York for any part of
this indebtedness.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi -
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Then if the
sponsor could please tell me why it is that
we're actually voting on this on the floor of
the New York State Senate today.
5858
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, that's a
question I asked -- the very first question I
asked, Madam President: Why do we need a
bill, really? Since we described with
untelling accuracy the -- just what it
provides for in an affirmative fashion.
On the other hand, offering this
with the imprimatur of the State of New York
for something of this dimension to take place
without the review and a statement by this -
of the State of New York, without even any
notice that it has happened, it's an enormous
presence that we will have, and one that may
be invoked for other ancillary purposes and
just the ordinary administration of law.
And the saleability of bonds which
will be enhanced by a positive action by this
house and by the Assembly, who are now taking
on their committees and will be reporting
this -- the passage of this bill and
substituting this or whatever the arrangement
is for final passage.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
5859
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi -
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes. Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm frankly
wondering how the sponsor would feel if I
brought a bill to the floor about something
that impacted his district and if I did not in
any way consult with him on that.
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, I respect
every vote you take, whether I agree with you
or not, because I respect you as a human being
and a colleague and a member of this Senate.
So, I mean, you start out with that advantage
over any question that's raised.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President -- and I apologize for interrupting
my colleague Senator Marchi. But I believe
the issue is whether or not this body will
pass this bill which authorizes the Urban
Development Corporation to issue the bonds.
It's not about courtesy or respect, which we
5860
know Senator Marchi has, or about Senator
Duane and his feeling offended.
I'd appreciate, Madam President,
from the chair, if we would stick to the topic
and stick to the issue before the house.
SENATOR MARCHI: Thank you,
Senator. I mention this because -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, your
point is -- Senator Marchi, if I can -
Senator, I have to rule on this point, please.
Senator Fuschillo, your point is
well-taken. And I will remind Senator Duane
to keep your comments germane, your questions
germane.
Senator Marchi, you may proceed.
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, I just
wanted to point out that I am sensitized -
from any other member, it might have been a
little gratuitous. But he lives in that
district.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi, I
apologize; I'm going to have to interrupt you
again.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
5861
President, with all due respect, I don't
understand the point of order. I understand
the point, but I don't understand that that's
a point of order, that talking about a
facility that's in Senator Duane's district -
he's just objecting that he wasn't consulted.
It relates directly to his vote. It's
directly germane to the discussion. And he
has the right to say that.
If we're going to get to a point
where people can't talk about what's going on
in their own districts, I think we're going
down a real slippery slope.
I just want to suggest that no
point of order was even raised. Now, a point
was raised, which, you know, you can agree
with or disagree with. But I think that we
should not be restricting Senator Duane's
opportunity or right to discuss a facility
that's in his district. If anything happens
to that facility, it's Senator Duane who's
going to get asked about it by his
constituents. I think it's directly germane
to the subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
5862
there's no question that Senator Duane's
questions germane to the bill under
consideration are pertinent. When he asks how
Senator Marchi feels, that is not pertinent.
And as far as Senator Fuschillo
raising a point, that's a matter of semantics.
He stood to raise a point. And I did not rule
Senator Duane out of order, I gave him an
informal reminder to keep his remarks germane.
Senator Marchi, you may proceed.
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, I think
the proposition has been stated generally.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President.
SENATOR MARCHI: And I
understand, and I want to point out that the
correspondence I've had has been circulated
also to your office, so you were not unaware
that this was taking place.
So -- but be that as it may, I
think we have a tremendous opportunity here,
Senator. And our objective is narrowly
defined to give this the propitious beginning
so that they can get on with the funding of
the project. We're not here to debate,
although I -- as a protagonist, I've very
5863
openly manifested my support. But I'm
reflecting the general support that exists as
I've seen it expressed to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
As I think most people in this body
know, I have the utmost respect for my
colleague on the other side of the aisle, and
I have in fact indicated that to him time and
time again.
Which is why I raise the issue,
because I think every once in a while we all
need to be reminded that we are responsible
for state actions in our districts. It would
be the unwise elected official who would say,
Gee, I had no control over that, I didn't even
know it was coming up, there's really nothing
I can do about it, you'd better go chat with
my colleague X. There is probably no more
unacceptable response to a constituent than to
say that.
5864
And to have to acknowledge that
consultation, in as august a body as the
New York State Senate, did not take place is
frankly, I think, beneath what this body has
in the past and I hope in the future will
stand for.
I would hope that my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle would understand the
significance of an action which impacts their
district but of which they really have no
control over or consultation on.
Frankly, I've never heard of such a
thing in the United States Senate where
something that directly impacted a state would
pass that body without a tremendous amount of
consultation with those Senators who actually
represent that state. I don't think that we
in the Senate should be held to any other
standard besides that.
Had I been consulted on this, I
would have raised a number of issues. As many
of you probably know, because many of us
actually have our mail processed at this
building, the mail will have to be processed
elsewhere. So had I been consulted on this, I
5865
would have questioned what the United States
Postal Service's plans were for the processing
and the offices that are presently in that
building. Where is it going to go? Where is
all of that processing going to go?
Already, in the district that I
represent, there are two postal facilities
this have been plunked down in the middle of
residential neighborhoods. Are we going to
get another huge postal facility in the area
of our residential neighborhood? Are we going
to be inundated with truck traffic and traffic
of people going to and from the postal
facility? Right now that facility is very
conveniently located to the Lincoln Tunnel, so
it makes a lot of sense that it's located
where it is. If you move it a few blocks one
way or the other, the unbelievable,
death-defying, choking traffic that already
exists will probably be made worse.
What are the plans for where this
traffic is going to go? Is that part of what
UDC's mandate is? Or is UDC too busy just
floating back-door bonds, which is what they
usually do?
5866
You know, I have a bill in this
house which would restore the commuter tax.
And what would that do? That would allow
New York City to pay as it goes for things
like building the Farley Station or building a
Second Avenue subway. We wouldn't have to
depend on back-door borrowing and shift the
burden onto our children and grandchildren.
All of this could be paid for as we go if we
had the commuter tax back.
I know, I know, people say, No new
taxes. But I submit this is not a new tax.
This is reinstating a tax which should never
have been gotten rid of. That would allow
people in New York City to pay for things
themselves. They wouldn't have to depend on
the State of New York to pay. All the people
of the state of New York wouldn't have to pay,
only people who actually use the services in
New York City.
But let's go back to what's
happening here. I can just see it. Trucks
rumbling all over the neighborhoods because
they can no longer go to the Farley Station.
Did anyone raise that with UDC? Did anyone
5867
raise with UDC where all of this traffic from
the busiest post office in the world is going
to go? Where's it going to go? On the
low-rise residential streets of Hell's
Kitchen, Clinton, or Chelsea? Where is it
going to go when it gets off the Lincoln
Tunnel if it's not going to go to this
facility anymore?
Already the postal facility has
built two behemoth facilities in Chelsea.
We're choking to death in our district,
choking to death. Is that what's going to
happen? Maybe it would be a good idea to put
the postal facility in the Bronx and bring
jobs to the Bronx. Maybe that's where it
should go, in a transportation hub, for
instance, in the Bronx.
Do we know where it's going to go?
No. The only thing that this is doing is
focusing on refurbishing this building to make
it a train station. I'm not opposed to that.
That's a good idea. But you can't do that in
a vacuum. You have to figure out where all of
this traffic and where all of this mail is
going to be processed. That's an important
5868
issue.
Had I been asked, I would have
raised that issue. And I think everyone here
could acknowledge that these are good issues.
Who here would allow a huge facility to be
plunked down in their district, replacing
another facility which brings in tons and tons
of traffic? Would you like to have that
dumped in a residential neighborhood in your
districts? I don't think so. Do you think
you'd like to be asked about that? I think
so. I really object to that. I object that
things are done in our districts and we're not
consulted on it.
I also object that the power for
the people of the City of New York to pay as
they go on building a Second Avenue subway or
building a beautiful new train station was
taken away arbitrarily when the commuter tax
was removed. I would urge people to
reconsider that to and to reinstate the
commuter tax to give autonomy to the people of
the City of New York.
I've talked to countless suburban
residents who say, You know what? We don't
5869
mind, we don't mind paying a little bit less
than half of 1 percent to help New York City,
because everybody knows that New York City is
the hub of the financial well-being of the
entire metropolitan area, indeed the tristate
area.
To have had that taken away from us
is just an outrage. We could have used that
money to refurbish this train station instead
of doing back-door borrowing. Whether it's on
the state or the national level, it's wrong to
do that kind of thing.
You know, the people who use our
transportation system, the people on the Long
Island Railroad will be able to use this
refurbished train station, and that's great.
And I'm for that. The people that use the
train that come here to Albany will be able to
use that, and the northern suburbs, and that's
good. But you know what? A lot of people
also will be getting off at Grand Central
Station and stuffing themselves onto the
Lexington Avenue line. Pardon my language,
but we have an expression about the Lexington
Avenue line: Hell couldn't be any hotter.
5870
It's hot, it's crowded. Anyone that comes
down on Metro North and has to get on the
Lexington Avenue line, they suffer. And now
there's going to be a link made on the Long
Island Railroad so that people can get off at
Grand Central Station too and they're going to
stuff themselves onto the Lexington Avenue
line too. So now we're going to have tens of
thousands of miserable commuters from Long
Island being stuffed onto the very same train
that miserable commuters from Metro North are
stuffing themselves on. Not to mention the
people that live in the Bronx and Manhattan
that depend on that train. So what do we
need? A Second Avenue subway.
Now, the voters in the State of
New York -- I wouldn't say in their wisdom,
but whatever -- they decided not to fund the
transportation bond act. So how are we going
fund this? You know how we could do it? With
the commuter tax. We could pay as we go.
Believe me, $500 million a year would go a
long way towards, year by year, building a
Second Avenue subway so that the poor
commuters from the entire metropolitan area
5871
would not have to stuff themselves on the
Lexington Avenue line.
Let's look at the big picture. All
right, so we're building a nice new train
station. I'm for that. That's very good.
But what about the people that are actually
traveling into that train station? Why are we
going to stuff them onto trains? Let's
improve our transportation infrastructure.
Not just the stations, but the infrastructure.
Why are we just without any thought about
where we're going to put all this truck
traffic and mail handling that's going to go
on, why are we just building this new station
and not deciding what we're going to do with
all the trucks and the traffic -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me, Senator -- just excuse me, Senator,
for one second.
Could we just have a little quiet
in the house, because it's really very
difficult to hear. The stenographer is having
trouble keeping an accurate record. Thank
you.
SENATOR DUANE: I'll speak
5872
louder, Mr. President.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: No,
no, please. I take back everything I just
said.
SENATOR DUANE: I believe I've
made my point.
To not take into account people who
actually live in a neighborhood on what the
impact of a project like this is going to
cause, to not look at the long-term impacts,
whether or not this is the kind of facility
that we -- the mail facility is not the kind
of facility we should relocate to the Bronx.
Or to Staten Island, although I don't think we
should put in this Staten Island without
talking with the Senators from Staten Island
on what the impact would be there.
And what about give back autonomy
to New York City residents and commuters so
that we could build a better transportation
system so it's not just the stations that
we're focusing on but indeed we're focusing on
the transportation system that gets them into
those?
5873
And I would invite all my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join
me in trying to get a reinstatement -- not a
new tax, but a reinstatement of the commuter
tax.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, why do you rise?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Civil Service and Pensions Committee in
the Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Civil Service and Pensions Committee in Room
332.
Senator Stavisky, do you wish to be
heard on this bill? You're on our list.
SENATOR STAVISKY: No, I don't
wish to be.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Onorato is not with us. Is there any
other Senator wishing to be heard on this
bill?
Senator Hevesi, why do you rise?
5874
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Just very briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: On the bill.
Senator Duane's comments here are
the perfect illustration why you must have
better coordination and consultation when you
are authoring a piece of legislation that is
going to affect the district of another
Senator.
And we just heard a series of
concerns, some of which I was not familiar
with myself, from Senator Duane about the
impact that the legislation that's before us
is going to have. And it is -- it's not only
wrong and does a great disservice to this body
of which we're all a part, it will result,
this lack of consultation, in public policy
that is deficient. Because, as Senator Duane
pointed out, had he been consulted, he would
have brought to the attention of UDC and
others who are working on this issue some of
the very important questions that we heard,
particularly the horrible congestion which I
5875
myself can attest to.
So while I -- I'll support this
legislation because I think it's a good bill,
and I have the greatest respect for Senator
Marchi, who is not only exceptionally
respectful, but he is very solicitous of the
opinions of others in this house, irrespective
of their political affiliation. I would
respectfully submit to everyone here that in
the interests of public policy, if nothing
else, if we can't put ourselves above the;
partisanship, in the interests of public
policy, please consult with another member of
this house regardless of their party
affiliation so that we may produce for the
residents of this state, regardless of their
party affiliation or where they reside, the
best product as a consequence of what we do in
this house.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Any other Senator wishing to be
heard? Seeing none, read the last section.
I'm sorry, Senator Marchi.
5876
SENATOR MARCHI: Just to
conclude.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Marchi, on the bill.
SENATOR MARCHI: No, I appreciate
the sentiments expressed by Senator Duane and
Senator Hevesi. These are matters that we
should have. We had passed something like
this last year, but it was not -- it has some
defects that we had to eliminate. But all of
this had been raised.
And Senator Moynihan, of course,
was available and had paved that way, and
there was no mystery about where it was going
and what was going to happen.
But I certainly want to compliment
Senator Duane for the very courageous and
forthright message that he sent out, because
it hurts. And it would if it happened to the
innards of any district where the population
is densely populated. And he himself advanced
the very reasons why we should be voting for
it.
At this point, we're not disposing
of the argument, but we are paving the way for
5877
the marketability of bonds and the setting of
the infrastructure in place. The rest is
going to take place and has already been put
into place by those who were involved in this
effort, stretching from Washington and the
whole country to here.
So I appreciate his sentiments and
his feelings. You know, I'd be screaming too.
I remember when they proposed to put the
Narrows bridge through Staten Island. It was
a very wonderful thing, and I realized that it
had to be done, but there were a lot of people
hurting and saying -- my friend Senator
Conklin on the other side, I don't think
there's anybody here that remembers that far
back, but we had a titanic seesaw on that one.
In any event, this bill is
anxiously awaited by the Assembly. It's going
to be passed -- it's going to be reported
today and probably passed tomorrow and sent to
the Governor.
And I believe that some of the best
arguments made in favor of this bill were made
in conjunction with statements made by Senator
Duane in the course of debate. So . . .
5878
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Marchi.
Read the last section, please.
I'm sorry, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, can we read the last section and then
we'll get to the voting.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you.
Read the last section, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President, ever so briefly.
The man who embodies dignity in the
New York State Senate, John Marchi, should not
have to bear or defend in any way the
5879
indignity that has unfortunately become
customary in this chamber, and that is that
only Republican members carry bills that
affect things in Democratic districts.
I understand the ire of Senator
Duane. I share it myself, I have shared that
myself. I don't know why, in a chamber where
we have a rule that requires civility, we
tolerate the absolute discourtesy of not
allowing Democrats on bills that affect their
districts.
Senator Marchi, I would apologize
for that rule that seems to be the dominant
rule in this chamber, except I didn't author
it. And it seems to me that if the chamber
had real dignity, real courtesy, and real
civility, what Senator Duane endured no one
should have to endure.
And I'll just say this, Mr.
President. If someday this side takes control
of this chamber, I will never allow that to
happen. I consider that the rudest thing that
could be done.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
5880
Senator Dollinger recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Paterson, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, to explain his vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Structurally,
I not only can't oppose this bill, I think
it's an excellent bill, very much in
compliance with the type of legislation that
my friend Senator Marchi has offered for
years.
However, I don't know that this was
really an issue about members and the effect
of things happening in the districts of
others. I do think that this is an issue that
involves really what is so important in the
legislative process, the respect that we have
for each other's districts and each other's
constituents. It's Senator Duane that in many
ways would have to answer for what goes on
here. He seemed properly outraged by it. I
think we all have to understand his feeling.
And I almost never do this, but in
this particular case I'm going to vote no, Mr.
5881
President, with the full understanding that
this could be worked out. But it seemed to me
that somewhere and at some point Senator Duane
should have been consulted or talked to about
what's happening in his neighborhood. His
constituents, they don't understand all of the
interesting applications of the Senate and the
interesting ways in which we interact.
They're going to come to his office and ask
him if anything goes wrong.
So I'm going to vote no, not on the
merit of the bill, but just on what is really
the defect in the process that inures to the
detriment of all of us when we start treating
some of us this way. And it wasn't one person
that did it, it's really something that's just
gotten out of hand and -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, how do you vote?
SENATOR PATERSON: I vote no, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Senator Connor, to explain his
5882
vote.
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, Mr.
President, thank you.
I really thought this debate would
take five minutes, and it's taken nearly an
hour. And it's because, in its infinite
wisdom, the Majority brought this bill out
first.
My staff prepared a lot of
questions. They did miss the fact that this
was a project in Senator Duane's district. I
think everything we've heard speaks for
itself. Had I gotten back out here, frankly,
a minute sooner, we'd be on a slow roll call.
I vote no, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Connor will be recorded in the
negative.
Announce the results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 201 are
Senators Connor and Paterson. Also Senator
Montgomery. Ayes, 53. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
5883
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, would you please call up Calendar
Number 148.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
148, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 832, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to authorizing restitution.
SENATOR BROWN: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Morahan, an explanation has been asked
for.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President.
This is an act that would amend the
Family Court Act, authorizing and allowing the
Family Court to authorize restitution for
medical and dental expenses in a juvenile
delinquency proceeding.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President. Mr. President, through you, would
5884
the distinguished Senator from Rockland County
yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Morahan, do you yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
Senator, I understand that through
this legislation we're trying to hold
juveniles -
SENATOR MORAHAN: Excuse me, I
can't hear you, Senator. Would you start
again, Senator?
SENATOR BROWN: Certainly.
Senator Morahan, I understand
through this legislation we're trying to hold
juveniles responsible for their actions. And
this would reimburse victims of juvenile crime
for health and dental expenses.
If the person -- if the victim of a
crime has medical coverage and the coverage
fully covers some damage done to them by the
juvenile, what would happen in a case such as
that?
5885
SENATOR MORAHAN: That would be
at the discretion of the court. Districts
would allow for the reimbursement if the court
feels there's other remedies or if the court
feels that the respondent is an indigent that
doesn't have the wherewithal to do it, they
have the discretion.
This just allows the court to add
this to what's already provided in law, which
is up to $1,500 in physical property. The
thrust of this law is a fairness issue. If
someone does damage and you can get repaired
for a fence or a broken window or some other
physical damage up to $1500, that may not
occur. But somebody may have knocked out a
couple of teeth, and this -- that's not
covered. So we just feel that bodily harm is
as important as property harm.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, would Senator Morahan yield for
another question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
5886
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR BROWN: So the
legislation provides for restitution of a
victim's health costs incurred from the action
of a juvenile, and it seems like it would be
restitution for unreimbursed expenses. Now,
in the case of -- now, is that correct, is it
just unreimbursed experiences, or does the
court have the complete -
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, it's up
to -- the court has the distinct -- it's up to
$1,500 max. They already have that provision
for physical property. Now we're just going
to include -- for example, if there's no
physical damage, we're now going to include -
no property damage, we're now going to include
physical damage.
It seems to me that would be the
fair thing to do. If there's coverage -- you
know, notwithstanding if there's coverage.
That's a personal matter. I don't know that
because you have coverage that a respondent or
one who has committed an act of aggression
ought to be off the hook, so to speak, just
5887
because you have coverage. I think I would
let the court play that out.
SENATOR BROWN: Okay. On the
bill, if I may, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: I want to thank
Senator Morahan for responding to the couple
of questions that I had.
I know that there's legislation
that's presently on the books to hold
juveniles responsible for property damage that
they commit. This piece of legislation would,
I guess, dovetail some legislation by Senator
Saland which would hold juveniles responsible
for damage that they do to an individual's
person that would result in health and dental
expenses. And through Senator Morahan's bill,
it also adds a $1,500 limit to what the
juvenile would have to pay in terms of
restitution if they knocked some teeth out or
if they broken an arm.
So I understand this much more
clearly now after asking those questions, and
I will be voting in the affirmative on this
5888
piece of legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, would you yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Senator
Morahan, your bill covers minors from the age
of 11 and up.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Ten.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Ten and up,
thank you.
If he would continue to yield, Mr.
President.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
believe he continues to yield, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay.
5889
Senator Morahan, your bill in fact adds an
additional $1,500. So that we're now talking
about up to $3,000 in restitution that could
be charged to a minor who is involved under
this statute. Is that not the case?
SENATOR MORAHAN: That is
correct.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Mr.
President -- thank you, Senator Morahan. On
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I know that
Senator Morahan's bill is similar to a bill -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me, Senator.
Ladies and gentlemen, can we please
take the conversations out of the chamber so
we can hear. Thank you.
Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Mr. President. Just briefly on the bill.
This bill is similar to a bill that
Senator Saland has, except that Senator
Saland's bill does not in fact increase the
5890
amount that would be required in restitution
to $3,000, as Senator Morahan's bill does.
His bill would simply include the issue of
physical, medical and/or dental expenses.
So that's -- that was -- I
supported Senator Saland's legislation. I
believe that I did in committee. I hope that
I did. If I did not, I will retract it when
it's -- when I find out.
But I certainly cannot support
this. We're talking about 10-year-olds and
up, and we're talking about children who
obviously do not have the capacity to pay in
restitution. So we must consider who in fact
is going to be paying this restitution. And
it's the parents of these children and whether
or not they're able to do it. What the
consequences are, I'm not clear about that.
And so I must vote against this,
because we're not really -- we're just simply
raising the responsibility to a larger amount
in order to accomplish what Senator Morahan
wants. So I'm not opposed to the idea of
including medical expenses, but I certainly am
opposed to doubling it from 1500, that it is
5891
now, to 3,000.
So I'm voting no, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Are
there any other Senators wishing to be heard
on this bill?
Seeing none, please read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Morahan, on the bill. Excuse me.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I would just
like to explain some of the provisions that
may have been misinterpreted.
Juveniles today are not the -- the
parents of the juveniles are not required to
pay if the juvenile cannot. From what we have
researched, about 80 percent of the juveniles
make restitution that the court has
authorized.
And as to the need issue or whether
they are able to, that's at the discretion of
5892
the court. The court will take in the
circumstances. Obviously if someone doesn't
have the compensation that they can do for
restitution, and if the court feels that the
incident doesn't require any -- normally
require being put away or whatever, they can
still give the probation or give the parole or
give the release or the discharge as they see
fit.
This just allows the court the
discretion to increase that if the
circumstances warrant it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Please read the last section again.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54. Nays,
2. Senators Montgomery and Paterson recorded
in the negative.
5893
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, will you please kindly call up
Calendar Number 170.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 170.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
170, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 1912, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
the Community Services Block Grant Program.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Volker, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President,
this program, the Community Services Block
Grant Program, has been in effect -- I'm just
looking here -- since 1981, I believe. I was
part of an agreement between the Assembly, the
Senate, and the Governor. And I believe I'm
the only one left who was part of that
agreement, legislatively and staffwise. All
the staffers, in fact, are gone too.
5894
And it was a very difficult
discussion, that we had people from the City
of New York, we had people from the various
community organizations involved. And
basically the Community Service Block Grant
funding proposal has remained the same, as I
say, since 1981.
And this was one of the community
services block grants that came out of the
Reagan administration -- and is the real
reason, by the way, a major reason why we have
late budgets now. Because it was after we
began and suddenly had this huge amount of
billions of dollars of money from Washington,
that the late budgets began, in the '84 cycle,
because suddenly we had this new
responsibility to distribute money to the
various communities throughout the state that
the federal government was giving to us. It's
now in something like 30-some billion dollars.
I forget what it is in total.
Now, that's not this. This is a
very small portion of it. But this was part
of an agreement that includes a whole host of
people.
5895
The problem with it -- there have
been attempts to make changes to it over the
years. The real problem with it is the best
way to explode this whole agreement is to just
do that. It was initially managed by the old
Department of Social Services. And fairly
recently, within the past few years -- and
partly because the Social Services Department
now has been rolled together with the Division
for Youth and so forth into this agency, so it
is now managed by the Department of State.
So this is a community services
block grant. This is an extender for one
year, as it has been extended. And the
agreement back then was that we would do that
to make sure that the process was kept under
control. We've resisted attempts to change it
by the mayors of the City of New York and by
all sorts of people. So that's what this is.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
would the sole survivor of the community
services block grant negotiation be willing to
yield for a question?
5896
SENATOR VOLKER: Why, certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
really just have one question, and it's just
that I would assume that studies have shown
the effectiveness, if we've been doing this
for twenty years.
SENATOR VOLKER: Right.
SENATOR PATERSON: But why
doesn't the Legislature pass an extender
that's longer than a year to the authority?
This is the third time we've done it. I'm
just wondering why we just don't give it
longer life, rather than revisiting it as
often as we have.
SENATOR VOLKER: I knew you'd ask
that question, because that question has been
asked a number of times.
The reason that we have done the
one-year extenders since 1981 was that that
was actually the agreement. That to make sure
that the entire process operated in the way
that was intended by the agreement, the
agreement was that the best way to keep
5897
control of it from the legislative standpoint
was to only extend it for a year.
And that if some problems occurred
in the distribution during that time, that the
Legislature would then be in a situation
where, if one house or the other house -- or,
for that matter, I suppose, the Governor -
had some huge objection to something that was
occurring -- and I must tell you that there
was some problems a number of years ago in the
City of New York under a previous mayor who
is -- two mayors ago, I think it was, with an
attempt to take control of the process. And
we resisted that.
And there was some glitches in the
system, and we had a debate on this floor and
on the floor of the Assembly as to the way the
system is working, and we got it righted.
Well, I think -- whether it was off or not, we
got it righted. And one of the reasons was
that we had this annual ability to extend it
so that if it got out of track, we could
actually hold it up and keep it from
happening.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Are
5898
there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, please read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President,
could you call up Calendar 320, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Calendar 320.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
320, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3612, an
act to amend Chapter 505 of the Laws of 1985.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: If
we could just hold one second, the Senator is
on his way.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President,
5899
can we please call an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Senate Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Senate Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator Saland, an explanation has
been requested of your bill, 320.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a bill which extends the
existing law with regard to the use of
closed-circuit television for purposes of
taking testimony of a vulnerable child
witness. The bill is due to sunset in
September of this year, September 1st, and
this would expand it to the September 1st date
in the year 2002. And the bill has been
passed, the extender, on a number of
occasions.
The initial legislation was
introduced, I believe, or passed back in 1985.
The Senate has on more than one occasion
passed legislation permanentizing this
5900
particular provision of the law.
Unfortunately, as of this date, there seems to
be still no interest on the part of the
Assembly to permanentize it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Brown, why do you rise?
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, would Senator Saland yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields for a question.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator Saland,
who is it that makes the determination of
whether the child is a vulnerable witness?
SENATOR SALAND: That is a
determination that is based on a ruling by the
court. There's an evidentiary standard that
has to be made, has to be met, and the court
will make that determination. The child in
question would have to be a child of no more
than 12 years of age.
5901
And obviously the concern is -
these are in sex offense crimes. The child
has certainly been traumatized, to say the
least, by the events that have him or her
testifying. And the idea behind the
closed-circuit television is to try and
minimize compounding the trauma by avoiding
the child having to be in open court in front
of the person who is accused of being her
assailant and in the scrutiny of the public
eye, so to speak.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, would the Senator yield for a final
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator, I know
that you're very expert in these matters. Do
you know if there are any studies that have
spoken to the success of closed-circuit
television testimony versus actual courtroom
5902
testimony? Is it more effective using the
closed-circuit television?
SENATOR SALAND: I'm not aware of
any. That doesn't mean that there aren't any.
And certainly New York is not the only state
that affords these types of protections to
young witnesses in these particular instances.
And there may well be. I'm not sure if New
York has done them. They may well have been
done by the Department of Justice or some
other state.
Clearly, to the extent that even
one child, but certainly more than one child
is spared the kind of agony associated with
having to be in a public forum and facing
someone who has done some very horrible things
to that child by way of sexual offense, that
in and of itself I believe justifies it.
And the things that troubles me the
most is not what we're doing; it's the fact
that we merely have to do extenders when we
should have long ago permanentized this.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you,
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
5903
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'd just like
to let Senator Saland know that I have
legislation in that does exactly the same as
what Senator Saland does, but makes it
permanent. Now, I have this legislation
copyrighted, I have a patent, and I also
videotape of myself writing the legislation.
But I would remove it, I'll throw it all out
if Senator Saland at some point in the future
would like to introduce this bill and make it
permanent.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Gentile, why do you rise?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would yield for a
question or two.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes.
5904
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President, if the Senator would respond,
am I clear on this that the provisions that
we're extending now are the exact provisions
that the law now contains?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: So through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR GENTILE: So that,
Senator, the age limit for a child being found
a vulnerable child witness would be age 12;
correct?
SENATOR SALAND: Correct. There
had been efforts to expand that beyond 12, but
they have not been successful.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President, if the Senator would yield.
5905
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continue to yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Indeed,
Senator, in this chamber just last week
Senator Skelos had introduced a bill to amount
amend this section of the law to allow a court
to find a vulnerable child witness up to the
age of 16.
And given the fact that we voted to
pass that bill last week, I'm wondering why we
now come back this week and pass the same
extender of the current law that doesn't
reflect what appears to be the will of the
Senate to increase the age to age 16.
SENATOR SALAND: Your question
certainly is appropriate and intriguing. I
can only compliment Senator Skelos.
Our bill that we have done here in
this house we have done on more than one
occasion. And I think the kind of support
that has been generated here certainly on our
side of the aisle and your side of the aisle
as well makes the policy statement by this
5906
house that 16 is an appropriate age.
Our problem lies not within the
confines of these four walls, our problem lies
over on the other side of this floor within
the confines of the four walls constituting
the Assembly.
I would certainly welcome their
coming on board, in which case I would be more
than happy to amend this bill to expand the
age to 16. But failing that increase in age,
I think it's important that we take care of
what the law currently permits, which are
those vulnerable child witnesses up to age 12.
SENATOR GENTILE: Agreed,
Senator.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: I concur with
Senator Saland a hundred percent, in that I
believe that the law should reflect the fact
that a vulnerable child witness can be a
witness up to the age of 16. And I believe
that's exactly what we debated and passed last
week in Senator Skelos's amendment to this
5907
section of the law.
I happen to agree with Senator
Saland too, that in absence of a two-house
agreement on the increase in the age from 12
to 16, we need to be sure that at least we
pass the extender on the current law so that
that will continue for child witnesses up to
the age of 12.
However, having been a prosecutor
and having been one of the first prosecutors
in the County of Queens to use this section of
the law on closed-circuit television in 1985,
I can tell you from firsthand experience that
this has been an invaluable tool for
prosecutors to move forward on cases with
young child victims and allowing young child
victims to testify and testify in a way so
that they would not have to be in the same
room -- in the sexual abuse and sexual crimes,
be in the same room as their -- as the
defendant.
It's been held constitutional by
several different court decisions. But I
still believe that, based on my experience, a
children can be vulnerable at the age of 13,
5908
14, 15, 16, and maybe even beyond. So I would
concur with your sentiments, Senator Saland,
but also encourage the Assembly to look at the
bill we passed last week that would increase
the age limit from 12 to 16 and make this good
bill, this good law a better law by passing it
to age 16.
Absent that, I will support your
legislation, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Are
there any other Senators wishing to be heard
on this bill?
Seeing none, the debate is closed.
Please read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Alesi, what is your
pleasure?
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President,
5909
would you please call Calendar Number 284,
Senate Bill 1136.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Senator Alesi's bill.
It's Calendar Number 284.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
284, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1136, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law and
the Insurance Law, in relation to devoting.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Alesi, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill would require the
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to include in
the prelicensing course for a driver's permit
a component of education that deals with road
rage.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will the sponsor yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
5910
Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR ALESI: I'd be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
He'll yield.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Alesi,
what is the current curriculum on the alcohol
and drug education component of the driving
test?
SENATOR ALESI: The current
curriculum would require that there be between
four and five hours in the overall test and
seven elements dealing with DWI or driving
while under the influence of drugs.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, will you yield?
SENATOR ALESI: I'd be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: The Governor
has introduced a program bill to establish
criminal sanctions, mandate license
revocation, and require successful completion
5911
of approved defensive driving courses in order
to deter, punish and educate motorists who
exhibit road rage on our highways. Now, how
does your bill differ from the Governor's
program bill?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President, my bill is specific to the issue of
education in the prelicensing exam dealing
with road rage and is not as comprehensive as
the Governor's program bill.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR ONORATO: Do you feel
that we should create a different level of
criminal sanctions for road rage, as proposed
by the Governor?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President, that question is not relative to
the bill at hand.
SENATOR ONORATO: Again through
5912
you, Mr. President, will he continue to yield?
SENATOR ALESI: I'll continue to
yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR ONORATO: Are there not
already penalties in Vehicle and Traffic Law
that would punish certain acts of road rage,
such as laws on vehicular manslaughter?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President, yes, there are penalties for all
kinds of mishaps that occur as a result of
vehicular misdeeds.
But I would point out to Senator
Onorato that one of the ways to prevent these
kinds of vehicular misdeeds is through
education. We've learned with our efforts at
educating people about the dangers of driving
while intoxicated or under the influence of
narcotics that those educational efforts have
actually reduced and helped control the amount
of accidents that we have on the road.
And so that by including a
component on road rage, we can also hopefully
reduce the amount of outrageous behavior
5913
behind the wheel that we see as a growing
problem in today's society.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Are
there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, the Secretary will
read the last section, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President,
will you please take up Calendar Number 355.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 355, by
Senator McGee.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
355, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3185, an
act to amend the Local Finance Law, in
5914
relation to authorizing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator McGee, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a bill to amend the Local
Finance Law, in relation to authorizing
issuance of bonds to finance certain flood
relief expenses.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I just wanted to compliment Senator McGee on
the -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Before you do, Senator, if I could, it is a
little loud. Thank you.
Go ahead, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I just wanted
to compliment Senator McGee on the
bipartisanship that she sought on this
legislation and ask her if she would yield for
a quick question.
5915
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: She
yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
my question just relates to some of the
municipalities that will be affected when we
enact this legislation, where some of the
damage was, and, you know, just more
specifically where it will affect.
SENATOR McGEE: Through you, Mr.
President, some of the counties affected in
this particular bill would be Albany,
Columbia, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Schenectady,
and Schoharie.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, if
the sponsor would yield for a couple of
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator McGee?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: She
yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Could I
5916
ask, is there any estimate of the amount of
money involved in this?
SENATOR McGEE: No, sir, there
wouldn't be any estimate.
And that the purpose of this bill
is the fact that many municipalities are
already in the middle of their budgets when
these particular flood expenses arise. And
they can issue bonds during that year, but the
bill then calls for -- the law presently calls
for them to be paying in the next year.
This bill asks to extend that out
for a period of five years, to be able to pay
those extraordinary funds that are caused by
acts of Mother Nature.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President. But in past years, I'm
just trying to get a sense of what range of
what expenses we're talking about. This must
have come up in the past if it's something
that we're seeking to address prospectively.
SENATOR McGEE: Actually, through
you, Mr. President, the cost is in -- I can
give you Rensselaer is to get $130,000 from
the state for U.S. flood funds, $127,000,
5917
$540,000. These are -- FEMA releases that
$975,000 for storm damage relief. It's based
specifically on whatever damage has been done.
So to give you a specific amount of
money would be impossible to do, because not
every piece of damage that's done by Mother
Nature relates to the same financial status.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And
through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Absolutely.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Is there
any reason why the state could not cover this
directly to relieve the school districts of
the burden of having to float and repay the
bonds, since we do have a lot of money in the
state coffers right now and we are actually
looking at some serious challenges to the
state's underspending on our schools? I mean,
is there any reason other than the fact the
state just hasn't done it in the past why the
5918
state couldn't cover this cost directly?
SENATOR McGEE: Through you, Mr.
President, I really can't answer that
particular question. These are not things
that happen on a daily basis. These are
things that happen as a result of Mother
Nature. Not every school district, number
one, would have this issue. Number two, you
would never be able to, I'm sure, appropriate
a certain X amount of money because you would
never have an idea of what that cost of money
is going to be.
So I can't give you an answer on
that except for the answer I just gave you.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
this sounds like a completely prudent way to
deal with this situation.
My only concern is that we are now,
I think, entering a period of several years
where we're going to be taking a very close
look at the system of financing of school
5919
districts in New York State, since the
decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity
case.
And I commend to the sponsor to
take a look at some of the language in Justice
Leland DeGrasse's decision relating
particularly to problems of more rural school
districts. Because in addition to needs in
our urban areas, where we have severe
underfunding for our own type of special
needs, of lots of students who are not native
English speakers, students with special
learning needs -- there also is language there
about facilities and the particular needs of
rural districts.
I hope that we can move away from a
situation where individual school districts
have to float bonds in order to just maintain
their facilities, since the state has a
constitutional responsibility, as explicitly
stated in this judge's decision not long ago,
to maintain decent facilities for all the
children of this state.
So I think this makes perfect sense
given the state's failure to handle this thus
5920
far, but I hope in the future it is something
that we could address as we are dealing with
this overall problem. I will be supporting
the bill, and I hope that at some point,
though, we can relieve these jurisdictions of
this expense and obligation.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, debate is closed.
Please read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
5921
Crime Victims Committee meeting will be in the
Majority Conference Room immediately. That's
Room 332.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President,
please take up Calendar 356.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 356, by
Senator McGee.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
356, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3188, an
act to amend the Local Finance Law, in
relation to temporary alternative methods.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator McGee, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
this is a bill that quite resembles very much
the bill that we last did. The one that we
just got done doing was, as a matter of fact,
flood. This particular bill deals with snow
removal and ice removal incurred during a
specific fiscal year for which a municipality
has not budgeted that amount of money, it has
5922
in fact put them into deficit mode. They are
allowed to go out for bonds.
This bill will allow them to extend
the period of bonding repayment to five years
rather than put an exorbitant cost, an
increase in taxes to cover that serial bond
payment back in the next fiscal year.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
Senators wishing to be heard?
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
the explanation is satisfactory.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you. Debate is closed.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Please call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Rath.
5923
SENATOR RATH: One moment, Mr.
President.
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: If you'd please
take up Calendar Number 385.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 385, by
Senator Libous.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
385, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2862, an
act in relation to adjusting certain state aid
payments.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Libous, an explanation has been
requested by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr.
President. This would assist the school
district of Greene to pay back to the state an
overpayment in aid which they received.
The problem we have here is that
the district does not the money to pay it all
back in one payment. And what we've done here
5924
is worked out something that we feel will be
in accordance with the school district and
also, Mr. President, in accordance with the
taxpayers, so that they could rightfully pay
the money back to the state but do it in a way
that would be most appropriate for the school
district.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
Senator Gentile had some questions on this
bill, and he's in the Crime Victims Committee
meeting in the Majority Conference Room.
I just want to point out that it's
very difficult for members to be in committee
meetings and on the floor at the same time.
But I'd like to ask the Senator to
yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Libous, would you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, Mr.
President, I would be honored to yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
5925
Senator will yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
overpayment that we're discussing took place
during the calendar years 1992 and 1993, am I
not correct?
SENATOR LIBOUS: That is correct,
sir.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would yield, how has it taken
nine years before we're just examining the
issue at this point?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Well, Mr.
President, unfortunately in government things
sometime get put aside and not addressed, and
that the bureaucracy tends to lose things.
And that's the unfortunate thing.
But when it was found and it was
brought to the attention of the school board
and the school district, they recognized that
there had to be some rectifying of the
situation, and here we are.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
5926
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Libous, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
I'd be happy to continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
He's happy to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator. Would it not be more prudent to
exact an interest penalty on the school
district based on the amount of time that's
accrued? Or if it's your pleasure, Senator,
and you don't think that that's the right
idea, can you just give the body some
suggestions as to how to prevent this type of
situation from occurring again?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Well, Mr.
President, I respect Senator Paterson's
question, but it is usually customary that we
do not charge interest if the error was
clerical and not intentional, and that seems
to be the case here.
Certainly, Mr. President, we want
to applaud the school district for trying to
rectify this. I know that there have been
some situations in the past where overpayments
5927
have been made and, quite frankly, they have
not been rectified and they have not been
pushed to make them pay.
But I think this is very honorable
by the district of Greene. And as their
legislator, I'm here to try to help them and
particularly the taxpayers so that the burden
is not heavy on the tax base, and that's
really what's important. And I think that
this is very honorable because they're willing
to pay it back at this time.
So, Mr. President, and to Senator
Paterson, I'm not sure if there's any written
policy that can take place. I think these
situations are situations that need to be
looked at on an individual basis as it
pertains to the tax base in the school
district.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. This situation does seem rather
unique. And I accept Senator Libous's
explanation. If he would yield, I just have
one last question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Libous, you'll yield for one last
5928
question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, Mr.
President, I will yield for the last question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, was
it that the district was not aware of the
overpayment, or was it just a factor that they
were trying to find other remedies in order to
end this problem and, exhausting those, came
before yourself and us as the Legislature?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
that's a fair question. And going back to
what I said earlier, fortunately or
unfortunately, all of these circumstances need
to be looked at as individual cases. And in
this case, the district believed that they
were doing the right thing until the auditors
basically came in and said, Hey, we've got a
problem here, so this needs to be repaid. And
that's what happened in this particular case.
And, you know, it's unfortunate
that it took as long as it did. But again,
we're here today to try to rectify it. And
again, I think that's quite honorable.
5929
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hevesi, why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Will the sponsor yield, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Libous, will you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, Mr.
President, I will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, I fully understand
the purpose of this legislation. Very well,
in fact, because we've seen many pieces of
legislation just like this. I think this is
the first one this session. But certainly
last session and the session preceding it, a
number of bills just like this.
And it's always troubling to see
this, because though it is justified -- and I
certainly support this bill, because we don't
want to disenfranchise the local school
district and burden them as they attempt to
repay money that should not have been given to
them in the first place -- it raises the same
5930
question every time.
So I will put the one question to
you, Senator Libous, through you, of course,
Mr. President. Has the State Education
Department done anything to ensure that they
are not making these overpayments for which we
lose money as taxpayers because interest is
not repaid when we remedy these types of
situations?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
certainly in these situations the fiscal
reporting requirements are somewhat complex.
And again through you, Mr. President, the
State Education Department does have
requirements that they have to go through.
But basically, these situations are
caught through audits, through periodic
audits. And I guess that, to me, is probably
the best way. Maybe the State Education
Department might want to do those audits more
frequently. But then again, Mr. President, we
might run into issues when it comes into
manpower and looking at whether or not we have
enough people to go out and do that.
But basically, Mr. President, that
5931
these are done through the audits, and that's
how they're discovered.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Will the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure will.
Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: I would
respectfully suggest that the current
procedures are deficient and that a local
school board who has received -- that has
received a substantial overpayment has by
definition made a mistake in the amount of
money that they've claimed from the state and
therefore -- and in the case of the Greene
Central School District, evidently it was
several years' worth of overclaims.
And therefore, not only did the
central school district, the Greene Central
School District, make a mistake, but the State
Education Department has made repeated
5932
mistakes of simply accepting from local school
districts the amount of money that they're
claiming. And this has a real implication.
Not that it takes up our time to pass a bill,
but that we lose money when we do this.
So my question to you is, in this
particular instance, wouldn't you agree that
both the Greene Central School District and
the SED made mistakes and in light of the
history of mistakes being made by local school
districts and SED that we should be doing
something more than just correcting this one
particular mistake and instead addressing the
larger problem, which does have a negative
impact?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
today, of course, we are addressing the Greene
district. And I'm not aware of other school
districts that may have these problems. I'm
sure, if they are, that local Senators would
be looking to try to correct that.
Mr. President, I think Greene was
somewhat unique. And Senator Hevesi brings up
a good point, and I have great respect for
Senator Hevesi. But I think it's twofold.
5933
One is the school district that seems to in
this case have been a little slow in
responding maybe to the State Education
Department.
But maybe Senator Hevesi and I
might want to go on a fact-finding mission
with the State Education Department to find
out what their procedure is and how they look
at these instances and why it takes so long
for restitution.
So while it can't be addressed, Mr.
President, in this piece of legislation, I
would be very open to my colleague to try to
see if we can get some answers from
Commissioner Mills and those who run the State
Education Department to see why the procedure
is the way it is.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. On
the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
What we just heard from Senator
Libous was the perfect response. Because I
5934
don't believe that Senator Libous should bear
the burden of trying to defend a system that
we know has been broken a little bit. I don't
want to blow this out of proportion with
hyperbole. But he's trying to remedy for a
district that he represents, and I completely
respect that and I'm going to support this
legislation.
But I certainly will take Senator
Libous up on his offer to further explore the
problem here. But I would strongly suggest
that, number one, whatever periodic audits the
State Education Department is doing are
insufficient, because they have not provided a
deterrent effect or an effect that enables the
local school districts to better manage their
finances and more accurately report to SED the
money that these districts believe they are
owed.
And I would go a little further
here in suggesting that our mechanism for
remedying the problems that we have seen here
aren't having an impact that's going to
correct the problem in the future. Now, I
don't want to be punitive with the school
5935
districts, because their purpose is to educate
children. And the more we disenfranchise them
financially, the more we cut off our nose to
spite our face.
However, the fact that we simply
allow them to make these payments back to the
state without any consideration of interest
means that the people who have paid these
taxes are essentially losing money by not
having accrued any interest on it, and that
additional money could have been spent on any
other purposes. And it's not a tragedy, but
it's not good government.
And so I would suggest that it's
probably a good idea to have some disincentive
for local school districts to overclaim. And
the best way to do that is by creating equity
in the remedy and requiring an interest
payment or some kind of penalty when we have
to go back and correct these mistakes.
But better to avoid that at all by
making sure that the processes from the local
school boards and the auditing and review of
the State Education Department are done to a
sufficient managerial level that we can avoid
5936
these problems in the first place.
Having said that, though I wish we
will move in that direction and I hope to work
towards that, this is a good piece of
legislation. There's no reason that the
Greene Central School District should be
harmed by having to make an aggregate payment
of all the money that they've been overpaid.
And so I support this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, debate is closed.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There is a local fiscal statement on file.
Call the roll, please.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Rath.
5937
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President,
would you please take up Calendar Number 361.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Will you please read Calendar Number 361, by
Senator Padavan.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
361, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Lopez, Assembly Print Number
3995B, an act to amend the Real Property
Actions and Proceedings Law.
SENATOR GENTILE: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Padavan, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Mr. President,
this legislation will allow the City of New
York to continue, through June 30, 2004, to
transform effectively abandoned buildings,
many of which are in dangerous disrepair, a
hazard to those who occupy them, and convert
them into permanent affordable housing.
That part of the bill is an
extender of existing law. There is one change
in the bill from existing law that would
prevent new owners of these so-called Article
5938
7-A properties from taking advantage of rent
restructuring prior to the rehabilitation that
they are committed to provide.
That is the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: If the sponsor
would yield for a question.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Padavan yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Through you, Mr. President, I just
want to be extremely clear about this.
Because the problems I had with this bill when
it was on the floor last year was the fact
that there was a provision in there that,
under the restructuring of rent, allowed this
agreement with these buildings to override the
Rent Stabilization Law, the Rent Control Law,
and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act.
Now, what I just heard Senator
Padavan just say, and I want should be very
clear about this -
5939
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me, Senator, for one second.
Senator Kuhl, why do you rise?
SENATOR KUHL: If Senator Gentile
would suffer an interruption, I'd like to
announce an immediate meeting of the
Transportation Committee in the Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator. There will be an
immediate meeting of the Transportation
Committee in the Majority Conference Room,
Room 332.
I'm sorry, Senator Gentile. Please
continue.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator, I just want to be
absolutely clear, and for our colleagues here
in the Senate, that that provision that would
otherwise override the Rent Stabilization and
the Tenant Protections Act is no longer part
of this bill that you're presenting today; is
that correct?
SENATOR PADAVAN: When you say
5940
"override," what do you mean?
SENATOR GENTILE: Well, in terms
of the rent restructuring under the provisions
of the bill as they appeared prior to today,
allowed rent restructuring to take place.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Prior to the
rehabilitation?
SENATOR GENTILE: Prior to the
rehabilitation.
SENATOR PADAVAN: This precludes
that. It does not preclude their making an
application for an HPD loan to do the rehab.
But that loophole has been dealt with in this
bill. That's what I said before. It's an
extender and a change that precludes the issue
you raised.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President, if the -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GENTILE: So just to be
very clear, Senator -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me. I didn't hear an answer, Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: Oh, I'm sorry.
5941
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President, just to be very clear, then,
any rent restructuring that would happen under
these agreements with these abandoned
buildings would be done through the regular
rent stabilization provisions?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, that's
always been the case.
But that section of the law -- I
think it's Section 778 -- has been amended to
preclude the rent restructuring prior to the
rehabilitation. If that's what your
question's all about. That's an amendment to
the existing law.
SENATOR GENTILE: If the Senator
would continue to yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
does.
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, also
5942
in proposing these agreements with these
abandoned buildings and the new owners, it
doesn't mention anything about any involvement
by the 7-A administrator or by the judge. Is
there any provision by which the 7-A
administrator or the administrative judge
would have input into these types of
agreements that the owner makes with the city?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well,
subdivision 10 of that Section 778 -- and the
long title is Real Property Actions and
Proceeding Law -- grants to the City of New
York this authority. So therefore, the court
need no longer be involved.
In dealing with the law that we
have before us that's been in effect, it was
extended in '99 -- not last year, but the
prior year -- and which we wish to extend
again, I'm sure we'd all agree there's a
tremendous need for affordable housing. At
the same time, we don't want people taking
advantage of it by getting ownership, applying
for rent restructuring, and not doing the
rehabilitation work which was a commitment
they entered into at the very beginning.
5943
And that authority is there in
existing law and is further enhanced by this
new law.
SENATOR GENTILE: If the Senator
would continue to yield for one more question.
SENATOR PADAVAN: One more
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields for another question.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, what
role, then, would the 7-A administrator have
once this agreement is in place, Senator?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Once the
agreement is in place, then it comes under the
authority granted to the City of New York,
which gives the city permission to adjust the
rents. Obviously HPD has the authority to
enter into rehab loans and to see that the law
that we're dealing with is enforced.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through the 7-A
administrator.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Senator.
5944
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: I thank Senator
Padavan for his responses.
While I would prefer to see some
provisions by which the 7-A administrator
would have a more direct and defined role in
these agreements, I have to congratulate
Senator Padavan and those who drafted this
legislation for eliminating that portion of
the bill which previously had allowed rent
restructuring before any capital improvements
had been made.
That was the provision that I think
many of us on this side of the aisle voted
against last year. I believe that Senator
Padavan has seen the better of it and seen the
light of it and now has taken that provision
out of this new bill here, in the extender.
And so I think this is now a bill that in
effect will help rehabilitate buildings in the
City of New York and at the same time not
subject tenants to rent increases without the
actual capital improvements being done.
5945
So, Senator Padavan, you've changed
my vote from a no to a yes because of the
protections that you have given to tenants in
this new bill. So I congratulate you, and I
urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Are
there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, debate is closed.
Please read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President, would you now call up Calendar
Number 286, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 286, by
Senator Kuhl.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
5946
286, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3071, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to authorizing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Kuhl, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Currently in statute in the Motor
Vehicle Code -- I think it's Section 3.
Excuse me, 401 -- there's a provision for a
special license for what we call a farm
vehicle. But currently there is no ability
for a farmer to take that farm vehicle other
than 25 miles, if necessary, to a repair shop,
operating the vehicle on its own power.
So a farmer is required, if he's
going to go get his farm vehicle repaired or
inspected, to actually load it on a flatbed
and then take it to the repair shop and then
load it back. It's a significant cost,
really, and there's no need for it.
So this bill provides an exemption,
another exemption to the statute which would
5947
allow for a farm vehicle to be taken to a
repair or inspection shop for its maintenance
or annual inspection.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Kuhl?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, what
about the enforcement problem that this bill
would occasion? That is, I can foresee that
these vehicles would be on the road, they
would be stopped because they either lack
plates or they -- for some other reason.
How are the police supposed to
determine -- I mean, don't we get into a proof
problem here? Well, it's on its way to the
repair shop. I mean, is there any requirement
that they produce repairs? How do we deal
with the practicality of enforcement?
5948
SENATOR KUHL: Well, I've always
found the State Police to be very
understanding in situations like this,
Senator. And I don't perceive that there
would be an enforcement problem.
There is a special attachment to
the farm license which designates its home
location. And certainly you can easily
monitor how far 25 miles is from that
location. And if in fact a farmer were on his
way to a repair shop, then I would expect
fully that, you know, the state policeman
could follow him there if he felt so inclined.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Kuhl
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What types of
vehicles would be included in the scope of
this legislation? We're talking about smaller
pieces or pieces as big as combines and other
5949
farm vehicles of significant size that would
be on the highways?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, combines
currently aren't registered, Senator, I don't
believe.
What you're talking about is a
motor vehicle under the definition of what a
motor vehicle is. In the current law, it
could be a semitrailer, tractor, anything, any
size. There's no limitations on what a
vehicle could be.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Again
through you, Mr. President, if Senator Kuhl
will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
believe he yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: My concern is
that -- as I'm sure, Senator Kuhl, you being
from Steuben County, would know even better
than I, that difficulty oftentimes created
with a large farm implement or vehicle on the
highway taking up several lanes, most people
5950
attempting to pass it.
Which is one of the reasons why
we've been relatively sparse in our exemptions
from the requirements under the Vehicle and
Traffic Law with respect to farm vehicles
being on the public highways, that they aren't
by their nature creating a nuisance, but
nervous drivers, impatient drivers getting
around them, trying to pass, create the
problems.
My question is, would this only
apply to vehicles that in essence would
otherwise be on the highways -- cars, trucks,
semis, that type of vehicle? Or does this
include a range of other farm-implement
operating vehicles that would be on the
highways?
SENATOR KUHL: The language in
the bill, Senator, specifically says motor
vehicle, trailer or semitrailer. That's the
definitions that we use.
And it wouldn't -- and only for
those vehicles actually who were registered as
farm vehicles.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
5951
Through you, Mr. President, just on the bill,
if I can.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm going to
vote in favor of this bill. I take Senator
Kuhl's explanation that this will involve
vehicles that would otherwise be on the
highways.
My concern in my questioning of
Senator Kuhl was that, as I'm sure many of
those of us who live in suburban or urban
areas, often the experience of moving down a
country road, a two-lane country road and
running into the farm implement that's on the
highway -- which at least in my experience as
a suburban and urban driver, the drivers tend
to get a little impatient because the vehicle
isn't going at the normal speed, and the next
thing you know you're trying to pass it on
narrow roads.
That's one of the reasons why we
have been somewhat reluctant to allow larger,
oversized vehicles, especially farm implement
vehicles, on the small farms and small narrow
5952
streets and roads in our rural areas.
This bill, as I understand Senator
Kuhl's explanation, will not apply. These
will be motor vehicles that will need repairs.
And under those circumstances, I don't think
they pose the harms and the dangers that
oversized vehicles could.
So under those circumstances, Mr.
President, I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill and would ask my colleagues to do
likewise.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, the Secretary will
please read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
5953
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. Could we announce an immediate
meeting of the Children and Families Committee
in the Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, we can. There will be an immediate
meeting of the Children and Families Committee
in the Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I'd
like to have unanimous consent to be recorded
in the negative on Calendar Number 201,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Could you call up
Calendar Number 277, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Calendar Number 277, the Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
277, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 427, an
act to amend the General Business Law and the
Town Law, in relation to dealers.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
5954
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Skelos, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes. Senator
Dollinger, this bill would require secondhand
dealers to obtain identification and keep a
record thereof from anyone selling items to
the secondhand dealer.
This information is extremely
important to the police, in particular in
recovering stolen merchandise. Similar
legislation exists right now in the City of
Albany, City of Buffalo, County of
Westchester, and I believe in the City of
New York.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If Senator
Skelos will yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
5955
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields for a question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The list of
municipalities that you've just described
obviously had a local concern about this
correlation between the secondhand dealers and
the collateral loan brokers. Is there any
evidence that there is an abundant problem in
other parts of the state?
I assume this bill has statewide
application. Do you have evidence that it
other than in -- I understand in the
municipalities affected. But in the other
communities, is it needed?
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if I could respond, that's a good question.
Really, by making this statewide -- and it
would establish minimum standards, so local
municipalities could adopt stricter standards
within their own community -- there would
really, in a sense, be a chain of control of
these items where police could then go
throughout the entire state and perhaps track
down stolen items or, even better, catch the
person that committed the crime.
5956
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Skelos
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What has been
the experience in the municipalities that have
this with respect to the recordkeeping? By
their very nature, secondhand dealers and
collateral loan brokers are not necessarily, I
would assume, the best recordkeepers. I mean,
is there evidence that these recordkeeping
provisions have been enforced and that they've
have actually assisted police investigations?
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, if I could
respond, Mr. President, the experience has
been very good in the City of Albany, the City
of Buffalo. We have not really received
complaints from anybody about the legislation
or its intent, and it seems to be working.
And that's why we feel it would be -- the Town
5957
of Hempstead, where I reside, has it, other
townships throughout the state.
It seems to be working well, and we
have not really received complaints about the
legislation. Generally, when you put in a
bill like this, if people are deeply concerned
about it, you know that we will receive calls
from them in opposition.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Right.
A final question, if Senator Skelos
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The bill
contains an exception for not-for-profit
groups. I assume that that relates to
secondhand clothing sales at churches and
synagogues. Is there any evidence that the
benefit that you're trying to seek -- that is,
assisting the police in providing greater
recordkeeping -- that they should be included
within this bill to -- I mean, I don't know
5958
whether they are oftentimes a source of stolen
property and that kind of thing as well.
SENATOR SKELOS: If I could
respond, Mr. President, generally the thrift
shops and hospitals are not the places where a
person would bring a valuable watch or a
valuable TV. Generally, it's -- quite
honestly, it's clothes that people are looking
to get rid of.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Thank
you, Mr. President. I have no further
questions. I don't know whether anyone else
on this side does.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, the debate is closed.
Please read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
5959
bill is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President, could we go back to the beginning
of the active list now, and call up Calendar
Number 12 and then commence forward in regular
order.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Please read the calendar, starting with
Calendar Number 12.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
12, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 200, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
causing the death of a peace officer.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Volker, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President,
this bill came about because -- very honestly,
because of the death of a police officer in
New York City, Vincent Guidice. In fact, it
was termed the "Police Officer Vincent Guidice
Memorial Act."
5960
What happened was that Patrolman
Guidice responded to a domestic call and was
attempting to quiet a domestic argument when
one of the individuals became belligerent, and
he attempted to arrest him. And there had
been -- before he got there, there was a -
some dispute between the parties, and some
glass had been broken, including a mirror.
And when Officer Guidice was wrestled to the
ground, a piece, a large piece of glass
pierced his thigh, I believe, and an artery,
and he bled to death, and died.
The DA looked at the statutes and
decided that although he could have tried to
charge him with second-degree murder, he felt
that the evidence really didn't warrant it.
And the result was that the charges against
the individual, the top charge that could be
charged against the individual was a Class D
felony.
Now, the feeling was that this kind
of activity should warrant a higher potential
penalty. So what this bill says is that when
someone attempts to prevent a police officer,
a firefighter, a paramedic or emergency
5961
technician person from performing their duty,
that -- and causes the death of that person,
then the charge could be a B felony.
And it follows up on I believe it
was a 1996 statute that we did that related to
upgrading the penalty for assault on police
officers, peace officers, firemen, and so
forth, which means assault -- meaning that
there was a serious injury or whatever -- to a
C felony. And it follows right in line, C
felony, B felony, and of course the A felony
is reserved for the most egregious acts.
But in this case it would make the
charge of manslaughter on this class of people
be a B felony.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Will Senator Volker yield just
to one question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure. Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
5962
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I
agree with the intent of this bill. And I
certainly understand the very unique, highly
unique circumstances which bring it about.
My question is purely a drafting
one. On line 15 of the bill we use the phrase
"a lawful duty." And I always get a bit
nervous, Senator, when I see a term like that,
because I think is that term defined someplace
else, number one. And, number two, why put in
the phrase "lawful"? What does -- that phrase
has -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, I don't mean to be rude,
but every time you turn around, we lose sound.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Common courtesy and Senate
rules, I understand, have some conflict, given
our two respective -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: We
understand that. But please speak to this
chair.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Mr.
President.
My question is, in use of that
5963
phrase "lawful duty," (A) is it defined
elsewhere in the statute? And (B) is it
intended to raise the standard of duty to some
statutory authorized duty or is it a
common-law term that just is used as a term of
art? That's my question.
SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, I don't
know. But -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Read the last section.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR VOLKER: I don't really
know, but I certainly will find out.
But I believe that -- well, I know
what the intent was. The intent was to make
sure that whatever act was being performed was
in the ordinary course of that individual
performing his or her duties. And I think the
reason they put "lawful" is so that it wasn't
just some -- something that might not be in a
category of pursuing the kind of duty that
fits in with their -- whatever their proper
job was.
Now, I think the reason they put -
as I say, that they put "lawful" was just to
5964
make sure that there was -- that there was no
question that whatever they were doing was in
pursuing it, whether they got into a struggle
or not.
In other words, if it was -- if
they met on a street corner or something and a
fellow was -- or the woman was a firefighter
and they got into an argument or something
that had nothing to do with their lawful
authority, even though the guy tried to arrest
them, that was because of some argument or
something, that wouldn't exactly be in their
lawful duty.
At least I think that's what was
intend here, to make clear that they were
performing a function that befits the office
for which -- or not the office, but the type
of job that they had. I mean, it's -- I
suppose it's probably harder to envision
somebody who walks up on the street and says
to a police officer, Let's have a discussion,
and the -- but it's possible. And that would
not be, then, I suppose, a lawful -- it could
be argued that that really wasn't a lawful
duty. In other words, you could still arrest
5965
the fellow, I suppose, but it wouldn't be
covered by a Class B felony.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Volker would
continue to yield just for a clarification
question.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Volker yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do I
understand it, then, that in your mind the use
of the phrase "lawful" as an adjective
describing "duty" would be a duty which under
law is vested solely in one of these people -
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- such as a
police officer, a peace officer, a
firefighter, that it is something unique about
their professional legal responsibilities,
it's in the act of doing that that this
statute applies?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, I think
that's what -- that's what I interpret it to
mean. And I think that -- I know that that's
what the drafter intended.
5966
I will, by the way, look up and see
whether there is a definition of that. But I
think that the concern was, once again, that
somebody could be in this class of people and
yet not be performing a duty, get into this
situation, and still the person would not be
doing proper -- would -- could be arrested.
But on the other hand, you wouldn't
have the same seriousness of the felony that
would be involved here, and that would be
something the DA would have to examine when he
or she charged that person.
This is a serious offense. A Class
B felony, quite obviously, is a very serious
offense. And I think that was the concept
here, that the person was one of these class
of people who was performing his duties
properly, or lawful duties, and was being
obstructed from doing it and eventually was
killed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I think
5967
Senator Volker's description is important in
the context of this bill, because whenever we
are drafting and we use a phrase like "lawful
duty," as Senator Volker is well aware, the
courts of this state will narrowly interpret
criminal statutes. Because we are restricting
people's liberties by defining certain conduct
that we will make unlawful and for which
people will pay a substantial price in the
loss of their liberty.
And I think that whenever we use a
phrase like "lawful duty," my fear is always
that some law clerk somewhere is going to look
this up, with a 12-to-25-year sentence at
stake, and say, Well, the police officer was
out performing traffic control at Redwing
Stadium or at Frontier Field in Rochester,
New York. Is that part of their lawful duty?
Is it something that only a police officer
would do? The answer to that is no, because
certainly private security officers could do
that. And someone is going to say, Well,
that's what he was doing when I interfered
with the performance of that duty.
The point I'm making, Mr.
5968
President, is that I'm going to vote in favor
of this bill, but I do so because I hope that
we've somewhat given a light to the courts of
this state if at some time in the future this
bill becomes law and some aggressive young law
clerk says, Is it really lawful duty when they
were doing X? I think Senator Volker's
comments as the sponsor are going to be
important to the courts in resolving that
issue.
And, Senator Volker, I actually
will be looking forward to find out whether
we've actually defined the phrase "lawful
duty" in our Penal Law or, for that matter,
anywhere else in the law, because if we're
going to use that term as a term of art, maybe
we should put that definition in somewhere.
So I'll vote in favor nonetheless,
Mr. President. I thank Senator Volker.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hevesi, why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Will the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Volker -- I'm sorry. Excuse me,
5969
Senator.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: I'm sorry to
interrupt the debate. We'd like to announce
an immediate meeting of the Local Governments
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Local Governments Committee in the Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator Hevesi, please continue.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Volker, do you yield?
He yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if I
can draw the sponsor's attention to a sentence
in the memorandum of support for this
legislation. Specifically, in the second
paragraph, the line that reads "Even though
the Penal Law charges of murder in the second
degree or manslaughter in the first degree
could have been interpreted to include the
5970
facts of the case, Officer Guidice's killer
was charged only with a Class D felony."
The reason I bring this up to you
is because that particular statement is
somewhat in conflict with what the district
attorney has suggested is the case. Could I
simply get your reaction to that?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah. And I
think that the argument by -- I don't want to
say the -- well, I think the New York City
police and the argument by proponents of a
more severe sentence was that it was their
belief that the facts would warrant charging a
more severe charge with murder second and
manslaughter.
But the DAs have looked at this,
and their opinion was that it would be very
difficult, under the wording of the murder two
and the manslaughter one statute, to be able
to make -- you know, to make that charge
stick. And that they felt this was a gap. As
so often is the case, we talk about gaps in
the law. And remember, we're restricting this
only to the specific kind of activity and
civic persons, because it is a big jump to a
5971
B felony.
But, oh, I did notice that. And in
fact, we discussed that, if I remember right.
And the reason is there's been a lot of
discussion about this bill, because it's
passed, I think, four times in this house and
we're trying to get the Assembly to accept it.
And I would hope that might happen maybe this
year.
But the consensus was, by people
who had looked at this, that this was a gap in
the law, that it would be virtually impossible
to convict someone of second-degree murder
under the circumstances. And probably
rightfully so, because there was no direct
intent to kill the officer, only indirect
intent, as it was. Because it was reckless,
obviously, and he fell. And you could hardly
argue that the fellow could directly
anticipate that he was going to cut an artery
and die.
But when you -- as you know, your
actions are imputed. And that's why the more
serious charge here where people are trying
actually to deal with a situation. And so I
5972
recognize that statement.
But the feeling by district
attorneys as well as some judges was that this
would not have -- that the facts in that case
would not apply as a second-degree murder.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Mr. President, would the sponsor
continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure. Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Volker yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, would
it be the sponsor's opinion that had this law,
this bill we're debating today, had it become
law and was on the books at the time, that the
Bronx District Attorney, Robert Johnson, would
have prosecuted under this statute?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes. I think if
this statute -- and this is what the district
attorneys are saying to us, that if this bill
were law, then the district attorney -- well,
in this case, which I guess was Bronx County,
would then have indicted this person under
this statute, and the person would have been
5973
subject to a Class B felony.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a piece of legislation I
know we've passed the last several years. And
I believe we're about to pass it again today.
I would urge the Assembly to pass this
legislation immediately, and for the Governor
to sign it.
I remember this case in 1996 really
vividly, and the fact that in such a tragic
circumstance, this police officer was killed
in the line of duty because of the direct
actions of the individual on the scene.
Though he may not have intended to kill the
police officer, his actions certainly provided
the circumstance for that eventuality. The
fact that this individual was only charged
with a D or E felony as a result is just
unacceptable. That's just flat-out
unacceptable.
5974
And in addition to there being a
lack of justice for this officer's family,
this is -- the fact that we haven't acted on
this is saying to people out there in society
that we are taking less seriously than we
should the type of obstruction of a police
officer or another public official as defined
in this legislation.
And that's unacceptable. These
police officers do a tremendously dangerous
and difficult job. And everyone should know
that if you have an altercation with a cop,
something tragic and terrible might happen.
And the fact that you may not have intended to
kill that police officer, when you scuffle
with a cop and there's broken glass all over
the floor, tragic circumstances can happen.
And if they do happen and it's a direct result
of your actions, that you're not going to get
hit with a D or an E felony, that you're going
to get hit, under this legislation, with a B
felony, as well you should.
So this legislation should be
passed immediately. It will provide a measure
of deterrence, if we can get it out there to
5975
people, to take even more seriously than they
do right now and should right now, that they
should never engage in any type of altercation
which obstructs a police officer from doing
their duty. And for Officer Guidice's family,
who must have been heartbroken -- I mean, just
imagine how that family felt after this police
officer in the line of duty is killed in this
tragic accident, which it's not really an
accident, if you really want to examine it.
When you have a scuffle with a
police officer -- and I believe he was
responding to a domestic violence incident,
which police officers indicate all the time
are the most dangerous and unpredictable types
of incidents -- if you think it's okay that
you can scuffle with the cop, you're wrong.
And what happened in this case is the ultimate
proof that anything can happen. And Officer
Guidice was killed when his femoral artery was
severed, and he died.
And compounding this horrible
tragedy was the fact that the individual who
had committed this offense was not punished as
this individual should have been punished.
5976
And that's even more tragic for the family, or
as tragic as the loss of their loved one, who
was a hero in New York City and serves as a
reminder to everybody just what a terribly
dangerous job our police officers do.
So this is the very least we can do
for our cops and other public officials who
are serving this role. It's our job to
protect them in this capacity and, at the same
time, to provide justice to the family members
of victims of this type of offense, that we're
going to punish severely individuals who
engage in reckless behavior because we know -
and this is the proof -- that that reckless
behavior can and sometimes will, in the most
tragic circumstances, lead to the deaths of
police officers. And we're not going to
tolerate it anymore.
And let a cry go out to the
Assembly and the Governor, please take action
on this immediately. Let's pass this
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Is
there any other Senator wishing to be heard on
this bill?
5977
Seeing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time return to reports of
standing committees. I believe there's a
report from the Finance Committee at the desk.
I'd ask that it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There is a report, Senator.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations.
As Secretary of State, Randy A.
Daniels, of New York City.
5978
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
we were very fortunate this morning, as is the
State of New York, a very fine nominee came
before our Senate Finance Committee, did well,
I'm sure will do a tremendous job, the nominee
for Secretary of State of the State of
New York.
And it is a pleasure to yield to
the Senator from Rensselaer, the Majority
Leader.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
chair recognizes Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator
Stafford.
And, Mr. President, it's a great
pleasure for me to rise and support this
nomination of Randy Daniels, with my
colleagues, for Secretary of State.
The Governor has proposed a number
of extremely qualified people to serve the
constituency here in New York. But Randy
Daniels, accompanied by his wife, Jackie, is a
5979
true champion, a champion of the people.
And when you take a look at his
background and you talk about a person who has
had experiences in the private sector, in real
estate, in real estate management, in
investments, in investment management, and
helping the economic revitalization of large
communities like Harlem and the federal
development zones here throughout the state -
and he has done all of the things that he has
done conscientiously, diligently, and always
with the best interests of a great majority of
the people of this state in his mind and in
his heart.
So I'm proud to be able to rise in
support of this nomination for Secretary of
State, one of the high offices here in
New York State. With the work that goes
through that office, it's 25-plus years of
experience that Randy brings, having literally
traveled the world, served throughout the
world, and is really a credit to the Governor,
to his family, to the entire constituency here
in New York State. And he is a credit to all
of us here in the Senate as we move his
5980
confirmation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Bruno.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator Connor would like to come
out and speak about Randy Daniels, and he is
delayed temporarily. But it's not only my
privilege, but I think I'm almost glad to get
up. This is a person that hails from my
district, is a deacon at the Abyssinian
Baptist Church right in Harlem, someone who
I've known for over 15 years, watched him when
he was a correspondent for CBS News back in
the early '80s.
I didn't even know until I looked
as his resume -- I thought from all our
conversations I knew everything about him -
about the television training exercise that he
was involved with in Nigeria in 1982 with two
or three other people who I'm also familiar
with. So that's a conversation we'll have
later.
5981
He is, as I'm sure everyone here
knows from his work on the SUNY board, where
he was appointed in 1997 and was then
appointed vice chair by the Governor in 1999,
he is quite a dynamic and articulate and
courageous voice on the SUNY board and has
always been of assistance to all of us at the
Empire State Development Corporation with his
role in revitalization that Senator Bruno
described.
But also in the specific district
that I represent, he oversaw the Harlem
Community Development Corporation, which he
has brought many, many businesses and ideas
and entities into Harlem that had not been
there previously. And really, if not for that
effort, I don't really know if the former
president would have selected the site that he
did on 125th Street. It's the tremendous
revitalization of 125th Street that was the
precursor to that decision, which will get a
lot of headlines. But long ago, very quietly,
Randy Daniels was putting together those
opportunities for business.
Also, he had a lot to do with the
5982
forgiveness of loans and debts that businesses
that had great ideas and put great effort but
it just didn't work out for them, so there was
a lot of great charity.
But of all of these tremendous
credentials that Mr. Daniels has accrued,
there is nothing that really rivals or is the
pareil of his character, his integrity,
through his successes and also through some of
the barriers in his life, he's always
maintained a decorum of class that really is
unequaled by most people that you will see in
government. And really, I will just say by
very few that I've ever run into.
We want to wish him well and lend
him our support the same way we did when he
came up as a SUNY board member in 1997 when we
voted him in unanimously.
Senator Connor is now here and I'm
sure would like to speak for himself, but
certainly in getting the opportunity to
represent him just for a moment, I must point
out that this person's skills, a rare
combination of skills in so many different
areas, you literally can drop him into a new
5983
area for which he is totally unfamiliar and
within three or four days he will have
prepared himself to rival anybody on the
subject.
This is a very talented and
brilliant individual that I think we've come
to serve today, and I think he will be
outstanding as Secretary of State here in
New York. He's the second African-American to
have ever been named to that post. And with
all the ways in which I've described it, I
probably like him more than most human beings.
I can't like him more than the first, because
the first was in my family.
So I just want to point out that
the Governor could have made no better choice
that I could think of than to have chosen
Randy Daniels as his nominee to become
Secretary of State, a prelude, I think, to an
outstanding career in that area and also a
catalyst for other achievements that I still
think lie before him.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
5984
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Connor, excuse me one second.
Senators, this is just to let
everybody else know, we have a list of people
who are -- and we will place you on the list
as we are made aware of the fact that you want
to speak.
Senator.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
If I may, I'll be brief, because my
able deputy, the son of a former Secretary of
State, laid out for the members really the
outstanding credentials of Randy Daniels, the
outstanding service that he's rendered to the
state in past years, and the fact that all of
us are very, very confident he'll do a superb
job as Secretary of State.
Randy was briefly with me in
Brooklyn on Sunday with the Governor at an
announcement. And the Governor, in
introducing him, said, "You know, most people
think the Secretary of State is planning for
war with New Jersey," which isn't really the
5985
job, although the Governor assured us he could
do that.
Frankly, Mr. President, I'm not
sure that Randy Daniels would be good at
planning for war with New Jersey. But I know
if we ever had to have a treaty with New
Jersey, that Randy Daniels would be the best
person to negotiate that in the best interests
of New York and get a fair result that served
our citizens well.
But seriously, Mr. President, in
this position his responsibilities will
include a wide range of state activities that
he will supervise. I know we're anxious to
have him back to Brooklyn to talk about this
fantastic Brooklyn Bridge Park that we're
planning, which the Department of State has
been very helpful in bringing the planning
process along under Mr. Daniels' predecessor,
Sandy Treadwell. And we briefly spoke about
this, and I know he's anxious to get involved
in it. It is exciting for all the people in
New York City.
And I am absolutely delighted that
the Governor -- I'm delighted but not
5986
surprised that the Governor had the wisdom to
make such an outstanding appointment as Randy
Daniels to Secretary of State. And I will
gladly add my voice to those voting to confirm
his nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Nozzolio.
I just would remind both sides of
the aisle here that we have time limits on
debate on these. It's 15 minutes per side.
So act accordingly on your time as you speak.
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, my colleagues, I
rise with enthusiastic support for this
wonderful nomination. It is not often, if
ever, that I can agree and echo the sentiments
of my colleagues Senator Connor and Senator
Paterson. But particularly Senator Paterson's
comments about Randy Daniels and this nominee
I wish to emphasize and to echo.
Governor Pataki is to be
congratulated for having the wisdom of
choosing such an individual with diverse
5987
qualifications to this important job. As one
who represents an upstate area, I can say that
Randy Daniels' experience in both Empire State
Development Corporation and the State
University of New York, as one who served as a
member of the Board of Trustees, one who was
extremely influential in bringing Bob King in
as Chancellor of the University system, I can
tell you that I am extremely excited because
Randy Daniels understands what Senator Bruno
understands and what this Legislature is
beginning to understand, and that's the
importance of economic development using, as
an engine, the great University system that we
have in this state.
Randy Daniels comes to this new
position as preeminently qualified as I
daresay anyone has ever, if not more so.
Governor Pataki is to be praised for his
wisdom in recognizing this wonderful talent.
And I urge the rapid confirmation of this
wonderful nominee and wish him all the success
in this new position.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
5988
Thank you, Senator Nozzolio.
Senator Ada Smith, please.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I too rise to support the
nomination of Randy A. Daniels for Secretary
of State of the State of New York. First, let
me give praise to our great Governor in his
wisdom to make this nomination, the wisdom to
select a man who is unparalleled in his
experience and in his ability to complete
tasks.
If you read his resume and his
curriculum vitae, you can see where he has
done many different jobs, and he's done them
all well. And along with doing the job, he
has been able to interact with people. He has
been able to bring people together, to
acknowledge their differences and to use that
diversity to bring about change and to do the
job that will make New York an even greater
state.
I'm pleased because Randy Daniels
is my friend, as is his lovely wife. And I
look forward to working with him in his new
5989
capacity, because he has always serviced all
of the people, whether they be on that side of
the aisle or on this side of the aisle. In
his capacity with the City of New York, he saw
to it that the little people were taken care
of, and I know that he will do the same here.
My congratulations to you,
Mr. Daniels, and to the Governor of the State
of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Malcolm Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Mr. President.
I also rise to second the
nomination that was presented by our Majority
Leader, Senator Bruno. Senator -- I was going
to call him Senator Daniels. But Randy, who I
begin and offer praise to because of his
academic as well as professional background.
It is not often that you can find someone who
knows how to navigate through the
personalities as complex as what exists in
this state.
Mr. Daniels, from his real estate
development background to his involvement with
5990
charter schools, has always been able to see
the big picture. And I think that is the mark
of anyone who will be able to have a mark on
history, and that is to be able to see the big
picture and make some of the tough choices,
but the choices that are best for many.
I can tell you this is not only a
great day for the Senate, because we have the
ability to be a part of this confirmation
process, but it is a great day for the State
of New York because they are getting, in Randy
Daniels, one of the finest individuals that
this state will ever see.
My kudos to the family, his wife.
And thank you, Mrs. Daniels, for allowing us
to have a Randy Daniels. But this is going to
be a fine day for each and every one of us,
and I am more than happy to second that
nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Maziarz. Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I rise in support of this
nomination also. I worked very closely,
5991
Randy, with your predecessor, Sandy Treadwell,
particularly when it comes to the economic
redevelopment of Western New York and most
particularly in the City of Niagara Falls,
with the waterfront redevelopment up there.
And I look forward to working with you and
your very capable staff on that same project.
Congratulations to you and your
family and your friends that are here today,
and good luck to you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I rise to join my colleagues in,
one, complimenting and thanking the Governor
for having the vision and the foresight to
make such an appointment. And to say to our
new, in a moment to be Secretary of State, how
proud I am as a friend as well as a colleague
in terms of the work that he's done for our
city, in particular, and across the state in
general.
And just to say that I know that
5992
Mr. Daniels has been in my district, he's been
in Brooklyn, he knows the borough of Brooklyn,
he knows the communities and the
neighborhoods, and he's very much aware,
because of his hands-on approach to his work,
he is aware of what the needs are and what the
concerns and issues are in the communities and
the neighborhoods in Brooklyn and particularly
that that I represent.
So it's a pleasure to have someone
who will go into office already with a
knowledge and an understanding and a
sensitivity. And I look forward for working
with him, continuing his work and my work as
colleagues. I know that he'll do a fine job,
and I'm very pleased to second his nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I rise also to
echo the voices of my colleagues and to
commend the Governor for an outstanding
nonpartisan nomination as Secretary of State.
Rarely do we find someone who has
had such an outstanding record in both private
5993
and public sector. And we should all be proud
of our votes today in support of Mr. Daniels.
I would also like to add something
that I mentioned in the Finance Committee. I
know that Mr. Daniels will be quite
user-friendly in his department to everyone in
the State of New York. But unfortunately,
when you mentioned the term Secretary of State
to New Yorkers, they think of either Madeleine
Albright or Colin Powell.
And I think it's very, very
important, because of the major work that the
Secretary of State will be doing and the
responsibilities that he has, that the people
of the State of New York become more
knowledgeable of all the activities of the
Secretary of State of New York.
I am proud to second the nomination
of Randy Daniels.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President, I
also rise to join in supporting the nomination
of Randy Daniels to be the next Secretary of
5994
State.
I have known Randy for many years.
I consider him and his wife my personal
friends. What is outstanding about him, I
believe, is that due to his diverse experience
at top-level jobs, public sector and private
sector, he has -- his people skills, that were
always tremendously wonderful, have even
increased. Because he is a guy who respects
the differences about people and enjoys the
similarities.
I am sure that we will be having a
Secretary of State that will be -- his office
will be open to all of us, and that we will
all be very proud of his skills in navigating
through the difficulties ahead. He knows that
the previous Secretary of State, as he
mentioned in the Finance Committee meeting, he
told me Mr. Treadwell did a lot of wonderful
new changes, and he believes that he is going
to stand on those changes and improve whatever
has to be improved and make certain that all
the residents of New York State know about the
duties and responsibilities of the Secretary
of State and that they will be well aware that
5995
Randy is not going to declare war in
New Jersey, as my Minority Leader mentioned,
but he will be defending the rights of New
York State and working with all of us.
I think that the Governor, Governor
Pataki, our Governor has done a great service
to all the residents of New York State in
appointing Randy Daniels as the next Secretary
of State. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, I too rise to second the nomination
of Randy Daniels.
I think the Governor made an
excellent choice. I believe the fact that he
reached out by phone, as soon as he was
appointed, to various members to let them know
he was up for appointment and was coming for
confirmation was a good step, showing that he
was going to be open and available.
I think the fact that his
background in economic development will play
so well with a lot of the areas that the
5996
Secretary of State oversees. And I think also
that his quality of caring for people will
help immensely with the fact that that also
oversees volunteer firefighters, which a lot
of us upstate people have a great awareness
of.
And I just feel that his background
will serve him very well and make the
Secretary of State's office quite possibly
even more effective than it is today. And I
think he'll do an excellent job, and I too
second the nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. Just very briefly,
probably to repeat what sounds to be
redundant. But I think in this case it's more
of a reinforcement of the capabilities of
Mr. Randy Daniels, not only to do a job well
but to bring all parties to the table when
necessary.
I don't know Mr. Daniels as
personally as everybody else does, but I know
5997
during my years as city councilwoman in the
City of Mount Vernon, our mayor, in a
predominantly Democratic city, was looking to
do an enterprise zone, and looking at
economically distressed areas. And
Mr. Daniels was kind enough to come down -
and I do say kind, because we didn't fit into
any of the legitimate criterias. But he did
come sit with us, and he made sure that we met
with the Governor to talk about what our
issues were. And I think that that in and of
itself is a very commendable thing for any
person to do.
And certainly in his professional
capacity he brings what I think is the most
valuable -- intelligence, intellectualism, but
also the ability to consolidate interests of
both groups.
And so for this, I commend the
Governor and certainly this body to vote in
support of Mr. Randy Daniels in the role of
Secretary of State of the State of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Hassell-Thompson.
Senator Goodman.
5998
SENATOR GOODMAN: Mr. President,
this is a particularly fortuitous nomination
in many respects.
I've known Mr. Daniels for some
time and have always found him to be an
extraordinarily diplomatic individual. In an
age when there's a good deal of contention in
the land, he's a man who speaks softly and
tactfully and is able, as was mentioned a
moment ago by Senator Hassell-Thompson, to
bring varying groups of differing points of
view together.
I'd point out that, in particular,
he was appointed by Charles Gargano, the
Governor's principal economic development
advisor, to the economic development area of
the Empire State Development Corporation. He
managed the Department of Economic
Revitalization, which focuses on areas of
economic distress throughout New York State.
Also responsible for coordinating New York
State's role in the $300 million federal
Empowerment Zone.
In all of these responsibilities,
as well as the work that he did as a trustee
5999
of SUNY, he's demonstrated extraordinary
capacity and skill. It's for these reasons
and clearly many others too numerous to
mention that a man of his caliber and
character is warmly welcomed to be Secretary
of State. On behalf of all the people of the
State of New York, I am convinced he will do
an excellent job.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Gonzalez, you have about 30 seconds
left.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I too rise to support the
nomination of Randy Daniels. I've had my
experience. I know all my colleagues have
said everything. But I think that -- I've
worked with him, and he is a great
communicator, a great person that reaches out.
He'll do well. I commend the Governor. God
bless him, and Godspeed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Gonzalez.
6000
Seeing no other Senators, having
none on our list, the question is on the
confirmation of Randy Daniels to serve as
Secretary of State of the State of New York.
All in favor of the confirmation
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it.
Congratulations, Mr. Daniels, and
his wife, Jacqueline, in the audience.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we ask for an immediate meeting of the
Labor Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Labor Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
6001
The Secretary will read the other
nominations.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Empire State Plaza Art Commission, Mary
Sharp Cronson, of New York City.
And as director of the Municipal
Assistance Corporation for the City of New
York, Jonathan A. Ballan, Esquire, of New York
City.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
confirmation has been moved. The question is
on the confirmation of Mary Sharp Cronson, of
New York City, for a term as a member of the
Empire State Plaza Art Commission, and for
Jonathan A. Ballan, Esquire, of New York City
for a term as the director of the Municipal
Assistance Corporation for the State of
New York.
All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
6002
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it. The nominees are confirmed.
Senator Bruno, what's your wish?
May we continue in the regular order of the
calendar?
SENATOR BRUNO: Please, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you very much, sir.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
82, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 1094, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to a taxing district's obtaining.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Volker, an explanation has been
requested.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we ask for an immediate meeting of the
Veterans Committee in the small conference
room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
6003
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Veterans Committee in the small conference
room.
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President,
this is a bill that -- this is, by the way,
Calendar Number 82; right?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, it is.
SENATOR VOLKER: Okay, thank you.
Just wanted to make sure.
This is a bill that came out of the
City of Buffalo, but it is a result of the
so-called brownfields issue, which is a
statewide issue, but which, very honestly,
per-capita-wise, if you look at Buffalo and
Western New York, you would find out that we
have more brownfields than any other area of
the state.
These are places that were former
industrial sites where there is some sort of
chemical, or it's suspected there's some sort
of chemical, or some kind of liquid or solid
there, whatever, that prevents the new
construction, prevents purchases in many
6004
cases.
Now, many of these places are up
for potential tax foreclosure. And one of the
things that has prevented the tax foreclosures
has been the issue that the municipality is
concerned that if they move in to try to
discover whether there's any chemical or any
kind of material on that property, that they
could be held liable for anything that's on
the property.
So what this bill basically does is
to set up a process whereby, upon the
commencement of a proceeding for foreclosure,
a municipality or taxing district or whatever,
with 20 days notice to everybody that's
involved in the property, can move into the -
this property and can do an investigation to
see what is actually on the property without
fear of the taxing district or municipality or
whatever it is of being totally liable for
whatever is on that property.
They would then -- to make a long
story sort, that municipality or taxing
district would then be eligible for funding,
under the Clean Air/Clean Water Act, for
6005
75 percent of the cost of such investigation.
And if the investigation should reveal a
condition on the site that would expose the
municipality to liability beyond what the
municipality could afford, they could then
withdraw from the property foreclosure action
and the property could be cleaned up by the
either the state Superfund or by the federal
Superfund.
Apparently now, absent this sort of
legislation, many of these properties, there's
really no way that that can be done. And many
of them are sitting there fallow, as it were.
I must very proudly announce that
this is one of the only bills that I sponsor
that is supported by the New York State Trial
Lawyers Association. And I admit to you that
it's not exactly a prime thing, but it is.
And it's something I think that
is -- I think will precipitate the development
of some of the brownfields properties and the
rehab of these properties, not only in Buffalo
and Western New York, but statewide.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson.
6006
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I'm reasonably sure that Senator Volker would
yield for a few questions.
SENATOR VOLKER: Why, certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
believe he does, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, there
is an interesting priority system that you've
set up in terms of the distribution of these
resources. They would commence, in order of
preference, from cities to villages to towns
to counties.
I was just wondering why the use of
that -- I don't necessarily disagree with it,
I just wanted to know why you chose that order
for succession.
SENATOR VOLKER: If I remember
right, and I am not -- I don't profess to be
an expert in this area, I think it's because
the cities and the villages are the
municipalities that would be most likely to be
involved in this sort of thing and would be
the entities that would be most likely to be
held liable in the event that they should find
a problem on the properties.
6007
I also suspect very strongly that
there is -- some of this probably just relates
to the issue of who would have, in a sense,
the most difficulty in financing the
investigations of these properties. In other
words, I think the cities and the villages
generally don't have the kind of tax base that
the towns and the counties would have. So I
would assume that that's one of the things
that would be involved here.
For the City of Buffalo, their tax
base has been shrinking so fast that -
because of the assessments dropping, that it
would be tantamount to impossible for them to
do any investigations, frankly, unless they
had a chance to have some way of some
guarantee of it being refunded to them.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: As a prelude
6008
to my next question, I was wondering -- I'm
quite sure and assured that there would not be
an attempt to even pass in legislation if the
resources were not held within the Clean
Water/Clean Air fund to sustain this.
But nonetheless, my question is
just what is the availability of monies from
that source. And, you know, for how long can
we continue this without any fear that we
would exhaust all of the monies that would
help to clean up these urban brownfields?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think that -
understand that these -- it isn't -- this is
an investigation. And we're not necessarily
talking about the cleanup itself. If we
mandated the cleanup itself, quite clearly,
the resources would disappear in a pretty
quick manner.
What we're talking about here is
actually the costs of the investigations.
Because once you do the investigation and find
out -- for instance, in many of these
properties you may well find out that there's
really no problem. And then obviously you can
then move on to sell the property or do
6009
whatever you need to do. If the property does
have some problem with it, then the -- either
the municipality or even the -- a new tenant,
a person that wants the property, could pay
for -- as I believe, for instance, happened in
the NFTA property, the airport property in
Cheektowaga, where the old -- part of it was
paid for by the old -- the contributors to the
chemicals, the Westinghouse, General Electric.
There was a bunch of people. Plus the NFTA
kicked in some money, too, because it was a
development that helped them, and because
those people, it would be to difficult to -
you'd have to go to court to get it. They
agreed to a certain amount, so everybody
kicked in.
I think the point is that this is
primarily the investigation. The issue of
when you're actually cleaning up with the
Superfunds is really another issue. Because
obviously if you have a tremendous amount of
new properties that would be subject to the
Superfunds, you're going to have to have money
to do that. And that is a legitimate issue.
But we assume most of these
6010
properties, they're only paying for the
investigation. And the investigatory cost
shouldn't be enormous. If the municipality
thinks that the investigative cost is going to
be enormous, then my guess is they probably
won't even attempt it. But -- because most of
these properties, they have a pretty good
idea, in Western New York, anyways, which ones
are bad; that is, which ones are going to have
a real problem and which ones are not.
A lot of it is just checking just
to make sure that there isn't any real problem
on the properties, rather than an issue of
looking for something that's really bad stuff.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I apologize. I think my question was
misstated. And Senator Volker was able to
answer it anyway.
If he would yield for another
question.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I think what I
was getting to, Senator, is with the
6011
understanding that it takes an enormous amount
of funding to clean up these sites, and this
is one of the reasons why some of the
admonitions that we get about some of the
decisions we make with respect to the
environment have to be listened to, because
what we pay on the back end is tumultuous
compared to what we would expend in trying to
limit some of the decayed properties from
winding up in the fashion that they do.
But my question is, isn't it
possible that because of the tremendous
amounts of resources that would have to be
invested from a Superfund to clean up these
sites, that it might lead to an investigation
with a more liberal designation? In other
words, if anything looks as if it doesn't have
to be addressed, that we would almost be
seduced into thinking that we wouldn't have
to? In other words, that we wouldn't be
conducting the rigorous investigations that we
could because we realized the gravity of the
problem?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think,
Senator, the problem with that is -- and I
6012
think those people that have dealt with these
kinds of issues would tell you that the reason
that that is not likely to happen is that the
results of that could be a long-term exposure
to liability on the part of -- in other words,
if -- first of all, the people that do these
investigations are generally people who are
not directly, for instance, in the employ of
the municipality or whatever that would be
doing this.
But to risk doing what would amount
to sham investigations, although this
legislation says that they are not subject to
liability if they do the investigation, if it
turns out that they end up doing improper
investigations, they would be subject to the
potential of fraud and certainly would be
subject to exposure down the line. And I find
it very hard to believe that any municipality
or taxing entity would want to be involved in
that.
So although that's always a
possibility, the likelihood of that is, I
think, virtually nil, because they would then,
despite this legislation, if there was an
6013
issue of fraud, obviously, it would override
this legislation in the long haul.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will the sponsor yield for a
couple of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you yield for a few questions?
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: First of all,
Senator, is it my understanding that in
essence this is the equivalent of granting a
license to enter the property to perform the
investigation? In reading the bill, you don't
use that term of art that lawyers would be
familiar with, but this is really a limited
license for purposes of entering the property
and conducting the environmental
investigation.
SENATOR VOLKER: Being the trial
lawyer that you are, you have got right to the
quick of it. And you're right, it is a
6014
license that you could technically be charged
with trespassing, I suppose, or something or
other if you didn't have it. This gives you
the right to do it.
And the second issue is obviously
the issue of -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos, why do you rise?
SENATOR SKELOS: Senators, excuse
the interruption. There will be an immediate
meeting of the Corporations, Authorities and
Commissions Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Immediate meeting of the Corporations,
Authorities and Commissions Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Volker will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Right.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
6015
SENATOR DOLLINGER: As a trial
lawyer, I posit one other question. What
happens if the landowner opposes the license?
In other words, the owner of the property
comes in, they've defaulted on the foreclosure
action, but they come in and say, Wait a
second, I don't want anybody to go on the
property, I don't want anybody trespassing on
my property, because you're going to take this
either through tax foreclosure or you aren't,
and you're going to be stuck with the problem.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mm-hmm. That's
a very interesting question. The result would
be that then the court would have to decide if
the objection -- I would think that the court
would then have to decide whether that
objection was valid. And if for some reason
there was some valid objection, then the
municipality or the taxing entity and so forth
couldn't go through with the investigation.
And that would stop them from doing it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, just one final question, then
just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
6016
Volker, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: I certainly
will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is it your
intention that this bill apply and that the
definition of hazardous substance include lead
paint?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think the
answer to that is that lead paint has been
outlawed since 1984, I believe. I am a little
bit of an expert on lead, for various reasons.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I know you
are.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes. Oh, no,
no. That's pretty good. I just figured out
the other side of that.
I'm talking about lead paint and
lead emissions and so forth.
Anyways, the answer is yes, because
when we're talking about materials, I think
lead paint materials would be considered in
that category and would have to be accounted
for in any investigation of chemicals.
6017
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The reason
why I asked the question about lead paint is
because the hazardous materials here suggest
that they would be released or "contaminant in
the air, ground, or water." And that doesn't
quite fit the definition of lead paint.
Although I know Senator Volker is well aware
that clearly here in the County of Albany and
in other places, the municipality owning a
house with lead paint contamination has given
rise to significant litigation and exposure
for the municipalities because they've owned
homes that have lead paint.
The other reason why I raised the
question about opposition, Madam President, is
because one thing the bill doesn't, I think,
really do, Senator Volker, is talk about what
standards the court would use to determine
whether it would grant the application, the
limited license for purposes of an
environmental investigation.
6018
While I agree with Senator Volker
that this is a good idea in the sense that
before a municipality which then becomes the
deep-pocket insurer of the environmental
problem, because they own the property by
virtue of tax foreclosure, I just -- I wonder
what happens if the owner comes in and says, I
want relief from the tax lien. Because
remember, the tax lien is not individual
liability. It's -- the liability only extends
to the property.
So an owner comes in and says, Oh,
County of Monroe, or County of Albany, you can
take my property in tax foreclosure, but -
and then I'll be relieved of the further
burden of the taxes, because there's no
individual liability. But guess what? I'm
not going to let you come on. You're going to
take the property as is.
And it would seem to me that to
have a standard in here that says some public
interest would be promoted thereby or there is
a "reasonable municipality" standard under
which this is a reasonable and prudent thing,
given factors that are known and that they can
6019
attest to by affidavit, then the court would
have some guidance on what to do if the
landowner opposes the application.
And the final thing I would just
mention to Senator Volker, and I think he and
Senator Paterson touched on this, is that
there's one danger with this bill. And that
is that the bill becomes self-defeating
because, instead of cleaning up the sites,
what happens is they become aware of an
environmental contamination issue which is not
only in excess of the cost of the tax lien,
but it's in excess of the cost of the value of
the property.
And what happens is that the
municipality doesn't take the property, it
stays with the tax lien on it. Nobody ends up
with the property. And it becomes one of
those orphaned brownfield sites which have
proved to be so enormously difficult for us to
deal with. That is, properties that everyone
are contaminated, that have no value left in
them, but the cost of cleanup exceeds the
value of the property.
And I'm not so sure Senator
6020
Volker's bill can deal with that issue. But
that may be one of the consequences of this,
is that we end up with all those properties.
At some point when the Superfund
and the brownfield programs are in place,
there will be money to clean them up. And I
hope that we have the resources to clean these
up regardless of who owns them. But I would
just suggest that a standard for that
opposition, maybe a clarification that it
includes lead paint -- although I think that
Senator Volker is correct and that the
definition is broad enough to include it -
might make this a better bill and might ensure
its greater chance for passage, and that the
courts will have a strict idea of exactly
what's involved in granting these
applications.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
The debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
6021
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Please take up the
next bill in order. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Seward.
SENATOR BROWN: Explanation.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
196, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 2131, an
act to amend the Town Law.
SENATOR RATH: Please lay that
bill aside for the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
217, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1772, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law,
in relation to duties.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl, an explanation has been requested.
6022
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Madam
President.
Back in 1971, this state adopted
what's called the Agricultural Districts Law,
which was an all-encompassing piece of
legislation which was meant to encourage and
foster agricultural growth in the state.
At that time, however, there was
nothing put in process that would require
annual or a regular review of regulations
by -- that are regulated and promulgated by
various agencies in the state. This bill
would establish that procedure.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield to a
couple of questions, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl, will you yield for some questions?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you,
Senator.
6023
The first question is really the
existing mechanisms -- namely, the Governor's
Office of Regulatory Reform, Order Number 20,
and the State Administrative Procedure Act -
all give this kind of opportunity for review
and influencing of unnecessary and perhaps
harmful rules or procedures.
Given that, what's the need for the
legislation?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, as I
indicated, Senator, in my explanation, brief
explanation, there is no annualized procedure
that requires that review to take place. This
puts into place a process that would require
an instantaneous, total review of the
regulations that are in place and then
requires the Ag Commissioner to set up a
process whereby that would occur yearly after
that.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you,
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: Through you,
Madam President, if I may continue.
6024
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ESPADA: Have there been
any rules and regulations that have been
harmful to agriculture and have not been able
to be resolved through the existing mechanisms
that I mentioned earlier?
SENATOR KUHL: Have there been?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
SENATOR KUHL: I'm sure, Senator.
If you asked me to name one, I couldn't do
that. I just know that there are. Having
been the chairman of the Senate Agriculture
Committee for 12 years, and having had an
administration prior to the current
administration that really didn't look at
farming and agriculture as though it were the
number one industry in this state, I know that
there were regulations that caused a great
deal of concern and harm to the farmers as a
whole.
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
6025
through you, one last question from my part.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ESPADA: If this is such
a good idea for the Department of Agriculture
and Markets, should we make it a general law
that would encompass all state agencies?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, I wasn't
concerned and am not concerned immediately
with all state agencies. But I'm very, very
concerned about the agricultural industry in
this state.
As a matter of fact, I don't know,
Senator Espada, whether you are in the chamber
yesterday when the former Senator Cadillac,
quote, unquote, Smith was here. Cadillac
Smith is a farmer and has been a farmer. And,
you know, it was interesting last night when I
was chatting with him, he said to me, "You
know, I'm the last farmer in Big Flats." And
we had a little discussion about that. And he
said, "It's getting very, very difficult to
6026
continue the farming operation as we have
known it because of all the rules and the
regulations."
So, you know, it's one of those
things that -- I'm not necessarily not
concerned about other industries, but my focus
and my constituency is made up of a great
number of farms. It is a major component of
the economic arm in my area of the state,
whether it's potato farming or onion farming
or grape farming or whatever it happens to
be -- dairy farming is another big area -
they're extremely important.
And over the last 12 years -
actually, now, 14 years, I've been able and
have carried a number of pieces of legislation
that have meant to support that industry. And
many people on both sides of the aisle have
been supportive of that investment and
certainly that aim.
So I'm concentrating and
particularly concerned about this industry.
Because, Senator, if you were to travel out in
my area, you will see that agriculture really
is the fabric of our society. If you don't
6027
have the farms, then you don't have the
machine shops, then you don't have the support
for the school districts, and the communities
really kind of dry up and blow away.
And so everything that we can do,
we should be doing. We made that policy
statement 30 years ago, if not before that, in
this Ag Districts Law. But we never set up a
procedure that would carry out, on an
annualized basis, the review of regulations
that might be harmful.
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
we thank the sponsor.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: On the bill,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On the
bill?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes, Madam
President, on the bill.
I take everything that the sponsor
has said to heart. He is a good if not great
Senator. He understands the needs of his
district. Clearly the explanation provided
6028
clearly establishes the case for strengthening
the ability to enforce. The stated intent is
clear. Therefore, I'd be supportive of this
measure.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator.
Any other Senator wishing to speak
on the bill?
The debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 217 are
Senators Breslin, Connor, Dollinger, Goodman,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson,
and Senator Stavisky. Also Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
6029
10.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Aging Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Aging
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you. Madam
President, can we proceed, please, with
Calendar Number 305.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
clerk will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
305, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1208, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the membership of professional licensing
boards.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle? One moment, please.
6030
Senator LaValle, an explanation has
been requested.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, before we have this explanation
that we've been anticipating from Senator
LaValle, I just wanted to point out that for
the first time in my memory, we have women
acting as the Temporary President of the
Senate and in both leadership positions in the
Senate. And I think it's a great day for the
Senate of the State of New York.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: What an
astute observation. All right. Go, girl, go.
Senator LaValle, an explanation has
been requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator McGee,
Madam President, the reason things are moving
along here so well is that we have women in
three different positions here in the Senate.
So if that's what it takes to move things
along, I'm all for it.
The explanation on this bill is one
in which we are adding a public member to the
6031
Board of Medicine, Board of Pharmacy, Board of
Accountancy, and the Board of Nursing, which
are the professional licensing boards within
the State Education Department. And so we are
moving from two public members to three public
members.
As I have indicated in debates
before, or within the committee, during the
1970s we as a Legislature increased or put for
the first time public representatives on the
licensing boards, so as to give those boards
that had individuals who were part of the
profession a fresh view from outside as to
what kind of input should be given on various
issues coming before the board that are
outside of the professional expertise and
reflecting a public point of view.
In that time period from the 1970s,
we moved to adding a second public member.
And now we are requesting this body, and of
course the Assembly, to increase the public
representatives to three.
And that's the explanation, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
6032
you, Senator LaValle.
Senator Stavisky -- oops, pardon
me. Just one moment.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I just
had a brief question, if Senator Stavisky will
allow me.
I just want to know, how does the
Board of Regents arrive at their selections?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Are you
directing your question to the sponsor?
SENATOR PATERSON: If the sponsor
would be so kind.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, what
happens is -- on the public members, is your
question?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
SENATOR LAVALLE: On the public
members, the board secretary will really
solicit people who have shown interest. And
6033
believe it or not, like many of these things,
there are individuals who have cued up for
some time in each of the professional boards
that have interest.
I'm not sure -- I don't know for
sure whether they send out a public notice
saying that they are seeking a public member
to the board. Based on my knowledge, there
are so many people that would like to
participate, the board secretaries actually
have a list of such individuals who would like
to serve on the board.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the Senator
would yield for one question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you yield for one question?
The Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
You have included increasing the number of
public members for the licensure boards for
medicine, pharmacy, nursing, and public
6034
accountancy. Why were these four chosen when
we have probably 35 or so -
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thirty-eight
boards, yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: -- 38 boards?
SENATOR LAVALLE: For some of the
other boards, Senator, we have in some cases
already gone to three representatives. For
instance, the State Board for Dietetics and
Nutrition, we already have three
representatives from the general public. In
other boards, for instance, I cannot report
that we are even at two.
In the boards that I have reported
to you -- medicine, pharmacy, nursing, and
accountancy, we are already at two and the
request is moving at three. Every other
board, the language is at least one, at least
one.
The reason is that for these
boards, there is certain interest. They also
happen to be some of the larger boards in
terms of constituency. And so there's a lot
of interest on -- in these particular areas.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you,
6035
Senator LaValle.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I think we're
moving in the right direction. It seems to me
that too often the professions themselves make
the rules and call the shots. And to have an
increase in public participation on these
licensure boards I think is a good thing.
And I would hope that at some point
along the line we take a look at the makeup
and regulation involving the other 34 boards
and perhaps see if we can increase the public
membership on these other boards.
And I certainly intend to vote for
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Stavisky.
Any other Senator wishing to speak
on the bill?
6036
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I was hoping to have unanimous
consent to vote in the negative on Calendar
Number 217.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Investigations, Taxation and Government
Operations Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
6037
will be an immediate meeting of the
Investigations, Taxation and Government
Operations Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: And if we could
return to motions and resolutions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Motions
and resolutions.
SENATOR RATH: There's a
privileged resolution at the desk introduced
by Senator Larkin. If we could just have the
title, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Larkin, Legislative Resolution 1481, honoring
Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, 55th
Superintendent of the United States Military
Academy, upon the occasion of his retirement
on June 8, 2001, after more than 30 years of
service to his country.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the resolution. All in favor
say aye.
6038
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
resolution is carried, adopted.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Larkin, we'd like to
include all the members on this resolution.
If there's anyone who would not like to be
included, please notify the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All
members are invited to join on the resolution.
Those not wishing to do so should notify the
desk.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: No
housekeeping at the desk, Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Please recognize
Senator Paterson -- Senator Smith, pardon me,
for a resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson. Pardon me.
6039
Which one, Senator Paterson or
Senator Smith?
SENATOR PATERSON: No, I wish
you'd recognize Senator Smith. I wouldn't
want to interfere with the new way this house
is being run. I only look forward to that day
when there will be three women in a budget.
Maybe things will go better.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Good
lad.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President. On behalf of Senator
Mendez -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Quietly,
please. Quietly, please.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: On behalf of
Senator Mendez, I would like to announce that
there will be a Minority conference tomorrow
morning at 10:30 in Room 314.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be a Minority conference tomorrow morning
at 10:30 in Room 314.
6040
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
we will stand adjourned until Wednesday,
April 25th, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Wednesday, April 25th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)