Regular Session - May 16, 2001
7382
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 16, 2001
11:21 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
7383
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we each bow our heads in a moment
of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, May 15, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday, May 14,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
7384
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up Resolution Number 1756, by
Senator Libous, have it read in its entirety,
and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Resolution Number 1756 in its
entirety.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Libous, Legislative Resolution Number 1756,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim Wednesday, May 16, 2001, as
Legislative Disability Awareness Day in the
New York State.
"WHEREAS, The New York State Senate
Select Committee on the Disabled, in
conjunction with the New York State Assembly
Legislative Task Force on People with
Disabilities, is sponsoring the 21st Annual
7385
Legislative Disability Awareness Day in
Albany, New York; and
"WHEREAS, Television actress Ashley
Wolfe will be the special guest at the 21st
Annual Legislative Disability Awareness Day.
Recently starring in the CBS made-for-TV movie
'Jewel,' Ashley will join in the celebration
in hopes of inspiring other people with
disabilities to pursue their dreams; and
"WHEREAS, In addition, a technology
fair will be held with exhibitors from across
the state displaying their programs; and
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this
Legislative Body that persons with
disabilities merit our recognition as they
realize the goals of inclusion and equality in
our communities and society at large; and
"WHEREAS, It is the intent of this
Legislative Body to recognize persons with
disabilities, accentuating, in turn, the
benefit to New York State of their
contributions to our economic, educational and
social growth; and
"WHEREAS, Legislative Disability
Awareness Day so clearly labors for the
7386
positive and salutary definition of the
communities of the State of New York; and
"WHEREAS, Legislative Disability
Awareness Day will conclude with this
Legislative Body considering legislation
significant to persons with disabilities; and
"WHEREAS, Legislative Disability
Awareness Day provides individuals with an
opportunity to acknowledge and understand the
legislative process; now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to memorialize
Governor George E. Pataki to proclaim
Wednesday, May 16, 2001, as Legislative
Disability Awareness Day in the State of
New York, fully confident that such procedure
mirrors our shared commitment to the
efflorescence of human dignity; and be it
further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to the Honorable George E. Pataki, Governor of
the State of New York, and selected
representatives of persons with disabilities."
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
7387
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up Resolution 1755, by
Senator Libous, have it read in its entirety,
and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read in its entirety Resolution Number
1755.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Libous, Legislative Resolution Number 1755,
honoring Ashley Wolfe upon the occasion of her
designation as Guest of Honor at the 21st
Annual Legislative Disability Awareness Day,
May 16, 2001.
"WHEREAS, It is the intent of this
Legislative Body to recognize and pay just
tribute to those citizens who embody the true
American spirit, demonstrating personal
7388
courage and conviction in pursuit of acting
achievement without regard to physical
limitation; and
"WHEREAS, The 21st Annual
Legislative Disability Awareness Day provides
individuals with an opportunity to acknowledge
and understand the needs and abilities of
people with disabilities throughout New York
State; and
"WHEREAS, This Legislative Body is
justly proud to honor 22-year-old Ashley Wolfe
upon the occasion of her designation as Guest
of Honor at the 21st Annual Legislative
Disability Awareness Day, to be held on
Wednesday, May 16, 2001, in Albany, New York;
and
"WHEREAS, A native of Simsbury,
Connecticut, Ashley Wolfe's aspiration has
always been to work in the performing arts;
and
"WHEREAS, Today, Ashley Wolfe, who
is afflicted with Down Syndrome, is an
actress, an inspirational public speaker, a
former gold medalist swimmer in the Special
Olympics, and a dancer; and
7389
"WHEREAS, Ashley Wolfe is also a
2000 graduate of Lesley College in Boston,
Massachusetts, with a major in business. She
is a library assistant in the Somerville
Public Library, and a volunteer at the
Massachusetts General Eye and Ear Hospital in
Boston; and
"WHEREAS, Ashley Wolfe is the
loving daughter of Dr. Stanton and Nancy
Wolfe. Her father is an oral surgeon with the
Connecticut Department of Public Health, and
her mother is the managing director of the
Center for Creative Youth at Wesleyan
University, as well as Ashley's acting coach.
She also has an older sister, Rebecca; and
"WHEREAS, Ashley Wolfe recently
starred in the CBS made-for-TV movie 'Jewel.'
She has also appeared in NBC's 'Third Watch';
and
"WHEREAS, Unwilling to accept the
limitations that society would have put on
her, Ashley Wolfe is a compelling and
provocative speaker who forces audiences to
question and confront their own assumptions
and prejudices; and
7390
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this
Legislative Body to recognize and applaud the
achievements of its citizens who would elect
to challenge life with an uncommon valor and
determination, demonstrating by example and
purposeful action that commitment to personal
goals is the wellspring of self-fulfillment
and achievement; now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to honor
Ashley Wolfe upon the occasion of her
designation as Guest of Honor at the 21st
Annual Legislative Disability Awareness Day,
May 16, 2001, and be it further
"RESOLVED, That a copy of this
Resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to Ashley Wolfe."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President.
As read in both resolutions, today
is the 21st Annual Legislative Disability
Awareness Day. And I'd like to thank all of
my colleagues here in this chamber who have
participated and will participate throughout
7391
the day.
And we will have a number of
exhibitors -- there are well over 40
exhibitors that are down in the well. These
exhibitors have grown over the years. We
started out, I think, a number of years ago
with only five. They are basically showing
and helping, through technology, people with
disabilities.
And I would like to, Madam
President, say thank you to Senator
DeFrancisco, who has seven exhibitors here
that are teaching people with disabilities
with new technology through the Internet and a
number of electronic devices. So, Senator,
thank you for your participation in making it
a success.
And I would ask that my colleagues,
during or after session, please go downstairs
and visit the various booths.
Madam President, over past years we
have been very blessed and honored to have
some outstanding citizens from our state and
from outside of our state who are advocates
for people with disabilities. This year is no
7392
different. Serving as the chairman for ten
years on the Select Committee for the
Disabled, it is an honor for me to stand here
today with our guest and honoree, Ashley
Wolfe.
Ashley Wolfe gave a very inspiring
speech this morning in the Well to a number of
people that were there. She talked about her
life, she talked about the difficulties that
she has gone through. But yet, going through
all of those difficulties, she would come up,
as she gave her speech, with a smile. And
that smile means that she broke every one of
those barriers, those barriers that tend to be
put on people who are disabled. Ashley has
not let that stop her.
In the resolution, we read that she
is an actress. And indeed, Madam President,
she an actress, and she performed with stars
like Farrah Fawcett and Cicely Tyson in the
movie "Jewel."
And if my colleagues have not had
the opportunity to see that movie, I would ask
that you take some time out this weekend and
rent it. Not only did Ashley do an
7393
outstanding job, but it tells a little bit
more about why this chamber needs to continue
to do for more people with disabilities.
She not only is an actress, as
mentioned, she is an inspirational speaker.
She gave a great speech this morning. And
she's a gold medal winner in the Special
Olympics, for swimming.
She also works at Harvard. She
works at Harvard in the employment office.
And she told me this morning that she has
found that to be extremely rewarding, that she
can continue to help people there at the
university.
And, Ashley, from what short time
I've had with you today, I am sure that you
have been able to spread some great cheer and
knowledge and hope and inspiration to people
that you work with there.
Despite all that she has gone
through in her own personal life, she
continues to be an advocate. Born with Down
Syndrome, Ashley has broken every barrier,
every stereotype that could have set her back.
She is indeed an inspiration to every one of
7394
us here in this chamber, she's an inspiration
to every New Yorker.
And I am just pleased and honored
that she could share some of her day with us
as we continue in this legislative body to
move forward in New York State as it pertains
to people with both mental and physical
disabilities.
Ashley, later today we will be
passing a number of pieces of legislation that
will assist you when you go out and speak to
various groups, that will assist people with
disabilities as we continue to follow your
lead in breaking down those barriers.
Madam President, Ashley is joined
today by her family. And I too would like to
recognize in the gallery her mom and dad, her
grandmother and grandfather, her cousin and
her aunt. And they are indeed a family that
is very, very inspirational. I have enjoyed
my time with them this morning.
I only wish that this busy place
would allow us to spend more time. But when
we conclude today, Ashley will then be honored
by our colleagues in the Assembly.
7395
So, Ashley, thank you for joining
us today. Thank you for what you have done
for people with disabilities. And thank you
for the inspiration that you give us as
legislators so that we can continue to fight
on everyone's behalf. Thank you.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
And as president of the Senate, on
behalf of the Senate, Ashley, I want to
congratulate you and state that you are an
example and an education to each of us of the
inspiration of the individual. And what you
have accomplished in your short life is
definitely a model for each and every one of
us in our daily lives.
Congratulations and best wishes for
continued success.
7396
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator DeFrancisco. I ask that the title be
read and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
DeFrancisco, Legislative Resolution Number
1876, honoring the students of Ms. Lutwin's
First Grade Class at Lemoyne Elementary
School, in Syracuse, for their participation
in the "Good News! Good Kids!" Youth
Responsibility Program.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco, you're welcome.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm very
honored today to have a class of students from
Lemoyne Elementary School who are being
honored as part of our "Good News! Good Kids!"
program. And basically what that does is
recognize good kids who are doing good things
7397
in our communities, unlike those that normally
get reported in the papers, the bad things.
And these students, there's 21
elementary students. Ms. Sally Ann Lutwin is
the person that's responsible for monitoring
this program. And basically, what they did in
their school was obtain used eyeglasses -
now, these are 6- and 7-year-old children.
They got letters to the newspaper, they went
to the other classes in their school to obtain
used glasses so they could be used by those
who did not have glasses and those that had
seeing and eyesight problems, which is kind of
appropriate today, on Disability Awareness
Day.
So I want to let the world know
that in my district and all of your districts
there are good kids out there doing good
things. I'm happy to honor them today.
And, coincidentally, today we have
another class from Roberts School, a group of
kids from another elementary school here today
visiting. And I'm sure they will be
participating in that program next year.
So congratulations.
7398
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator Nozzolio. I ask that the title be
read and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Nozzolio, Legislative Resolution Number 1877,
honoring Arvo Efraimson upon the occasion of
his designation by the Seneca County Office
for the Aging as the recipient of the Senior
Citizen of the Year Award on May 18, 2001.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
7399
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator Saland. I ask that the title be read
and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Saland, Legislative Resolution Number 1892,
honoring Reverend Monsignor Dominick J.
Lagonegro, Pastor, St. Columba Catholic
Church, upon the occasion of his designation
for special recognition on May 22, 2001.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
7400
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the calendar. And we'll
just start controversial, with Calendar Number
309, by Senator Libous.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read the controversial calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
309, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 3577, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in
relation to directing the State Commission on
Quality of Care.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Can we lay that
aside temporarily.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
please lay that aside temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up Calendar Number 477, by
Senator LaValle.
7401
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 477.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
477, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2761, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the return transportation of students.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President.
Senator Paterson, I'd first like to
start by thanking Senator Kuhl, as chairman of
our Education Committee, and the members of
the Education Committee for their affirmative
votes to move this bill to the floor.
I would also like to thank Senator
Johnson and Senator Skelos, Senator Velella
and Senator Volker for their help in ensuring
that this bill is before us.
And also, Madam President, I would
like to thank Robert and Karen Pace, who are
here today in the gallery. Without their help
and their support, the provisions as they are
drafted would not be before us.
7402
Imagine finding out that your only
son's death could have been prevented. Then
imagine finding out that the people to whom
you entrusted your child abandoned him in his
most desperate hour of need. Then imagine
that those people were your child's teachers
and school officials. As unbelievable as this
sounds, this situation has happened and
resulted in the death of a child.
Although common sense dictates that
school officials should never leave a child
behind on a school-sponsored field trip, there
is no statute or regulation addressing this
issue.
Situations where a student must be
left behind on a field trip typically involve
cases where a student has been arrested or
needs medical attention. While school
district officials cannot act in the place of
a parent in terms of asserting or waiving a
student's legal rights or even to make
health-care decisions for the student,
students should not be left alone in stressful
circumstances. Often the stress of these
situations can cause a student to act
7403
impulsively and cause additional harm to
themselves.
The bill that we have before us
would prevent students from being left behind
on a field trip without appropriate
supervision and will ensure that they are
never left alone in a moment of need.
The genesis of this bill is found
in the most tragic story of Robert Pace, Jr.,
a high school senior in the Riverhead school
district. Robert Pace was a college-bound
honor student and a varsity athlete who went
on a class trip to Great Adventure Amusement
Park in New Jersey with 81 other Riverhead
students on April 14th in the year 2000.
Great Adventure has a zero-tolerance policy
about drugs. Consequently, when park security
searched Robert's backpack, they found small
amounts of various controlled substances. He
was first detained by park security and then
arrested by the local police.
No school official accompanied
Robert to the police station, and the incident
was not reported to school officials in
Riverhead until later that afternoon. I
7404
believe several hours intervened from the time
he left the Great Adventure park until the
school district's involvement.
At 18, Robert was legally an adult,
not being legally required to contact his
parents.
The local authorities processed him
and released him on his own recognizance in
lieu of bail. The police even expedited the
process so Robert could return home with his
classmates on the bus. School officials,
however, phoned the police from Riverhead and
told them that they did not want Robert going
back on the bus with the other students.
By the time school officials had
reached Robert's parents, Robert had already
set off on his own, apparently contemplating
the consequences of his arrest.
No one really knows how he got to
Manhattan. Police think he probably rode a
New Jersey Transit bus. At Penn Station, he
boarded a Long Island Railroad train to
Ronkonkoma. He made it all the way to
Bethpage before deciding he could go no
further.
7405
"Please tell anyone who ever knew
me that I am sorry for letting them down,"
read the note that he left behind on his seat.
Then he jumped between the two cars to his
death.
This tragedy could have been
avoided if Robert was not left alone in a
situation he was not equipped to handle.
As part of our due diligence that
we did after drafting the bill, we contacted
the Department of Education and asked whether
there is a need for the department to put
forth regulations instructing school districts
as to their responsibilities. Alternatively,
the department was asked if there already were
regulations in place and is there a need for
said regulations to be reviewed and perhaps
tightened.
The Commissioner of the Department
of Education, Commissioner Mills, had the
Office of Facilities Management and
Information Services review the current
regulations surrounding transportation as well
as the bill. And based upon that review, the
commissioner recommended that the most
7406
effective way to put these requirements in
place would be through legislative changes
that are recommended in this bill. There were
no recommendations for any change to the
legislation before us.
I have some 3,000 signatures on the
part of the residents who live in the
Riverhead school district. And the only
memorandum in opposition is from the New York
State School Boards Association. In that
legislative memorandum, just to take a piece,
it says: "School districts have a duty and an
obligation to exercise care of all students on
a field trip, as any prudent parent would.
However, this legislation addresses a rare
occurrence and could compromise the interests
of the majority of students on a trip by
depriving them of a chaperone."
Colleagues, I would say to you that
I began my professional career as a teacher
and a school administrator. While being a
school administrator, I had that dreadful call
that you receive when a group goes off on a
field trip, that there was a student left
behind at the Museum of Natural History.
7407
The first thing that -- without
checking the school bylaws or regulations,
first thing, call the parent. There was a
chaperone with the student. How should we
proceed? The parent then directed us on how
to proceed so that the child would be returned
safely. Albeit that was a case of an
elementary school student and not a high
school student.
As many of you know, it's
well-rooted in Education Law that school
officials step into the shoes of the parent.
And so it is an awesome responsibility every
day that teachers and school administrators
take upon themselves to ensure that the most
precious thing that a parent has, their
children, once they set off to school, are
returned safely.
It's a basic principle. And when a
parent signs a permission slip, it is assumed
that that student will be returned back to the
school or back to the parent safely.
This legislation amends several
sections of law as you look through the bill.
And it amends, beginning with the first
7408
section, the common school district section,
then the union free school district section of
law, central school district, central high
school district, BOCES, city school district,
and New York City school district boards,
community school district boards.
And what we say, as is drafted here
in the legislation, is that where a school
provides transportation to students who attend
a field trip or extracurricular activity or
any other similar event, it shall provide
transportation back to either the point of
departure or to the appropriate school in the
district, unless -- and this is the part that
involves the Pace case -- unless intervening
circumstances makes such transportation
impractical.
In cases where intervening
circumstances make transportation of a student
back to the point of departure or to the
appropriate school in the district
impractical, a representative of the school
district shall remain with the student until
such student's parent or legal guardian has
been contacted and informed of that
7409
intervening circumstance which makes the
transportation impractical and then such
student has been delivered to his or her
parent or legal guardian.
As I said, this is a commonsense
and basic approach. There's nothing fancy
about this legislation. It is very direct.
And it addresses situations that happen not on
occasion, but I would say, if I took a guess
and looked into my crystal ball, it happens
half a dozen to a dozen times every year in
our more than 700 school districts where
there's some intervening situation, a student
is left behind, there's a medical emergency,
or even a student is detained by the
authorities.
And so, again, I thank the
Education Committee for reporting this bill
for our consideration, and I would hope that
it is legislation, colleagues, that we could
support.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. I won't ask the Senator
7410
to yield, because I think that he has done an
excellent job.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: No, he
has done an excellent job in answering my
questions. I'd like to speak on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President.
It is just unfortunate to the
parents, particularly Robert and Karen Pace,
that it has taken common sense, Senator, for
us to have to legislate common behavior. But
I am finding that sense is not as common as we
think it to be.
I think the language of your bill
expresses the concerns that I would have, and
certainly of any parent. We have an
obligation, when our schools take our children
on trips, to ensure to us their safe return.
I commend you and the work of the Education
Committee and the bravery of these parents in
coming forward and trying to ensure that this
7411
kind of situation does not happen to any of
our other children.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will the sponsor yield just
to one question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
LaValle, what impact does this bill have on
the following situation? That my son,
actually, who is 17 years old, he is a member
of a lacrosse team. He goes to school, he
then drives himself to the away game, and he
drives himself home.
Does the school district have any
responsibility to provide a mandatory
transport with the team kind of policy, or
does it eliminate that option of driving
yourself when you reach that age where you can
drive your own car back and forth?
7412
Is it your intention to require
school districts, for an extracurricular event
like a lacrosse game, where they drive to an
away site, that they have an obligation to
drive them there and to deliver the whole team
back?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, the
key here is that you as the parent are in
control of what methodology and by what means
your son will be returned back to the place
that he departed from. So if that is by
automobile, and you have given permission,
then that is the appropriate methodology of
transportation back to the school.
We don't -- as you can see from the
bill, Senator, we talk about transportation.
It's not defined. It doesn't say a bus, it
doesn't say a train, it doesn't say a car. We
leave that open to how that student is brought
back. Because a student may leave on a school
bus but would have to come home by maybe a
car, a train.
But the key is that the parent is
in control of how that happens, as it should
be.
7413
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator LaValle would just
yield to one other question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator does
yield. You may proceed, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So just for
purposes of the record, Senator LaValle, if a
school district faces this issue, we're not
saying to the school districts of this state
that you must transport everybody there and
must transport everybody home.
This is not a mandate that they
actually do the transportation, it's a mandate
that they have the transportation available to
the child or the young adult; is that correct?
SENATOR LAVALLE: In the first
part of the bill, we talk about the
transportation back.
The second part of the bill,
Senator, there has to be some sort of
intervening circumstance. It is at that point
that the school district must inform the
parent, must make a telephone call. There
must be some sort of dialogue between the
7414
parent.
And at that point the parent may
say, Yeah, you can escort him back on the
train, you can escort him back in your car,
you can escort him back by local bus.
So as you read this, Senator, you
can see that we didn't want to tie the hands
of the local school district.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly
on the bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm going to
vote in favor of this bill, Madam President,
and I would urge its adoption by the house.
I think that the terrible tragedy
that Senator LaValle has described should not
be repeated anywhere in this state or, for
that matter, anywhere in this country. And
I'm not opposed to the notion of putting a
mandate on the school district that says when
a child leaves your facility in your custody,
you have an obligation to bring that child
back.
However, I would suggest to Senator
7415
LaValle, if this does end up in discussion
between the two houses, you might think of an
amendment to this bill that clarifies that in
instances in which the parents have made
alternative proposals for transportation for
the child, that the school district's
obligation under this portion of the statute
may not be suspended, but it is nonetheless
modified.
And that what the school district
should do is have a policy in place that says
we will provide transportation to and from
off-site extracurriculars, and we are going to
assume that your child, when he gets on the
bus, is coming home on the bus. And we will
only make a departure from that requirement in
the event that the parent gives express
direction to the school district, either
through the school district contacting them
affirmatively or through a permission note -
which Lord knows I've signed hundreds of -- a
permission note that says my child is
permitted to drive home from the event in my
family's car or in someone else's car.
I agree with the intention of this
7416
bill. And I'm only afraid, Senator LaValle,
that it may be broadly interpreted by the
school districts to eliminate that other
option of people taking -- especially as they
do in my son's case, who is 17 years old and
has an automobile and he drives himself back
and forth.
And with that caveat, I would just
refer it, if it does end up in discussions
between the two houses, to put some provision
or perhaps allow the commissioner to devise a
regulation to implement it along that line,
which is the other alternative.
But the concept is the right one.
When we say to our school districts, as every
parent does, this is my child, I'm putting
that child in your custody, we can assume, we
should be able to assume, we should be able to
rely on the fact that our child will not be
left behind.
And my strong voice of sympathy
goes out to this family, as the father of a
17-year-old son, that this tragedy should not
be repeated ever again.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
7417
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. Would the sponsor, Senator
LaValle, yield for one question?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Senator
LaValle, in the legislation you say that
the -- a school district personnel. And I'm
just wondering if that also includes the
possibility of a person who is accompanying
the group other than a school district
representative.
SENATOR LAVALLE: The answer is
yes, Senator. That would be a chaperone who
is part of the trip or a teacher or school
administrator. But it would definitely
include the chaperones that volunteer to
accompany a trip.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you.
Madam President, I would just like
to speak on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I think
7418
this is a very good bill. It's common sense,
Senator Hassell-Thompson has said. And it
truly represents, I think, Senator LaValle's
interest in protecting young people. So I'm
happy to support it.
I do, however -- I'm moved by the
story that Senator LaValle has told. This
young man, who apparently is bright, he is
very capable, he was able to get himself from
a strange place in New Jersey all the way back
to Long Island.
But unfortunately, because the
society that we have is so unforgiving of
indiscretions that are typical for young
people, because he felt this pressure that he
could not live with the sanctions that he
would have to face as a young person who had
made a mistake -- there was nothing in your
story to indicate that this young man was a
criminal. He made a mistake.
And he couldn't live with the
possibility that he would be viewed as perhaps
having let his parents down, having
embarrassed his school, having done something
so terrible that he had to commit suicide. It
7419
is very, very tragic.
So, Senator LaValle, I fully
support this legislation. It's good. But I
also remind my colleagues that the young man
who committed suicide, apparently because of
this incident, I think is a very, very
important incident for us to consider when we
talk about what to do with young people and
when we understand the destruction that is
imposed on our young people because of the way
we deal with them, especially as it relates to
this horrible thing called drugs.
So, Senator LaValle, I support the
legislation and I hope that we can also
address the other end of this story, which is
what happens to young people when they make a
mistake in society.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, on the bill. I was going to ask -
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
7420
SENATOR PATERSON: I was going to
ask the same question that Senator Montgomery
did relating to other personnel who accompany
the classes, particularly in the primary and
elementary schools, whether they could
represent the school by staying with the
student in a health-care emergency or some
kind of law enforcement intervention. And
that answer was substantially responded to and
satisfied by Senator LaValle's answer.
But I was very touched by the
things that Senator Montgomery said. It's
frustrating as a lawmaker sometimes when you
wish you had put this law on the books before,
before this terrible incident had happened.
But I guess nobody thought of it, no one
really would have ever surmised that the type
of lack of judgment that was taken in this
case was something that we'd have to mandate.
Or just think that we understand,
as I think it was Senator Fuschillo said
yesterday, that the school bus really connotes
the beginning of school, that when students
get on the school bus we have to see them as
in the dominion and control of school
7421
authorities at that point, even before they
get to the schoolhouse.
And of course from the very
inception of our educational system in this
country, the real primary purpose of education
in those days, or of schools, was custodial,
that the hands of school authorities are the
custodial hands, they take the place in loco
parentis at that particular time. And we
would think that they would think as parents
rather than as public officials or whatever it
is that they thought they were in this
particular case.
And so when we look at this piece
of legislation, excellently crafted by Senator
LaValle, we hope that it will spare someone
from this type of a tragedy. And it reminds
us that school officials should take that
jurisdiction over students even when they've
reached the age of majority. They still came
to school, they were legally in the control of
the school, and the school should have acted
that way.
And just to close, I think Senator
Montgomery reminds us that the times when
7422
things are difficult for students, those
moments when a student or a young person is in
need of some kind of advice or counseling, or
for someone to have just said one or two words
that would have distracted them from feeling
that the world came to an end because of an
incident that could have been forgiven and
forgotten long ago, that somebody should have
been there.
And I just want to thank Senator
LaValle, because maybe his efforts and those
who supported him will have someone there for
the next young person who feels that pain and
that anguish and has someone there to tell
them that everything in the end will be all
right.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 9. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
7423
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go back to Calendar Number 309, by
Senator Libous.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 309.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
before we start, there will be an immediate
meeting of the Higher Education Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Higher Education
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
309, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 3577, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in
relation to directing the State Commission on
Quality of Care.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
7424
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill would take the Commission
on the Blind and the Visually Handicapped and
put them under the supervision of the
Commission on Quality of Care. Right now,
under current statute, they fall under the
Office of Children and Family Services.
And if you look at the structure of
what the Commission on Quality of Care does,
or CQC, and how the Commission on the Blind
and Visually Handicapped really doesn't fit
being supervised or reviewed by the Office of
Children and Family Services. So this would
move it to CQC.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, would
you be willing to tell us a little more
specifically why the commission doesn't fit
with the Office of Children and Family
7425
Services? I would assume because many of the
people served by the commission are actually
adults.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, Madam
President, I'd be happy to talk about that.
And I misspoke on one item. They
would still be within the Department of
Children and Family Services, but they would
be reviewed by the Commission on Quality of
Care. So I apologize, Madam President, and to
Senator Paterson.
And if, Madam President, Senator
Paterson could ask that question one more
time, I'd be happy to try to address it.
THE PRESIDENT: That means that
you will yield to a question, correct,
Senator?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: Then Senator
Paterson may proceed with a question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
Forty years ago, of those people
who were either totally blind or legally blind
or suffering from visual disabilities,
7426
92 percent of them were -- their overall
disability was specific to that cause.
Now, interestingly enough, most
people who have issues that require
intervention in the blindness field also have
other disabilities. And really, it's about
fifty-fifty, if not less than 50 percent of
those people who have visual disabilities are
accompanied by other illnesses and challenges
in their lives.
And I wanted to ask Senator Libous
if that would also be one of the reasons that
the Commission on Quality of Care would be the
most apt supervisor, as opposed to just
supervision from the Department of Children
and Family Services.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
to Senator Paterson, without being too simple,
the answer to your question is yes.
And one of the concerns that we
have had, Madam President, is that we believe
that review by the Commission on Quality of
Care will give this 30-plus-billion-dollar
agency the type of expansion that it needs as
it serves people who are blind and people with
7427
disabilities.
While we recognize that Children
and Family Services do an outstanding job in
what they do, we believe that by having review
by an agency who cares about the care of
people with disabilities, that that fits
better under that umbrella. And that by no
means are we looking to temper services or to
run how the agency runs.
We're just looking to make sure
that the quality of care, if you will, Madam
President, continues to grow and get better.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I think we
were remiss before. I think I speak for
everybody on this side of the aisle when we
compliment Senator Libous for his efforts in
the disability field, for his continuance of
this Disability Day since he came here in
1987, and his work in the field which has
caused him to become renowned on the subject
pretty much statewide.
7428
And to let him know that
particularly his efforts on behalf of the
Commission for the Blind are appreciated. And
as someone who was a client of the commission,
in spite of that, I think that he has been
helpful to those who have passed through the
system.
And even if he knew that they were
the ones who taught me to be assertive in my
life and to ask a lot of questions, that he
would still be willing to allow the Commission
on Quality of Care to have a supervisory role,
which I think will enhance the ability and the
effectiveness of the commission.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would yield for a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
7429
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I must confess I'm not as familiar
as Senator Paterson with the Commission on
Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled. My
question is, does this only cover, at present,
mental disabilities? Are people with other
physical disabilities covered by other
agencies?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Actually, the
commission -- Madam President, through you,
the Commission on Quality of Care I believe
does oversight for both OMRDD, OMH, OASAS, and
other agencies. So this would just be another
agency that they would have review over.
We feel that, again, if you look at
the commission's work in the past and if you
go back -- and, you know, we even cite
situations that happened like Willowbrook and
others -- that is the function here. The
function is to make sure that the Commission
on the Blind and the Visually Handicapped are
able to do better than they are through this
review process.
We're not looking to restructure,
7430
we're not looking to ask Family and Children
to -- we're just asking for the review
process -
THE PRESIDENT: Could the members
please take their conversations outside the
chambers.
Go ahead, Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: We're just
asking for that review process to take place
where we believe it would be very helpful.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, so will all of the
services for all the disabled in New York
State then be consolidated under this review
if this legislation passes?
SENATOR LIBOUS: No, Madam
President, we believe that VESID is still
going -- VESID will still be under the State
Education Department.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, are there -
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
if I may, my learned counsel tells me that
that may be the case because of federal law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
7431
yield for another question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And is
there any additional funding being provided to
the commission for undertaking these
additional responsibilities?
SENATOR LIBOUS: No.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank the
sponsor.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: This is an
area where because, and the sponsor alluded to
the federal requirements, there are a great
many federal programs and a lot of federal
dollars that we have to access in New York
State.
And I do think that this does sound
like it's a move towards us coordinating and
consolidating our efforts as a state to make
sure that we provide good services and get all
7432
possible federal funds.
I do think that this probably is
going to require some additional funding for
the commission. I'm not sure if that could
just be transferred over from the offices that
were providing the supervision before. But it
does sound like a good idea to consolidate
this. And I hope that we will be able to
continue to improve our services for the
handicapped and all the disabled in New York
State.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. Would Senator Libous yield for a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'll be happy to
yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Senator
Libous, I join my colleagues in complimenting
7433
you in your excellence in representing the
people who have disabilities in this state.
I just want to ask, your
legislation would transfer the functions from
the Office of Children and Family Services
over to the Commission on Quality of Care.
And I'm just wondering, the legislation -- the
memo that accompanies the legislation
indicates under the fiscal implications that
"CQC will require a small plus up to cover the
cost of the additional responsibility."
And I'm just wondering if you
anticipate that we're going to transfer a
sufficient amount of resources so that we
don't lose any capacity based on new,
additional responsibilities for CQC.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
Senator Montgomery asks a very, very good
question. And let me try to explain it so
that we can clarify the point that you make.
We are not transferring, Senator -
first of all, Senator Montgomery -- and
through you, Madam President -- let me say
that my intent here is, like the intent of any
piece of legislation that I move forward in
7434
helping people with disabilities, is to try to
help more people and try to enhance the
programs that we do here in New York State.
And certainly you have been very helpful and
supportive, both as a member of the committee
in the past and here on the floor.
This will not physically transfer
the agency out of Children and Family. They
will still be under Children and Family. The
review process where they will be reviewed,
just like OMRDD and OMH and OASAS is reviewed,
will fall under the Commission on Quality of
Care.
Right now, CBVH really is not
reviewed by anyone. Certainly they fall under
Children and Families, which is fine, and they
will stay there. The agency will stay there.
But there is no oversight.
Our concern is, as we have found
with OASAS and OMH and OMRDD, that
unfortunately, from time to time when caring
for people with disabilities, there have been
some problems that needed to be addressed, and
those problems came up through the oversight
process.
7435
So as the bill states, Madam
President, and Senator Montgomery, it says
"review." And that's the key word. We are
not physically moving it, we are not
physically saying that the Children and Family
is no longer going to house the commission.
They will.
And certainly to answer the fiscal
thing -- and I know that I said earlier that
there wouldn't be -- there is not a fiscal
note attached to this. Certainly some may
assume that the commission might come back and
say, Gee, we need a half a body to do this or
whatever. But again, I think that's something
that they can maintain within their budgetary
function in-house.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Madam President, if I may continue my
questioning -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- for
7436
clarification.
Madam President, through you,
Senator Libous, the people who are blind and
visually handicapped, to a lesser or more
extent, seem to have a different set of
circumstances very often; i.e., they're more
independent, more spread out. And the
excellent work of the CQC seems to be more
focused on congregate situations.
So I'm just -- I am -- again, I ask
if we are -- if there's an assurance that the
CQC can in fact do a thorough review, as they
certainly do now, given the different nature
of the way that blind and visually handicapped
people tend to be living.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
again, Senator Montgomery asks a very good
question.
And, Senator, at the present time,
CQC has oversight through the mental health
system and the system of OMRDD, which has
programs that are sprawling throughout all of
our Senate districts and communities
throughout the state. So I would see this as
an easy function for the commission, that they
7437
could handle that.
And one of our concerns has always
been that CBVH, one of their key goals in
working with people who are blind and have
visual disabilities is to find employment for
them. And many of them, as a matter of fact,
here in the Capitol, the newsstand downstairs.
I know in my state office building they run,
in Binghamton, programs there.
And one of the problems, we
actually had a problem with the arrangement in
the Binghamton state office building, that had
there been some oversight that we could have
probably detected a program where people who
were blind were not treated properly, were not
given the opportunity for the type of full
employment that they deserved.
And had we had an oversight or CQC
doing evaluations, this would have been
detected years in advance. And unfortunately,
you know, it came to the conclusion where we
found a program in our own building that was
not properly run or maintained.
So again, Madam President, through
you, we believe that this change, this review
7438
process by CQC throughout a sprawling state,
as it does now, will be very beneficial to
those who have a disability, a sight
disability.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you, Senator Libous.
And, Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I think this
is certainly a good -- and I admire Senator
Libous's attempt to create a tighter sense of
review over the agencies as well as the
programs that serve the visually handicapped.
And it gives me a little bit more
comfort and security in knowing that the CQC
has been really very responsive, very
thorough, and they really are good in what
they do. They protect the interests of people
who are unable to speak for themselves, they
are experts in holding agencies and programs
accountable, and I think they certainly are
equipped to do a more thorough job in holding
people accountable who serve the blind and
visually handicapped.
7439
I do have one caveat, and that is
we must make sure that they have additional
resources in order to do this job. Because I
would not want to have us give them a mandate
to do more work without the proper resources,
which might water down their capacity to serve
all of the areas that they serve.
So with that, I certainly support
this legislation, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
335, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 3665,
an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets
Law and the Tax Law.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
7440
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President. I'm happy to speak to this
law, this bill.
We right now have a fairly limited
definition of service dogs. It deals largely
with physical disabilities. And the need for
service dogs for people with neurological and
other types of disabilities has become
apparent, and we would like to expand that.
In the Executive Law, we already
have an expanded definition. But this
proposed bill would amend the Ag and Markets
and the Tax Law to incorporate, by reference,
a broader term of "disability."
This would define disability as a
condition regarded by others as such an
impairment, would include in the category of
persons with disability of all those who have
a disability within the meaning of the
Executive Law, and not only those who are
mobility-, vision-, or hearing-impaired under
the existing law.
7441
And there is also a minor change in
this particular bill that would allow
municipalities to transmit the licensing data
to the Department of Agriculture and Markets
by the fifth day of the month following
license issuances.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Have there been cases that
clarifications to the current definitions
"service dog" and "persons with disability"
have been necessary?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes. Madam
President, the answer would be yes.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
7442
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Could the sponsor just give me just
a couple of the cases where this has been
necessary, just a couple of examples?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, no, I don't have examples readily
available.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I certainly know
of the important service that service dogs
provide. But I'm wondering how many of these
types of dogs are licensed within the state
currently.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, I would have to indicate that that
information would be available at the
7443
Department of Agriculture and Markets.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Is there a need
for more service dogs in the State of
New York?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, the answer to that would be yes.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: How long is the
service training period for service dogs?
7444
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, the answer to that is the service
training varies depending upon the type of
service the dog would be going into.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Is there a
minimum training period time for service dogs?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, no, there is no minimum training.
SENATOR DUANE: Hmm.
Interesting.
Through you, Madam President, if
the sponsor would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, Madam
President.
7445
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Are service dog
purveyors presently licensed by the state?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: No.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: The areas of
mental illness, panic disorders, disabilities
such as those, are they covered now under the
law, or would they be covered with your law?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: That was two
questions, Madam President. Which question
would the Senator from Manhattan like a
response to first?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President. My apologies for
7446
interrupting, but I'd like to call an
immediate meeting of the Senate Finance
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Senate Finance
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I realize that that was an awful
lot in one question, hard to grasp all of it.
Are panic disorders and other kinds
of mental illnesses covered within the
definition of a person with a disability?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, the change in the law would read
that a physical, mental or medical impairment
resulting from anatomical, physiological,
genetic, or neurological conditions which
prevents the exercise of a normal bodily
function or is demonstrable by medically
accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic
techniques would be in fact be covered.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
7447
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: And is it the
Department of Agriculture that decides whether
or not a person falls within those categories?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: It would be a
medical determination made in conjunction with
the Department of Agriculture regulations.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Does that mean
that the person with a disability has to
present paperwork to Department of Agriculture
personnel so that they can then say -- they're
the ones that sort of stamp it and say this -
7448
now you can have a service dog?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: No.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: If the sponsor
could explain to me, because I honestly don't
know what that system is.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: I'd have to
get that information, Madam President, from
the Department of Agriculture and Markets and
the Department of Health. I don't have that
readily available.
I don't think it's germane to the
issue of changing the statute, how it would
be, how the processing and paperwork
responsibilities would be implemented. Our
discussion really should be limited to the
actual specifics of the law that we attempt to
amend today.
7449
SENATOR DUANE: Well, through
you, Madam President, to try to get an idea of
whether this would be an increased cost to the
state or decreased, would there be a need for
more service dogs? Or should I say, will
there be more or less service dogs in the
state as a result of this?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, there would probably be more
service dogs recognized as service dogs in the
State of New York. There would be no fiscal
impact on the State of New York.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm assuming, though I neglected to
ask the question, but I'm assuming that there
wasn't a public hearing on this bill which -
I mean, I would have preferred to have gotten
information through the public hearing,
although, sadly, it seems as if even the
sponsor doesn't know some of the information
7450
of the questions I was asking.
And had someone from Agriculture,
the Department of Agriculture been at the
public hearing, I could have asked them these
questions. But I guess that's not what's
happened.
You know, I should say I'm
surprised, but I'm not surprised that there
was no hearing on this and an opportunity to
ask questions on the issues that I raised.
I am a little bit surprised that
there's no licensing for service dogs. And if
we're expanding the definition of service
dogs, I think that there may very well be room
for fraud and, you know, perhaps even
mistreatment of dogs as a result of that. So
I am concerned about that.
I'm also concerned that we don't
know whether this will mean that there will be
more or less service dogs now in the state of
New York. At first glance I would have
thought that there would be more, but maybe
this means that there are going to be less.
So I am very, very surprised about that.
Anyway, I do think that service
7451
dogs do provide a valuable service to the
citizens of the state of New York. And I'm
pleased that the definition of disability has
been expanded. But I am sad that there was no
hearing and a really unfortunate lack of
knowledge on the part of really, as I
understand it, those who wanted to implement
these kinds of reforms in this house in the
past. I would have hoped that members would
be prepared to answer questions, and I'm
saddened that that's not the case.
So with the hope that we'll have
further hearings on legislation dealing with
service dogs and their working with persons
with disability, I'm going to vote yes on it.
And I guess I'll have to resign myself to
investigating this information on my own,
which is really not the way I think it should
be. I think that this information should be
made available in a public forum to everyone
in this house and any members of the public
who wish to attend such hearings.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
7452
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
483, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 4178, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
ensuring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Madam
President.
This is a departmental bill that we
actually presented to this body last year that
was adopted unanimously. And after we had
adopted it, we found that there were some
suggested recommendations. And we had an
7453
agreement between both houses to actually do a
chapter amendment, but the Governor wanted to
apparently see the bill in full print and full
context before he would sign it. So the bill
was vetoed last year.
And so we have subsequently made a
couple of amendments, and the bill now comes
back to us.
The bill, very simply, is focused
on one purpose, and that is that we do have,
we recognize that we have handicapped students
in our school systems. They're being
mainstreamed under some mandates coming from
the federal government, for which there's
provided funding. And as a result of that,
we're seeing students who have a variety of
different disabilities, whatever it's
vision-impaired, hearing-impaired, whatever it
happens to be.
And what this bill essentially does
is it says that in fact the materials that are
usually presented to the mainstream students
with no disabilities will be given in a format
that's acceptable to the handicapped students
at the same time that the information is
7454
initially given to those students who have no
handicaps.
So it's a bill that is actually a
requirement on the school districts to set out
a plan as to how to do that with regard to
procurement, what types of disabled students
are going to be into the system, and then
provide the appropriate educational materials
at the same time as is provided to the
nonhandicapped students within that
educational calendar year.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I want to
start by saying I think this is terrific. But
I have a couple of questions.
What are the amendments that were
made from last year to this year?
SENATOR KUHL: Senator, it's very
simple. If you look at the bill, first page,
7455
down on line 12 -- you have the bill there in
front of you?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh, I don't
have the whole bill -- okay, yes.
SENATOR KUHL: You've got the
bill?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR KUHL: Line 12, you see
over -- the third word from the right, it
talks about "preference."
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Uh-huh.
SENATOR KUHL: That was an
addition. Before, schools were required to
make a purchase from a provider. Now we've
simply required that they give a provider a
preference.
And then down on line 19 and over
into line 20, we use the words "or an
electronic file in approved format" rather
than the language that we used last year.
That's really the only change.
Now, I should note, Senator, for
your information, last year there were two
memos in opposition to this bill, one from
the, as we might expect, New York State School
7456
Boards Association. It seems they object to
everything.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: That's
going to cost money.
SENATOR KUHL: Or close to that.
And the other one was from the
Association of American Publishers.
Now, this year, with those
amendments, the New York State School Boards
Association is not filing an objection or a
support memo. They've filed no objections, so
they're not taking a position in opposition to
this bill.
And we do have a memo in support
from the Association of American Publishers,
because those amendments were really worked
out with them and with the other house, and
they accomplish the goals that they sought to
have accomplished in the initial bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. If
Senator Kuhl will yield again, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
7457
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Actually,
two questions arise. One is the school
books -- wait, what was that? The second one,
the book publishers.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, the
Association of American Publishers. AAP, they
call themselves.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: All right.
Then the first question would be, is that
because these subsequent materials would be
not in book form but would be in alternative
forms that aren't textbook?
I guess I'll ask one question at a
time.
SENATOR KUHL: Well, let me just
read from the memo. That's probably the best
way to explain their support.
They say: "The Association
supports the bill and recommends its passage
and enactment into law. The bill will provide
assurances that textbooks are available in
alternative formats for children, including
students with disabilities whose learning
needs dictate their use of such formats. We
understand that it is very important that
7458
these texts be in the hands of these students
on a timely basis and are eager to cooperate
with local school districts to attain this
objective."
That's the basis of their support.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Thank you, Senator.
The other question I have, if you
would yield again -
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to
yield, Madam President.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: -- is when
it says a preference in the bill, are we still
obliged by the lowest responsible bidder in
the preference area? The lowest responsible
bidder.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes. The answer
is yes, Senator.
If you read the language, it says
will give a preference in the purchase of
instructional materials to vendors who agree
to provide materials in alternative formats.
Okay? It doesn't talk about the lowest
responsible bidder. That's still in the law
and is currently in the law.
7459
Last year what we did was,
regardless of the lowest responsible bidder,
we said we had to purchase these materials
from people who had the alternative formats,
regardless of the cost. That was the
problem -- one of the problems that the
Governor had and outlines in his veto message.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: That sounds
good.
Through you, Madam President, if
the Senator would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Kuhl, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I only have
a couple more.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: You
mentioned, Senator Kuhl, the federal funding.
How much coming in is federal funding and how
much is our funding, state funding?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, Senator,
that really doesn't have anything to do with
7460
this bill.
What I was just mentioning is in
the line at -- you may remember that several
years ago, under I think it was what's called
"idea legislation," the federal government
said to the states that you will mainstream
students, and for that we will provide
funding. They promised to provide 40 percent
of the overall cost, and yet they have never
provided 40 percent of the overall cost.
That's a loss of billions of dollars to the
State of New York and to other states across
the country.
My simple point in mentioning that
is as an incentive to mainstream children who
have handicapped situations into the
mainstream of education, and now that is
creating a need for alternative formats for
these people as they are in fact mainstreamed
into the normal education arena.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: That raises
another question -- oh, you're not Madam
President. Mr. President. If I could ask
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
7461
Senator Kuhl, do you yield for another
question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Could you
describe what are some of these alternatives
that we're talking about?
SENATOR KUHL: You mean the
alternative formats?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yeah.
SENATOR KUHL: It's things like
Braille, large print, open and closed caption,
audio, and the electronic files, what's called
electronic files.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Audio,
that's important.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes. So it's
meant to put the educational materials in a
proper format or text -- not text literally,
but text that in fact a person with a handicap
can access and understand just like those
people who don't have handicaps.
So if you're visually impaired to
the point that you cannot read, then the
7462
format may be Braille. Or if you have some
other handicap, it may be some other format.
But it's meant to cover all the various
formats for all the handicapped kids in each
school system.
This is why part of the bill
requires each school district to develop a
plan. Because each school district will have
different types of handicapped students in
their system, so each program or each plan may
be a little different as to how to
accommodate. Some people may have some
hearing-impaired, some visually impaired, and
vice versa. So their approach to providing
the formats may be different.
But they're also supposed to, as
part of that plan, provide a purchasing
mechanism in anticipation of those students
who are going to be there next year when the
materials are distributed, that they're ready
for the distribution of those materials to
those handicapped students so they're not left
behind.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: You sound
like the Children's Defense Fund. Do not
7463
leave a child behind.
If I could ask another question,
please, through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Kuhl, do you yield for another
question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I think -
and check me if I'm wrong, I think we have
always understood Braille and we've always
understood hearing problems, hard of hearing,
deaf. But I think what this bill does is it
takes into account a whole variety of learning
disabilities that maybe we hadn't taken
account of before.
Like some children not being able
to read because of some learning -- severe
learning disability, so that instruction had
to be through audio rather than through
visual.
Is that not the direction that this
is taking?
SENATOR KUHL: I would say that's
7464
the partial direction of this proposal,
Senator.
The other piece that you don't want
to leave behind is that it requires school
districts to anticipate before the
circumstances actually meet or show up at
their doorsteps. That being that there are
students with handicapped situations in, say,
a class, materials are being handed out, but
yet the materials for that handicapped
situation are not there.
So the reason for the plan is,
number one, there are new types of handicapped
circumstances in school districts that need to
be attended to, but also you need to look
ahead as to what the demands are going to be
for providing these alternative formats so
that you can make the proper purchases at the
proper time. So that when they are
distributed, whether it's the first day of
school in September or someplace along the
line, that the handicapped students get the
same kind of opportunity and availability to
materials that they will understand and be
able to utilize.
7465
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh, I was
just going to ask one more question, but now I
have two more. If the Senator would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Kuhl, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: What you
just said sparked me to think of something
else.
I don't know if we ever talked
about this, but a goodly percentage of my
family is deaf, and they have had a person
assigned to them through their school years
that signed for them. Is this in any way
going to remove that person and say now it has
to be mechanical or it has to be, you know, in
this alternative form?
That wouldn't take away the person,
would it?
SENATOR KUHL: No.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. My
last question is now that we've made -
SENATOR KUHL: I'll be happy to
7466
yield.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Now that
we've made these changes, are we sure that the
Governor is going to approve it now?
SENATOR KUHL: We have every
indication that the Governor will sign this,
because we have met the objections that he
raised in his veto message.
And we have had some communications
with him, and we're almost at the point where
we were able to sign the original bill,
because we had an agreement with the chapter
amendment, but for whatever reasons, it fell
apart at the last minute. And even though the
AAP was on board and the School Boards had
withdrawn their objection at that point, for
whatever reason it was, it just didn't make
it.
So we expect the Governor to sign
it.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
I want to thank Senator Kuhl for being so
forthright and so detailed.
And as I said at the very
beginning, this is a terrific bill. And I
7467
hope everybody will appreciate how terrific it
is.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Does
any other member wish to be heard?
The debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
490, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2889, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law and the
Executive Law, in relation to requiring.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Libous, an explanation has been
requested on Calendar 490.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr.
President. Calendar Number 490. That's
7468
4-9-0.
The bill would require service
providers for persons who are mentally
retarded or developmentally disabled to check
the employees for criminal backgrounds through
the use of fingerprints and background checks
by DCJS.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: If the sponsor
would yield, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Libous, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Could the sponsor tell me the
genesis of this legislation?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
this bill has been around this chamber for a
couple of years. And it is our intent that -
our concern was that people who deal with
people with disabilities sometimes are not
7469
thoughtful and caring people.
And we felt that it was important,
after working with all the providers, talking
with the ARCs, talking with the different
direct care workers and different people and,
quite frankly, talking with the unions, that
we wanted to make sure that anyone who is
unsupervised, anyone who has direct access to
an individual through direct care needs to
have a background check, so that there is not
any -- a problem of history.
Mr. President, many of the groups
and organizations like ARC asked for the bill.
So its genesis came from the groups who
provide the service to the mentally ill and
mentally disabled.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Libous, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Did they cite any
7470
specific examples of abuse?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
is that a question?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Mr.
President, I was -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Duane, will you just reask the
question, please.
SENATOR DUANE: Did they supply
any specific examples of abuse that had
occurred?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
through you, and to Senator Duane, yes,
Senator Duane, they did.
I'd be happy to cite a couple, if I
could, because these are pretty serious.
Although I don't like to read, I think I need
to read directly. These came from several
agencies.
A situation where a direct care
worker was hired by an agency which then had
to terminate him after finding through the
newspaper that the employee had been convicted
five times, including convictions for violent
felonies. That's one example.
7471
Another example where an employee
was hired to drive clients to their programs.
The employer subsequently saw the employee on
"America's Most Wanted" television show.
That's another example.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Libous, do you yield for another
question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Now, unless I'm
mistaken, the legislation doesn't call for
sharing of the information with any federal
law enforcement agencies. I know it was cited
yesterday that the FBI is probably not the one
that should be cited, but it's the only one
that comes to mind immediately.
And so if the -- in the case cited,
for instance, of "America's Most Wanted," if
his or her crimes had happened in another
7472
state, this legislation still wouldn't capture
that they were a risk.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
we reviewed this. It's a very good question.
And I believe Senator Saland had a bill
previously. One of the concerns was that it
takes forever to do an FBI check.
And it was in this case the
sponsor's decision -- moi -- decided that
working along with these agencies that we
would be best to keep it within New York
State, that we did not want to go through that
rigorous effort that one must have to go
through when dealing with the FBI.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the -- Madam President, if the
sponsor would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SENATOR DUANE: If the sponsor
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you yield
for a question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'm on my feet,
Madam President. I'd be more than happy to.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
7473
you may proceed with a question.
SENATOR DUANE: Do any other
states require this kind of background check
for people working with mentally retarded and
developmentally disabled people?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
I don't know the answer to that question, and
I don't really care. Because I serve in
New York State, and that's what I care about,
is whether New York State does this or not.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Even if we don't
look at what's happening in other states that
may or may not have data on the effectiveness
of this kind of legislation, there are other
groups in New York State who are already being
fingerprinted.
And I'm wondering if any of them -
7474
any of the commissioners of those agencies or
any of the groups whose employees or
prospective employees are fingerprinted and
given background checks, if there have been
any data to see if this has reduced abuse or
crime within those areas where this kind of
background check is required.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Senator Duane,
through you, Madam President, my goal here, as
chairman of the Committee on the Disabled, and
working with the providers who care very
deeply about some of the serious, serious
situations that have taken place with direct
care workers and people with disabilities, it
is my goal to not worry about other agencies
or other commissioners, it is my goal as the
chairman of that committee to do what I feel
is right in my heart and to do what I feel is
right in working with them to solve the nasty,
ugly problems of abuse, molestation, or any
type of situation that could occur.
And when the people who provide
services to the thousands of people of
New York State who are physically or mentally
disabled come to me and ask me for a piece of
7475
legislation that would bring protection to
those individuals, then it is my
responsibility, Madam President, to just move
forward on that legislation and try to do what
I believe is right. And I believe this is
right.
And I have had no discussions with
other agencies. I don't feel that that's
necessary.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I note that this bill is limited to
persons working with those who are mentally
retarded or developmentally disabled. But I'm
wondering why other mental health workers are
not included, since their clients are as
vulnerable as the ones who are covered in the
7476
bill.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
again, when the providers came to us, these
are the workers that they were directly
concerned about. And these are the workers
that we are attending to in the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes. Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: But there are
some different providers who do adult mental
health than those who provide services for
mentally retarded and developmentally disabled
people; is that correct?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
in our state, which is an extremely complex
state that services probably more people with
disabilities than any other state, we have a
variety of providers and agencies that oversee
7477
different types of programs.
As we discussed earlier, the
Commission on the Visually Blind and Disabled
are under Family and Children, and we wanted
to put their review process in CQC. Senator
Kuhl articulated a bill recently, just a few
moments ago, about dealing with kids with
disabilities as it pertains to the State
Education Department and the department of
VESID, which under his committee he has
responsibility for.
So we could probably take almost
every agency in the State of New York and look
to which agencies overlap as they pertain to
dealing with people with disabilities.
So in this particular piece of
legislation, Madam President, I felt that the
guidelines that deal with these specific
workers for these specific agencies and
providers is most appropriate to address at
this time.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
7478
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Just to clarify,
was it that the mental health providers
requested that they not be part of the bill?
Or was that the sponsor's decision?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
to you, Senator Duane, this came to me
directly from those providers under the
umbrella of OMRDD. So they did not come to
us, the mental health providers, on this
particular issue.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor has an idea or a ballpark figure
or a range about how many people will need to
7479
be fingerprinted.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Well, the
sponsor does like to play ball, so let's see
if he can come up with a number.
Madam President, we estimate 53,000
in year one and about 8,000 in subsequent
years thereafter.
SENATOR DUANE: Just for
clarification, Madam President, if I may,
through you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: That's 53,000 in
the first year and then 8,000 each year
afterwards, or over time 8,000 more?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yeah, we believe
over time.
SENATOR DUANE: Over time.
And through you, Madam President,
if the sponsor would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
7480
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Who's paying the
freight for this background check?
SENATOR LIBOUS: The provider,
Madam President, will pay $50 per request. Up
to a cap of $5,000 per year, depending on how
many people are being subject to the
legislation.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator does
yield. You may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: Does that mean
that after -- if a provider has more than a
hundred employees, that that would bring it to
the cap of 5,000. What happens after that?
Who pays?
SENATOR LIBOUS: We believe that
at that point, Madam President, the state
would absorb anything over that. But for the
most part, we would take care of the lion's
share.
In looking at all of the providers,
7481
the number of employees, we think that it
would pretty much wash out.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I would be happy
to, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: Was DJCS or -
SENATOR LIBOUS: DCJS.
SENATOR DUANE: DCJS. I have
problems with that. I have a lot of problems.
That's a minor problem. But anyway, you don't
want to hear about those.
But was DCJS consulted about the
workload?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
absolutely. As a matter of fact, we worked
with DCJS on putting this information
together.
Those figures that I just shared
with you, Senator Duane -- through you, Madam
President -- was part of the analysis that
7482
DCJS did. We looked at a number of different
things. But we worked very closely with them.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous
does yield.
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: At what point in
the application process would the providers be
required to do the fingerprinting and
background check?
I mean, suppose two people are
applying for the same job. Do they both have
to have a background check, or is it -
because it's prospective and those that have
been hired. So I'm wondering, is this one of
the things that's required before you actually
hire someone?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
Senator Duane, that is an excellent question.
It would be after they were hired.
SENATOR DUANE: After they're
hired.
7483
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: And, Madam
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator does
yield. You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering who
is going to be responsible for the startup for
those employees who are already working. Is
it the providers who have to give notice, or
will it be the state that gives notice that
this check has to happen?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
the provider does.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous
yields.
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Is there a
recommended or standardized form that each of
the providers will have to develop, or do they
7484
get to develop their own? Or how will that be
coordinated?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Standardized
form, Madam President.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, I'm assuming that the agency
will provide that for them to -- or will it be
DCJS that will provide that?
SENATOR LIBOUS: That's correct,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Actually, this
is what it looks like. It's a fingerprint
card.
SENATOR DUANE: Oh, we're already
there. Great.
Actually, Madam President -- thank
you. Thank you. But if I may speak on the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: It's no secret
that I'm disinclined to require
fingerprinting.
And I am a little concerned also
7485
that other mental health providers are not
being required to do this. I mean, not that I
would want them to, but I don't really
understand why some would be included and why
other workers wouldn't be excluded. And in
some cases, they would be workers for the same
agency and some would require background
checks and others would not require a
background check.
There probably would be no perfect
way to craft this legislation to satisfy me.
But I do think it would be helpful to see what
the experience is in other states, if other
states actually do have this requirement, or
just to see what the experiences are of other
state agencies. It occurs to me there's a
real -- you know, a tremendous amount of data
out there that could be looked at so that we
really know what we're doing when we require
these background checks.
I mean, on the face of it, it seems
like who would object to background checks.
But I'm not convinced that this is really a
way to halt abuse in state agencies or with
providers. I mean, for instance, if someone
7486
moves to New York States from another state,
the New York State DCJS would not find out any
problems that had happened before. Only by
sharing that information.
And even if it takes a long time to
get that information from the FBI, getting it,
in sort of the philosophy of what this bill
is, would probably, you know, go a long way
towards achieving what it's supposed to
achieve.
The issue of background checks and
fingerprinting is really a very, very
compelling and interesting area and one which
the state government, of course, has to take a
lead on, because we're the ones that have to
weigh the civil liberties of workers versus,
you know, protecting the public. I didn't ask
the question about whether or not there had
been a hearing on this, because I'm actually
assuming -- and I think probably from now on
I'll just assume that there wasn't a hearing
unless, you know, it's been otherwise shown.
But I think that in the years
fingerprinting has been used in various
professions around the state, and indeed
7487
throughout the country, that before we
continue to legislate and burden our state
agencies and providers with both the
administrative and cost issues of background
checks and fingerprinting, that we should
really look at what the success has been in
our state and around the rest of the nation.
So in the absence of having that
kind of a public debate and dialogue, I'm
going to be voting in the negative.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would yield to a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I wonder if we have any information
about the size of the providers that would be
covered by this legislation. My concern is
7488
that I think it might be very burdensome on
some smaller providers. And certainly in my
part of the world there are some extremely
small agencies that provide such services.
Has anyone taken a look at that
issue?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
that too is a good question. We have taken a
look at that issue. There is no restriction
on size.
And certainly, again, when the
associations came to us, I had to make the
assumption that they were speaking on behalf
of all their providers, no matter what the
size is.
So no, there is not any particular
provision that's required by all.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: As I
understand this, is there any provision to
allow an employee to actually review the
records that are provided to the employer by
DCJS, that the employee may review them?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
DCJS regulations will already apply to this
particular situation, as they do with others.
7489
So to answer your question, those regulations
are in place by DCJS.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So then
the employee or prospective employee would
have the right to see their criminal records
and ask questions or say, Hey, that's not me,
that's another Tom Libous who got arrested
somewhere, or something?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, Madam
President. If that is what the regulations
state now, then that is what they will be able
to do.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
The final area that concerns me -
and this relates, again, partly to my concern
about small agencies and the difficulty of
handling this sort of a process and of
providing the appropriate treatment of such
sensitive data. Why do we have a provision
here granting immunity from suit for these
agencies if there is negligence in the
handling of this information that causes harm
to someone?
I mean, we already have a standard
of care rule in New York State. And I must
7490
say that I don't understand that provision at
all.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
my counsel tells me that they're immune except
in cases of recklessness or gross negligence.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And my
question, through you, Madam President, is why
are we giving them an immunity from
negligence?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Counsel
advises -- and I happen to agree, because I'm
the author -- that, you know, if some small
clerical error comes up, we don't need to have
all kinds of harassing lawsuits taking place.
That might not make everyone in
this chamber happy, but that's the way it is.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And
through you, Madam President, one final
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a final question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So if
7491
under this legislation, through negligence,
the confidential records of someone's criminal
conduct are, you know, revealed in a way that
causes harm to that individual, and it's not
gross recklessness, that individual will no
longer have the right to bring an action; is
that correct?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
there is an exception if someone violates
confidentiality.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank the sponsor for his answers.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
this is an effort to deal with a very
difficult issue. And I also have problems
with the bill, although I differ somewhat from
Senator Duane's concerns.
I think that this is -- the
structure that this bill will create I think
is going to be quite unwieldy. I think it's
very difficult -- and I'm thinking of the
areas that I'm familiar with, where we have
7492
lots of different service providers that would
fall into this category. A lot of them really
operate almost on a shoestring. They don't
have great recordkeeping facilities. They
don't have the ability to ensure that
confidential records are treated properly.
And I'm just very concerned that
this system really won't have the intended
effect. It will put a particular burden on
small agencies for them to have to pay the
fee. I think there will be an incentive for
providers to avoid using this system.
And then those that do use the
system, I don't see any guarantee that the
confidentiality of the records will be
preserved. And I must say that is heightened
by the fact that instead of trying to take
extra steps to ensure the confidentiality will
be preserved, we provide an exemption from
liability for negligence in the treatment of
those records.
Right now in the State of New York
we have a common-law standard of care that
applies to all of us in all of our activities,
and it just requires that you act reasonably
7493
so as to avoid exposing someone to harm -
foreseeable harm, not just any harm. And I
don't see any reason to change that.
And I'm afraid what we're going to
end up with are a lot of records sloshing
around into places where they don't belong and
no recourse to the courts. I appreciate the
exception having to do with confidentiality,
but it's not clear to me how that would
operate in this context.
So while I commend the sponsor for
his efforts to address a very important issue,
I'm afraid that I will once again have to vote
against this particular bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 490 are
7494
Senators Duane, Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery,
and Schneiderman. Ayes, 54. Nays, 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Could we please
return to reports of standing committees. I
believe there is a report from the Finance
Committee at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read the Finance
Committee report.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As a member of the Battery Park
City Authority, David B. Cornstein, of New
York City.
As members of the Empire State
Plaza Art Commission, James R. Breese, of
Rochester, and Rosemary E. Burgher, of
Selkirk.
7495
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, could we please have a vote on the
first nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you very
much.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the nomination of David B. Cornstein, of
New York City, as a member of the Battery Park
City Authority, for a term to expire
December 31st in the year 2004. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, we have a member that wants to vote
on this nomination. Can we just hold that for
just a second. We're trying to get them in
here.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
do you have any objection if we wait a moment
or two?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, if we could just lay this aside and
7496
go to the next nomination, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The confirmation
is laid aside.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
Empire State Plaza Art Commission, James R.
Breese, of Rochester, and Rosemary E. Burgher,
of Selkirk.
As members of the Republic Airport
Commission, Stella M. Barbera, of Lindenhurst,
and Frank A. Nocerino, of North Massapequa.
As a member of the Stewart Airport
Commission, James M. Fedorchak, Esquire, of
Poughkeepsie.
As a member of the State Commission
on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled,
Angelo T. Muccigrosso, of Schenectady.
As members of the Advisory Council
to the Commission on the Quality of Care for
the Mentally Disabled, Mary H. Derby, of
Geneseo, and Jeffrey Luria, of Central Bridge.
As members of the State Hospital
Review and Planning Council, Sister Joseph
Mary Brecanier, of Albany, and Alan Kopman, of
Oceanside.
7497
And as a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Western New York Developmental
Disabilities Services Office, Therese Mudd, of
Lewiston.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
to move the nominations.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President, I move the nominations.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Balboni.
The question is on the
confirmations as read by the Secretary. All
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just briefly to explain my vote.
James Breese, who is up for the
appointment to the -- I think it's the Empire
State Plaza Art Commission, is a supervisor in
the town of Henrietta, represented by Senator
Alesi. But I've known Jim for a long time.
7498
He is kind of a quiet art afficionado, and I
think he'll be a good addition to the State
Plaza Art Commission.
So I just enthusiastically support
Supervisor Breese and wish him well in his new
position.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will
so reflect your remarks, Senator Dollinger.
The nominees as read by the
Secretary are hereby confirmed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR BALBONI: Could we please
return to the reports of standing committees
and the nomination that was previously laid
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read the previously laid aside
nomination.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Battery Park City Authority, David B.
Cornstein, of New York City.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
7499
to move the nomination.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I move the
nomination, Madam President.
And please recognize Senator
Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, am I speaking on the nomination or
explaining my vote? It doesn't matter; I just
wanted to know.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, could we please move the
nomination. And Senator Paterson will have
the opportunity to explain his vote.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor
please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Are we voting
on the nomination, Madam President? Point of
order.
THE PRESIDENT: We are voting on
the nomination of David B. Cornstein.
Senator Paterson, do you wish to
7500
explain your vote?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be heard.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
I'm not familiar with
Mr. Cornstein. However, Senator Smith, who is
outside the chamber on other business, is.
The Senator wanted to voice some concerns with
respect to this nominee.
I believe that the Senator asked
for an appearance by the nominee, upon
information and belief in the committee, and
the nominee did not appear. There were
certainly some outstanding issues that Senator
Smith felt were not resolved. In the
substantive committee, not in Finance, she
asked for the appearance.
And just for me to even speak too
much about this at any length is unfair to the
nominee, and also to Senator Smith, because I
don't really know the situation. But I did
feel it necessary to put that on the record
and to use this time to explain my vote in
that fashion.
7501
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I rise to explain my vote as well.
I'm going to vote no for
Mr. Cornstein for the following reason. This
committee process, through the Finance
Committee and through the substantive
committee process, is designed to give the
members an opportunity to ask questions of a
particular nominee.
Late yesterday and during the last
24 hours I've become aware of disturbing
allegations against a corporation in which
Mr. Cornstein is not just a shareholder, he's
the chairman of the board. The company is
called Telehub Link. It's a company that
engages in consumer marketing, direct to
consumer marketing. And they are the subject
of a court action brought by the Attorney
General of the State of New York to enjoin
their activities in this state because of
widespread fraud against consumers.
Now, most of the discussion that
came up in the Finance Committee is that that
7502
isn't necessarily evidence that Mr. Cornstein
is involved. I acknowledge that. But it
certainly raises a cloud on his ability to
serve and whether the Senate should grant the
imprimatur of its approval to someone whose
company is involved in defrauding our seniors.
I would strongly recommend, Madam
President, that this go back to the Finance
Committee, that the Majority show its
willingness to allow this man to have the
opportunity to answer questions and remove the
cloud that hangs over him because of his
involvement in this company.
And until that cloud is removed and
until the Senate commits itself to remove that
cloud, give him the opportunity to remove the
cloud, I'm going to vote no, and I would urge
all my colleagues to do so.
The allegations in this complaint
are enormously troubling because they claim
that this company has broken laws passed by
this Senate, signed by governors, to protect
our seniors from telemarketing fraud.
I would strongly encourage the
Senate, hold this nomination, give this man an
7503
opportunity to explain himself, and then we
can make a proper determination of whether to
vote yes or no. Now we're only lost in the
cloud that surrounds his reputation, and we
don't know what to do.
Under those circumstances, I'm
voting no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson
and Senator Dollinger, the record will reflect
your remarks.
Senator Montgomery was next, I
believe.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you, Madam President.
I too am going to be voting no on
this candidate. I do not know him. I have
not been able to have an opportunity to ask
questions. And certainly the information that
I've received is that he is chairman of the
board of this telemarketing organization.
And I know that many people in my
district have lost their homes, they have
gotten tremendously involved in debt problems.
This telemarketing is a major deterrent to the
economic well-being of people in this state,
7504
especially people like those in my district
who are seniors and poor people who have bad
credit and they're invited to sign over their
homes, just to fold all of their bills into a
credit card. It's just a major problem for
us.
And so if there is any company -
if there's an appointment of any person who is
associated with a company that does this
telemarketing, I want to be sure that there
has never been an incident where they have
come into my district and marketed
fraudulently to people so that their financial
status is jeopardized based on that kind of
activity.
So I'm going to vote no, Madam
President, until I have an opportunity to have
my questions answered by Mr. Cornstein.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will
reflect your remarks, Senator Montgomery.
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, I rise to explain my vote briefly.
It wasn't until this morning that I
found out some of the problems that some of my
7505
colleagues have with this particular
appointee, that in fact the Attorney General
is gathering quite an extensive file on
complaints against this corporation, not
necessarily against this individual.
Because of that, we had some
questions that we may not have had yesterday
when the list first came out, at least myself
personally. So that I didn't see any problem
with maybe holding this one until next week so
that this individual could come in and say
whatever it was, they're addressing it, or
whatever it was, it's this or that.
It seems to me that in the past
we've had confirmations of people that
gathered a lot of no votes for what turned out
to be not necessary reasons. That maybe there
was something in their past that people had
questions on, didn't have a chance to speak to
the individual and so voted no, and the person
got a lot of no votes that if they in fact had
taken a little more time, come and spoke to
the individuals that voted no before they had
the opportunity to vote, they could have
cleared that situation up, as this situation
7506
may have easily been cleared up. But it
wasn't done, so the no votes came.
And that's basically a brief
synopsis and the reason why I'm voting no
also.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will
reflect your remarks, Senator Stachowski.
Senator Malcolm Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Madam President.
I too have to rise with some
discomfort and echo my colleagues' concerns
about voting against the nominee. Again, it
has nothing to do personally with the nominee.
But clearly there are some allegations that
have been raised with regards to his ability
to perform in an ethical manner as relates to
the telemarketing company that he is involved
with.
Unfortunately, as a body, we are a
body of individuals who passes laws, and we
expect individuals that come before us to be
confirmed to be an adjunct to this body, in
some form or fashion, to respect and honor
those laws as well.
7507
Unfortunately, Mr. Cornstein's
corporation, while this may seem as though
it's piercing the corporate veil in some way
or another, is tied to an operation or alleged
operation that is not doing right by our
seniors.
And I believe, given the fact that
he was asked to come before the committee,
just as a matter of respect to everyone in the
entire body here, we could at least hold this
particular nomination until such time that he
has come forward and resolved any clouds or
concerns as relates to his company and the
performance thereof.
So because of those reasons, I will
have to be voting no on this nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will
reflect your remarks, Senator Smith.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, Madam
President, briefly to explain my vote.
When this nominee was passed on
from the substantive committee, the Committee
on Corporations and Authorities, our
extraordinarily distinguished chair, Senator
7508
Marchi, said that it was being passed on to
Finance because Finance was equipped to handle
an investigation into these matters and put
the matters to rest.
It appears that that has not
happened. I don't know why. This is not an
appointment that I think a delay of a week or
two would seriously impede the operation of
any agency of state government.
And I think what we are doing here
is leaving the air uncleared. And I think
that it is a disservice to this house, it's a
disservice to all of the nominees here for us
to proceed in this manner. There's no reason
not to have an investigation and clear this
up.
And accordingly, I will be voting
no.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will
reflect your remarks, Senator Schneiderman.
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: To explain my
vote, Madam President.
I too rise troubled by this
nomination. It seems to me it's as though we
7509
were going into a store to make a purchase and
the purchase is all wrapped up and we don't
know what's inside. I think this is the
situation with Mr. Cornstein.
We don't know whether these
allegations are true or false, and he
certainly has to be given the opportunity to
explain and to address our concerns. He has
not done so.
And for that reason, Madam
President, I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will
reflect your remarks, Senator Stavisky.
Senator Duane, to explain your
vote, I assume.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, thank you,
Madam President.
I don't know Mr. Cornstein. And my
position has generally been that for positions
of this kind of caliber, even if it's an
unpaid position, that the person should
appear.
It becomes even more urgent in a
case like this when members of the committees
that Mr. Cornstein is passing through have not
7510
had an opportunity to ask him about
allegations. And they're merely allegations.
But on a matter as important as
this, I think that the prudent thing to do
would be to delay this confirmation until such
time as Mr. Cornstein is able to appear at his
convenience and respond to questions that
committee members may have.
And without any personal knowledge
of Mr. Cornstein in this situation, and really
with optimism that he will eventually be
approved for the board -- which I actually
represent Battery Park City -- I'm going to at
this time be casting my vote in the negative.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will
reflect your remarks, Senator Duane.
The nominee is hereby confirmed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you,
Madam President. Can we please return to the
calendar and could we go to -- one minute,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bruno.
7511
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
could we at this time take up Calendar Number
944.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
944, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 2B, an act
to amend the Tax Law and the State Finance
Law, in relation to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bruno, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
This is part of the Senate tax cut
proposal, part of our budget proposal. And it
relates to about $2.2 billion in tax cuts for
the people of this state. And one of the big
parts of this is that it would ease the burden
on the consuming public by reducing the taxes
on gasoline, residential utility bills,
commercial heating fuels, will assist
7512
low-income New Yorkers with their heating
bills through a personal income tax credit,
and promote energy efficiency through a sales
tax exemption.
We all know that the price of
gasoline is escalating. It is the highest in
New York than anywhere in the Northeast,
fourth highest in the country, average price
per gallon of gas. People are paying about
$400 million in state taxes. This would
eliminate that state tax, saving the people of
this state $400 million annualized.
Currently, the gross receipts tax
on utilities, which is passed through to
residential customers, is 2.5 percent. This
bill eliminates the tax, saving residential
consumers $175 million.
Families having problems with the
increasing cost of heating their homes through
the Home Energy Assistance tax, HEAP, this is
a credit to assist families with the dramatic
rise in home heating costs. And the HEAP
program, the Home Energy Assistance tax
credit, would provide 1.1 million eligible
families with a tax credit equal to 25 percent
7513
of their state earned income tax credit, the
EITC. That's over 400,000 of these families
are located in the upstate areas that have the
highest heating consumption and costs.
Under this bill, an eligible family
with two children getting an EITC of about
$875 would receive an additional $220 to
reimburse them for a portion of the increase
in the home heating costs.
Fuel oil used for residential
heating is exempt, as we all know, from the
petroleum business tax. That for commercial
purposes is not. This removes the PBT on
commercial heating fuel, saving businesses
10 million annually.
This bill would also exempt from
the sales tax materials that promote energy
efficiency, saving consumers about
$200 million annually. Some of the products
that would qualify would include furnaces,
windows, appliances, all approved under the
Energy Star Program, alternative energy
systems such as solar heating fuel cells,
insulation, weather stripping, caulking,
anything that would conserve energy.
7514
And localities that may lose
revenue that they would normally raise would
be reimbursed by the state for any losses that
they incur.
This is something that should
happen on behalf of the consumers in New York
State. We feel that tax cuts are a
stimulation to the economy. Given what's
happening out there with the potential
stagnation, recession, that this would really
be a stimulus to everything that happens here
in the economy, with job creation as well as
making life more comfortable, more tenable for
the people here who pay the taxes.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, is there an amendment at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I would ask that the reading of the
amendment be waived and that I offer the
amendment before the house and ask to be heard
7515
on it.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, the reading is waived.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
Senator Bruno, there's a lot in
this tax bill that deals with energy that's
good. I would suggest, however, I do disagree
or I'm going to at least raise a disagreement
with you about one fact, Senator Bruno, the
notion that there's a stagnancy or a recession
out there in the state of New York.
I'm not sure that we completely
agree on that issue. Although I will
acknowledge that given events that are
happening, certainly the economy in New York
is back at the top of our concern about the
future of this state. We certainly need more
job development upstate. We certainly need
greater job development in our urban
communities, like the one I represent.
And I think that it's time to take
this focus on energy and add another dimension
to it. And that is to take -- Senator Bruno
talked about the importance of solar power.
7516
This amendment, Madam President, would allow
the creation of a tax credit for wind energy
generators. It would also provide for the net
metering of solar photovoltaic systems. These
are systems that allow the use of the sun and
wind to generate energy. They can be
extremely important.
This system, if it were enacted,
would really pattern -- is patterned after
legislation that we put in effect in 1997
which provided tax credits. This increases
those tax credits. Thirty states have some
form of net metering of these devices.
New York is one of only two states that does
not allow net metering for small wind energy
generators.
We all know that wind energy is
abundant, largely in Western New York. The
central portion of the state also has ample
resources in the movement of the winds. Small
wind turbines, those that produce 5 to 100
kilowatts of electricity, have been developed
for residential and farm applications, and
they can provide a variety of public and
private benefits.
7517
We all know that wind is probably
the most efficient and clean source of energy.
The movement of propellers in the generation
of energy, which is all a part of our American
past, through the windmill, the use of larger
windmills to generate wind power is clearly
the most fuel-efficient method of generating
energy, and it's one that would do us all
credit.
So, Senator Bruno, while we talk
about energy in this state -- and I for one
have been disappointed that we don't seem to
have much of an energy policy in this state in
the course of the last six years after we
eliminated the Energy Department -- we haven't
had a focus on energy until the price of
gasoline jumps near $2 a gallon. And then all
of a sudden it seems to become critically
important.
I would suggest that both this
house and the Governor would be well-advised
to use the wind resources in New York State,
to use them to their fullest by adopting this
amendment, by creating an income tax credit of
up to $7,500 to encourage the purchase and
7518
operation of small wind turbines.
We can do that as part of our
energy system in this state. We can use
private enterprise to do it. People can erect
these small wind turbines on their own
property, they can obtain the necessary zoning
and other approvals. It's a great way to add
to our energy base in this state without
running the risk of further pollution and
further damage to our environment.
Under those circumstances, Madam
President, I commend this amendment to the
house. And I think we can take what Senator
Bruno has started with, a reasonably good
energy package to try to deal with energy, and
we can even make it better by adding this
amendment to it.
I recommend a yes vote on the
amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Those
Senators in agreement with the amendment
please signify by raising your hand.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I rise for a
point of order, Madam President.
7519
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Point of
order.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is this a
vote on the amendment, Madam President?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: This is
a canvass of agreement on the amendment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Oh.
Senator Bruno properly points out
that canvas is like sails. In fact, Senator
Bruno, they put canvases in windmills, which
is part of what they use to generate power.
So it's -- how appropriate that we could use
canvas from the canvass of agreement to propel
our windmills.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Dollinger.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Connor,
Dollinger, Gentile, Hassell-Thompson,
Markowitz, Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Paterson,
Sampson, Schneiderman, M. Smith, Stachowski,
and Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
7520
amendment is defeated.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. I believe there's another
amendment at the desk. I would request that
its reading be waived and that I be heard on
the amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
reading is waived and you may speak on the
amendment at this time, Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you
very much.
The tax relief that's provided for
in this bill is not really going to be able to
address the serious problems that have been
created by essentially our botched
deregulation of the energy industry in the
state of New York. We have to do a lot more
to encourage the reduction in consumption of
energy if we're going to be able to survive
without building many more power plants,
increasing pollution, and overburdening
communities that already have too many
facilities in them.
I suggest that with this amendment,
7521
which would create a clean energy fund, we
will accomplish four things. We will provide
funds for promotion of energy efficiency, for
energy-demand reduction, for research, and for
energy affordability for low-income New
Yorkers.
Tragically, and to me
incomprehensibly, Governor Pataki has slashed
funds for clean energy programs since he was
in office. We now are providing less money -
significantly less money, about half -- for
clean energy programs than we were providing
in 1993. We provide significantly less money
for clean energy programs than all the states
surrounding us. And I don't think it's really
in dispute that energy-efficiency programs,
conservation programs are critical to our
economic health.
The New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority has estimated that
over a ten-year period every $1 million
invested in energy efficiency saves $3 million
in energy costs, avoids 100 tons of sulfur
dioxide emissions, 70 tons of nitrogen oxide
emissions, and 45,000 tons of carbon dioxide
7522
emissions. So it's good financially and it's
good environmentally.
This amendment would create a clean
energy fund that would provide additional cost
saving and also incentives for those of us who
wish to expand residential energy programs and
purchase the energy-efficient appliances.
This amendment is based on a bill
that was sponsored by -- that I sponsored but
also there was an almost identical bill
Senator Marcellino introduced last year. And
I think this is something that should have
bipartisan support. And if, somehow or other,
this amendment does not pass today, I would
urge that this bill be revived.
The time is now to act on the issue
of energy prices. This is what we would call
in the business world a no-brainer. This will
save us money, this will help clean up our
air.
I urge a yes vote on this
amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Those
Senators in agreement with the amendment
please signify by raising your hand.
7523
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor,
Dollinger, Duane, Gentile, Hassell-Thompson,
Markowitz, Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Paterson,
Sampson, Schneiderman, M. Smith, Stachowski,
and Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendment is failed.
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, Madam
President. I believe there's an amendment at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
reading of the amendment is waived -
SENATOR GENTILE: And I'd ask
that you waive the reading and allow me to
explain.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you. The reading is waived, and you may speak
on the amendment, Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President.
Madam President, my community in
Staten Island is one of those communities that
has been imposed upon with a generating plant
7524
that we were told is absolutely necessary for
New York City to avoid brownouts and blackouts
this summer.
It is something that the community
has opposed and will continue to oppose.
Because we're told that there is enough energy
in New York State, the problem is we can't
transmit that energy to New York City. It's a
transmission problem, not an energy problem in
New York City.
And so my amendment, Madam
President, would require an amendment to
Chapter 451 of the Laws of 2000, and it would
require New York City or cities of a million
or more to purchase appliances that meet
minimum energy-efficiency standards that have
been preset.
Now, this is a state law that
applies to state agencies. My amendment would
now apply to cities of a million or more -
i.e., New York City.
This proposal, by directing that
the city purchase only those appliances which
exceed the minimum energy-efficiency standards
will dramatically, dramatically help to reduce
7525
the city's energy needs.
Right now, the City of New York's
government agencies consume 800 megawatts of
power each year, at a cost of $328 million a
year. If this amendment were to be adopted,
we could realize in the City of New York a
savings of $6.6 million a year.
Indeed, the potential is great
here. If the entire City of New York, under
this amendment, were to retrofit their red,
green, and yellow traffic lights to
low-emitting diodes -- which have been done in
parts of Queens, and will soon be done in
parts of Staten Island. But if the entire
City of New York were to do that, it would
reduce the capacity needs of energy by more
than 10 megawatts and save more than
$8.5 million to the city in maintenance costs.
So the potential here, Madam
President, is great. Indeed, the
refrigeration industry has made great strides
in meeting energy-efficiency standards.
There's a new generation of energy-efficient
refrigerators that has reduced their
electricity consumption by 75 percent, or
7526
saving 60,000 megawatts of electricity.
If we were to require New York City
to use those more energy-efficient
refrigerators in their agency buildings, we
would be saving more than $50 billion over the
course of the life of those appliances.
So, Madam President, it is a
question here that we have been presented with
in the City of New York that the transmission
of the energy throughout the state is not
available to the City of New York. So one of
the ways to address that problem is to
incorporate this amendment, which would
require the city to reduce its energy usage by
using these types of appliances. Because the
bottom line is that every kilowatt-hour that
is saved is one less kilowatt-hour that needs
to be found.
So I commend this amendment to my
colleagues, not only in the City of New York
but in the entire house.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, just a point of order.
7527
If I'm correct, the rules of the
Senate do not permit for there to be any kind
of party action on a canvass. In other words,
you can't have a party vote in the affirmative
on a canvass. That is correct, isn't it?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: That is
correct. That's why we're asking for hand
signalings.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. Then
that being the case, Madam President, is it
permissible, being that the only way a member
can be recorded would be to physically be in
the chamber, that when we have these such
amendments that we ring the bells? Because
there's no way for members to necessarily know
that we're on an amendment, and therefore no
way for a member to be recorded.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: One
moment.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we have the ringing of the bills to alert
the members who are not in the chamber where
they belong that this is where they ought to
be.
7528
We are doing very important work on
behalf of our constituency throughout this
state, and members belong in the chamber.
We'd like to be able to progress with our
proceedings.
But I would ask to have the bell
rung while we are debating and proceeding.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will ring the bells.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I just wanted
to thank the Majority Leader for acceding to
that request, because it will make it easier
for the members to be recorded.
But I think it only fair that I
reiterate that this was an important bill,
we're going to have a final vote on this bill
very soon, and that everybody should be in
this chamber.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Paterson.
7529
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. I just wanted to rise very
briefly to speak in support of this amendment.
And again, I urge my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle -- oh, I'm sorry,
I don't want to interrupt an outbreak of
bipartisan sentiment.
In fact, I'm talking more about
bipartisan sentiment. This is a bill that
expands Senator Morahan's bill, just as the
bill that I proposed, the amendment that I
proposed follows Senator Marcellino's bill.
These are very important ways to
reduce energy consumption in the state of
New York. These are very important ways to
reduce the price of energy in the state of
New York. These are critical ways to ensuring
we do not have blackouts, we don't have to put
power plants in communities where they don't
belong.
And I would urge that if this
amendment is also defeated, which I hope is
not going to be the case, that this bill will
resurface once again. And I'm sure it will
7530
have tremendous support from our side of the
aisle.
Thank you. I urge a yes vote,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. On the amendment.
Senator Schneiderman is absolutely
correct. All three of these amendments, the
first two and this one, find their origin in
bills that come to us from the Majority. I
think this bill follows a bill from Senator
Morahan. Senator Schneiderman explained how
his bill follows. And the original bill that
we did for solar power tax credits comes from
a bill that Senator Hoffmann did.
So it seems to me that
bipartisanship, which Senator Schneiderman
described as an outbreak, I think this is a
celebration of bipartisanship. We're taking
good ideas that exist and that come to us from
the other side. We've taken a look at those
ideas, we think they're worthy of inclusion in
a massive tax bill that deals with energy.
7531
So, Madam President, I think this
is a true demonstration or a celebration of
bipartisanship that these amendments are on
the floor.
With respect to this specific
amendment, this is an amendment -- and Senator
Gentile is absolutely correct, it does exactly
what we should be doing. It's telling major
purchasers to buy fuel-efficient utilities,
fuel-efficient equipment -- refrigerators,
washers, all those things that a big city
would buy, there are ways to buy them that
will save us energy.
If we did that as a state, if we
took that responsibility seriously, we could
substantially reduce our need for power and
all the problems that come with it, whether
it's the difficulties represented by nuclear
generation or the emissions that deal with
coal- and gas-fired plants and oil-fired
plants.
This is a bill that does exactly
what everyone in the state should be doing,
buy fuel-efficient equipment. The City of
New York, one of the largest purchasers in the
7532
country of this types of equipment, if we tell
them to do this, we're going to reduce the
need for energy.
We may reduce, Senator Gentile, the
chance that a blackout will come rolling
through Staten Island and Brooklyn this summer
when they don't have enough power.
This is all about preserving what
we've got and optimizing the energy we have
and not requiring us to use more. It's
absolutely the right thing to do. It's an
idea whose time has come.
It came out of your side of the
aisle. It's a good idea in Republican hands,
it's a good idea in Democratic hands, it's a
good idea for the Senate to send to the
Assembly. And it will be a good idea when the
Governor signs it into law, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Those
Senators in agreement with the amendment
please signify by raising your hand.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor,
7533
Dollinger, Duane, Gentile, Hassell-Thompson,
Markowitz, Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Paterson,
Sampson, Schneiderman, M. Smith, Stachowski,
and Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendment is failed.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
It's appropriate, as President Bush
is preparing to unveil his national energy
agenda, that we're standing here this
afternoon discussing the energy agenda in
New York State. Because, in fact, New York
State, unlike the nation, has an energy
agenda. It has been the federal
administration that has been absent an energy
agenda for the past eight years.
There are but three ways to reduce
the energy bills for individuals across this
state. Number one is to reduce consumption,
energy efficiency. We've talked about that
this afternoon. It is embodied in the Senate
proposal.
Increasing supply. It is in
7534
concert with the administration that the
Senate led the siting bill legislation,
Article 10.
And to reduce taxes. Those are the
three ways you reduce the cost of energy.
And under the leadership of Senator
Bruno, Senator Stafford, in cooperation with
the administration, this house has led the way
in the nation in reducing energy taxes, going
straight to the bottom line of every
individual bill, be it an individual resident,
a commercial or industrial user.
So in fact, the state does have an
energy agenda. The Senate has demonstrated
that leadership. For years, under the
leadership of Senator Bruno, we debated and
advanced the elimination of the gross receipts
tax, finally having achieved success.
Last year we initiated and passed
one of the first green building tax credits in
the nation, sponsored by Senator Goodman on
this side of the house.
We have advanced the Article 10
bill to facilitate siting, thereby increasing
supply.
7535
All of those elements are part of
an agenda for energy in New York State. They
are being mirrored on the national level in
terms of what is being done.
Now, today, you see us again
advancing the proposals, the first being the
elimination of the gas sales tax, for obvious
reasons. The quickest reduction at the pump
will occur through the elimination of taxes.
We continue to advance the
elimination of residential GRT. Having
started that process last year, we now advance
its complete phaseout. And of course, third,
you see the proposals in terms of sales tax
exemptions on energy-efficiency investments.
And, unlike the proposed amendment we just
heard, where we mandate a cost on a local
government, in fact our bill covers the cost
of local governments in terms of their loss of
sales tax. That is very intentional, to
facilitate energy efficiency and savings.
And while it's not in this
particular bill, I would suggest if Senator
Dollinger has the opportunity to review
Senate 4A, he will in fact find the wind tax
7536
credit reflected in that bill as an amendment
to the previously adopted solar credits.
That was initiated, very simply,
because of discussions we commenced this past
summer in August with the Wind Association
nationally, not just in New York State. But
the national association was here in New York
State, representatives of the Senate and the
Power Authority met with them, discussed this
concept.
We've not only introduced a bill -
as Senator Hoffmann has, as Senator Rath has,
as a number of our members have introduced
bills on those tax credits -- we have embodied
it in the budget bill.
So I think you will find that not
only do we have a very clear agenda to move
ahead on the issues of efficiency, to reduce
consumption, to provide those necessary
incentives; at the same time, they are
incorporated in very good tax legislation that
is critical to providing the necessary
reductions to our individual consumers and to
protect their interests.
So, Madam President, I would urge
7537
my colleagues to support 2B that's before us
now, as well as 4A, and to move ahead on what
clearly is making New York State a leader in
addressing the energy crisis.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other member wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 22. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time take up Calendar Number
945.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
945, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 4A, an act
to amend the Tax Law, in relation to elder
7538
care credits.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
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, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we now call up Calendar 953, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
953, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 5255, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to a
sales tax exemption for gas.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bruno, an explanation has been requested.
7539
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
we have talked, we have read, we have heard
from our constituency that the price of gas is
going up every day, every week. People are
having trouble driving to work, driving to
school, taking children where they have to
take them.
This bill would rescind the sales
tax on gasoline. It saves the consumers of
this state $400 million. As the price of gas
goes up, so does the sales tax. There's
something wrong with that.
As I mentioned earlier, New York is
presently paying the highest average price per
gallon in the Northeast, and I think we are
fourth highest in the country, on the average.
So we think this is an appropriate
thing to do, keep that $400 million in the
hands of the consumers, the driving public.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Does any
Senator wish to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 10. This
act shall take effect July 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
7540
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
While I join in the sentiment
behind this bill, I really don't think that it
provides an adequate solution to the problem
of high gasoline prices. If gas hits $2 or
even $3, the sales tax repeal will seem
inconsequential.
And there's no guarantee in this
bill that this be passed along to the
consumer. We've seen in the past situations
arise where taxes are cut but the price
doesn't come down for the consumers.
And absent something like that, I'm
constrained to vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
I'm going to vote yes. But I feel
very strongly that we are not doing near
enough to control some of the vehicles on our
7541
roads that consume an incredible amount of
gasoline per mile. And I think that we have
to put some emphasis on controlling -- in one
way, I think price is one way to control. And
so in a way, I think if we had a very high
price on gas, it might be good. We might all
think about getting rid of our SUVs.
I think it's important during the
holiday season, certainly during the summer
season that we permit our families to travel.
But I just have to raise my objection to these
gas-guzzling automobiles and vehicles that are
on our roads now. And I would like the people
to think twice about what they're doing when
they purchase these vehicles.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
You know, the issue of tax
reductions is one which is very, very
important. And, first of all, I don't think
it's appropriate just to use this as the forum
to look at things like tax reductions and what
7542
we're doing with eliminating sales taxes on
gasoline. You know, it's not appropriate to
do here to begin with, but then after, you
know, criticism that people aren't here,
there's no -- people still aren't here.
People have left.
I think this legislation is really
more appropriately part of the budget. And
that we're doing these pieces of legislation
separate and apart from the budget is just
wrong. Instead of spending our time on these
one-house budget bills, we would be better off
working with our colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, and with the Governor, to get a
real budget for the people of the State of
New York.
I really feel like I've wasted my
time by coming in here to even do this. And
obviously I have, since people who are
critical of people not being in the chamber
aren't even here to hear that.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
Any other Senator wishing to speak
7543
on the bill?
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
2. Senator Senators Duane and Schneiderman
recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you lay aside Calendar Number 867 for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside for the day.
SENATOR SKELOS: And would you
take up Calendar Number 930, by Senator
Libous.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
930, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 3667, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in
relation to providing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
7544
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Libous, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President.
The bill would actually require
that OMRDD providers submit certain reports to
OMRDD via the Internet.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Libous yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
will you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I will.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm
concerned about the allocation. What is going
to be the cost of instituting this?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Actually,
Senator, through you, Madam President, we
believe there will be a savings, because right
now there are thousands of reports that are
submitted in writing to OMRDD. This will
allow the reports to be submitted via the
Internet, which is going to make it much
7545
simpler. They can just be downloaded.
At the present time, these reports
come in in humongous volumes, and they have to
put people at keyboards and they have to
data-enter all of this information. It's
just -- yes, it's going to save money.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. If Senator Libous would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Libous, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Absolutely,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
gentleman yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, are
we going to need new telephone lines to
accommodate the greater load that we're going
to have when we bring all these agencies on
line?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Senator,
speaking of telephone lines, someone should
take theirs out of the chamber that's ringing
7546
right now.
SENATOR PATERSON: That's an
excellent idea, Madam President. I hope
you'll -
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
through you, the answer is no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
answer is no.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
Madam President, if Senator Libous
would yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Libous, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'm happy to
continue to yield to Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: The
legislation calls for a date of an enactment
that I think is somewhat optimistic. Are we
planning to have all these agencies online by
that date, Senator, or is that just the date
that it becomes law and we'll hope that -
SENATOR LIBOUS: That's the date
that it becomes law.
Actually, many of these agencies
are now providing reports via the Internet.
7547
Keep in mind that we feel that this will save
money, be more effective, more efficient.
And also, Madam President, through
you to Senator Paterson, there is a disclaimer
in there. We recognize there may be one or
two smaller agencies who are not able to send
it via the Internet. And certainly the
commissioner can permit them with a waiver
that would allow that to happen.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. I have a final question if
Senator Libous, who has been patient, will
suffer one more.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Libous, will you be patient and suffer one
more?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
I don't consider this suffering whenever
Senator Paterson asks me a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: He
suffers for you.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, who
will bear the cost of upgrading the computers
7548
or the additional hardware that it might take
to accommodate this transition?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
that is an excellent question.
Let me reference that this is a
departmental bill that was sent to us, and
that the department has informed us that the
infrastructure is already in place to be able
to handle this.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. And thanks, Senator Libous.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. If the Senator will
yield to a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Libous, will you yield to some questions?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Like Senator
Paterson, I would be honored to yield to
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator. I just wanted to go over a
7549
couple of questions. I think one of them
Senator Paterson asked. But I'd like you, if
you will, just to give me a broader
explanation.
Would you please describe the
training that agencies would receive in order
to be sure that they transmit these reports
over the Internet appropriately?
SENATOR LIBOUS: That's a good
question, Madam President.
I believe that OMRDD feels that
they have a pretty good relationship with
their providers and that the reports are now
typed up -- actually, Madam President, and to
you, Senator, there are some 800 reports that
are provided on an annual basis to OMRDD.
These report range in length from 15 pages to
some 1500 pages.
So we would believe that any
training involved would be very, very minimal,
if anything at all. The agency has already
reached out to its providers and asked them
that this would be an appropriate way to send
documents.
Right now, as I said earlier, Madam
7550
President, these documents are all mailed and
shipped and delivered by hand and actually sit
in piles, like some of these documents before
us.
So I think the training would be
minimal.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. If the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Will you
continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: You
talked about the costs and the funding, but
the only question that I have about the
financing is who will pay for or will the
budget reflect any upgrade on an annual basis
that may be required as computer data changes
and as software changes?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'm informed,
Madam President, that the infrastructure is
already in place. But I believe that there is
7551
a statewide upgrade that is bigger than just
this department that is going to take place in
2002 that will be part of this.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: And if
the Senator will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Do you
continue to yield, sir?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Are
you then saying that the cost of this upgrade
is already or automatically a part of what
this bill will do?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
the Senator's question is a good one.
We have no fiscal note attached to
this bill.
And as I said earlier, when I was
asked by one of your colleagues, that this is
a departmental bill. And it is our belief
that those costs have already been absorbed
and they will not need to be added to any
future fiscal note that this body will have to
deal with.
7552
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Thank you. No, I have no other questions.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank
you, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Does any
other Senator wish to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 775,
by Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
7553
775, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 4349A,
an act in relation to creating the Hurley
Library District.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is a bill that will create the
Hurley Library District in the town of Hurley
in Ulster County. The existing library board
requested the legislation, and the Hurley town
board is in support of it.
Presently -- well, let me go back a
minute. This legislation will not take effect
and this library will not be created unless
there is a public referendum for the creation
of the district and approval of a proposed
budget and the election of nine library
district trustees.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
7554
Bonacic, do you yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Madam President, the legislation refers to a
current Hurley library. Is there a current
one in existence?
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes. Let me
explain that for you, if I may.
Presently, there is a library in
Hurley. It's called the Hurley Library. And
it's chartered by the Board of Regents as an
association library.
Now, the problem is in funding to
keep it going. They get money, some money
from the County of Ulster; they get some money
by the Hudson Valley Library District. And
they have to raise about $10,000 a year
through philanthropy, fundraising, membership
fees, in order to maintain a budget. And it's
a very lean budget.
So what they want to do now is
create a better library system, have it as
part of a property tax levy, assuming that the
7555
voters approve within that district.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Can I assume,
then, from your answer to the prior question
that this would be an increase in taxes for
the residents of the proposed district?
SENATOR BONACIC: The answer is
yes. Right now they expect a tentative budget
to be around $76,000. About $55,000 of that
will have to be raised through a property tax
levy. About a little less than 2 percent on a
home of 100,000 assessed value. Roughly about
40 bucks a year.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: One final
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: One
final question, Senator Bonacic?
SENATOR BRESLIN: Will there be
any capital expenses, new construction
involved with -
7556
SENATOR BONACIC: At the present
time, we don't know the answer to that. But
if you need to do a capital project, the town
board has the authority to float that bond for
a library building or an expansion, if the
voters are so inclined.
SENATOR BRESLIN: And one final
question, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: One
more, Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Was there any
consideration given to a combined library that
would include both West Hurley and Hurley
together, economies of volume?
SENATOR BONACIC: Include Hurley
and who?
SENATOR BRESLIN: West Hurley.
SENATOR BONACIC: And West
Hurley.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Correct.
SENATOR BONACIC: Have you been
there?
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes, I have.
SENATOR BONACIC: There's a good
tavern in West Hurley.
7557
SENATOR BRESLIN: That's where I
was. Through you, Madam President.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BONACIC: This particular
library district, if it's formed by the
voters, is specifically for the Town of
Hurley. But it specifically excepts, does not
include, West Hurley Library District.
And it certainly will be a
consideration of the voters, when they have to
approve this library, in the form that they
want to create the legislation for it.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
Any other Senator wishing to speak
on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
7558
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 582,
by Senator Hoffmann.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 582, Senator Hoffmann moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 4910 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2562,
Third Reading Calendar 582.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
582, by Member of the Assembly Magee, Assembly
Print Number 4910, an act to amend the
Agriculture and Markets Law, in relation to
including.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
7559
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I am delighted to explain this
bill, and I am so pleased that my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle are interested
in the issue of manure management on New York
State farms. And I've been looking forward to
the opportunity when I could explain in a
little bit more detail why this is an integral
part of New York State agriculture, and I
guess today is my lucky day.
We presently have in our
definitions of farm practices all of the
expected activities that deal with raising
crops and animals. But one of the activities
that takes place on every farm inevitably
involves manure management. And in some
cases, it is a very substantial part of a farm
operation.
Manure management has moved into an
entirely new era previously unanticipated by
the people who drafted these laws many, many
7560
years ago. We now have anaerobic digesters,
methane processors, many composting
activities, all of which apply very high-tech
scientific practices in contemporary farm
activities. And yet the laws that govern our
agricultural activities in New York State do
not define these manure management practices
as a farm operation.
And this bill that we are about to
vote on today, my friends, will correct that
inadequacy. And I'm very proud that we have
the opportunity to do that today. And I know,
on behalf of many farmers in this state, it is
greatly appreciated, not only that we are
doing it but that there is sufficient interest
that we are discussing it today here while we
are involved with so many of our budget
negotiations and other activities, that manure
management on New York State farms ranks up
there with the rest of our pursuits.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman, you wish to speak upon this
subject?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield for a
7561
few questions regarding the heralding of the
new era of manure management in the state of
New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, will you yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: With pleasure,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields with pleasure.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, I'm
not completely clear from the language of the
statute what the consequence of being
designated as a farm operation is. What does
that mean, that manure processing and handling
facilities are now designated as a farm
operation?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, this particular change in
definition would simply mean that for any farm
activities that are classified for tax
purposes, any kind of farm assistance programs
and environmental protection programs, manure
management would now be a conforming activity.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
7562
Through you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, will you yield for Senator
Schneiderman?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I
continue to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: My reading
of the proposed bill would include, within the
definition of "farm operation," a manure
processing and handling facility that was not
on a farm.
Say, you know, the great technology
that you have cited, the anaerobic digesters,
say some entrepreneur in the South Bronx,
presumably connected to Senator Gonzalez,
decided to set up a manure processing
facility. That would then fall within the
definition provided in the statute, would it
not?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, I would not know offhand whether a
South Bronx manure processing facility would
be classified as an agricultural activity, but
I suppose it's within the realm of possibility
that might happen. And I say good for the
7563
people of the South Bronx if they want to move
in that direction.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman, do you -
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, then would that mean
that if someone sets up -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Do you
wish the Senator to yield?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Oh, yes, I
do wish the Senator to continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
Senator, will you continue to
yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So that we
can continue to aerate this important issue.
I gather, though, that that would
mean that if someone sets up a manure
processing and handling facility that is not
connected in any other way to an agricultural
operation, it would be designated as a farm
operation. You'd end up with what is
essentially a commercial facility for creating
7564
energy or whatever other good things can be
created out of manure with the fine technology
you've cited, would be classified as a farm
operation.
And I don't really see why that
should be the case. Is this perhaps an
omission in the careful drafting of this
manure management statute?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, with respect to the change in the
statute, since the change in the statute is
taking place in the Agricultural Districts
Law, it's unlikely, sadly, that the Bronx
model defined by Senator Schneiderman before
would actually be considered an agricultural
activity. It would require considerably more
than manure alone to make it a farm activity.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, thank
you. Through you, Madam President, one final
question, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: One
final question, Senator Hoffmann?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I
7565
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: One
final question, Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Would the
ability of a local planning authority to
regulate, through local laws, farm operations
be limited with respect to a freestanding
manure processing facility by the operation of
this statute if it was passed?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, I'm not sure I understood the
question posed by Senator Schneiderman.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman, would you care to rephrase that?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, I'd
be glad to rephrase that. Thank you. I think
that in this area there frequently is a need
to clarify.
The concern I have is that my
understanding of the law is that if you
designate something as a farm operation, local
municipal governments' efforts to regulate or
zone the type of facility are limited.
So would this not mean, if this
bill were passed, that a freestanding manure
7566
processing and handling facility would be
beyond the reach of the local municipalities'
efforts to regulate or zone?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, the existing laws about
agricultural practices as they presently exist
in New York State are very clear about what
constitutes an agricultural practice. And
they are integrated.
Obviously, the manure aspect of
farming is an output of other animal husbandry
activities. Local zoning is affected by state
laws. This would simply bring into compliance
the definition of manure, along with the other
animal husbandry activities that take place on
a farm. There would be no change in the way
local zoning handles activities relative to
farms.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, on
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I
appreciate Senator Hoffmann's energetic
7567
support for this measure and promotion of this
issue, and I certainly know that she is
without peer and certainly will be known as
the first lady of manure management in the
State of New York should this statute pass.
My concern, with all kidding aside,
is that as I read this statute, if there is -
and again, I think these facilities are great
to the extent we're able to generate energy or
any other usable product out of managing
manure -- is that a freestanding manure
management facility would now be called a farm
operation and would not subject -- would be
subject to the same restrictions on local
governments that apply to farms.
With that caveat, I am going to
support the bill. I hope we will take a look
at that. I don't think we have a great danger
to the state at this point in time for being
overrun with freestanding manure management
facilities. But as technology develops, that
perhaps could become an issue.
And in some areas in downstate
New York, we have serious problems with, not
that, but certainly relating to the placement
7568
of human waste facilities. And I hope that we
will not see the day that next to the Hudson
River sewage treatment plant we have the
municipal manure processing facility creating
some of the same issues.
So I will support the bill. And
again, I do commend Senator Hoffmann for her
energetic promotion of this issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on -
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will the sponsor yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, will you yield to a question,
please?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, Madam
President, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And I
apologize in advance, Senator Hoffmann, if
Senator Schneiderman has drawn attention to
this issue.
7569
Does this bill apply to manure
processing and handling faciles that are
generated -- that are receiving manure that is
generated on the farm, solely on the farm? In
other words, the production of manure as part
of a dairy herd from this farm? Or would this
apply to manure processing facilities that
take the product from many farms?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: The bill on
which we are engaged in such animated
discussion right now does not distinguish
whether it would allow manure from a different
farm to be processed on one farm. But I can
see where that could in fact be a possibility.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, on the bill. And again, I
thank -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I thank
Senator Hoffmann for her observation about the
bill, because that's the way I read it.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Please
proceed, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
7570
Madam President.
I agree with Senator Hoffmann,
that's the way I read the bill. And I'm going
to vote against it on that basis. It seems to
me that this portion of the statute which says
"farm operation" includes the land and unfarm,
on-farm buildings. It's site-specific.
It says "the equipment." Then,
under the current statute, without the
amendment, it says "and practices which
contribute to the production, preparation,
marketing of crops, livestock, and livestock
products as a commercial enterprise."
That would mean to me that "farm
operation" simply includes the incidence of
the farm operation as produced from the locale
where the farm is located.
This farm-operation exception was
designed to say if you have a farm, you should
be able to do everything that a farmer does
without local regulation and control in
agricultural districts. Which I appreciate
and understand.
But I think Senator Hoffmann is
correct when she says when you add this
7571
phrase -- that is, "manure processing and
handling facilities" -- it could be a facility
which is a completely commercial enterprise
which takes manure from many farms and
processes it on a specific site.
That may be the economical thing to
do, Senator Hoffmann. It may be the right
thing to do to establish the volume to have a
true manure processing facility. But then at
that point it's not a farm operation, it's a
commercial enterprise using farm by-products,
and it's not part of what you would think of
as the normal operation of a family farm.
That's why, Senator Hoffmann, I'm
going to vote against this bill, because I
think it goes too far. If it said manure
processing and handling facilities for the
manure and other by-products produced on the
farm, on that farm, then I think it would be
properly included in the definition of farm
operation.
But given the fact that it's going
to introduce processing facilities into our
farm districts without the ability of local
communities to control them, and agricultural
7572
districts, I think it goes well beyond what we
originally intended when we intended to
describe what is a normal farm operation.
What is produced on-site could
qualify. What's produced off-site and becomes
a major manure processing facility is
something completely different from the
operation of the family farm.
I'll vote no, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, Madam
President, I was under the impression I was
yielding for a question from Senator
Dollinger. And I tried to hear what he was
saying and I don't think I heard a question in
there. Did I miss something?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
was not a question, Senator, he was speaking
on the bill.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Hoffmann.
7573
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Just to close
debate on this subject, I want to indicate
that the Farm Bureau of New York has sent a
support memo. I value their opinion greatly.
I understand how difficult it is for people in
production agriculture today. I know what
it's like to manage manure. I have a manure
pit on my own farm.
And it can be trivialized in a
discussion here, but it is a real-life issue
for the many people in New York State who
practice agriculture for a living. They are
faced with increasing environmental
regulations that sometimes make it very hard
for them to manage their activities. And very
often the people who imposed the regulations
on them have little or no concept of what it
means and take only the most trivial view of
what the manure management aspect of
agriculture entails.
It's highly unlikely, to use
Senator Dollinger's scenario, that somebody
wants to go into commercial manure management,
although it would be wonderful if the time
comes where the market increases to that
7574
level. And possibly for those parts of the
state that have difficulty growing the
beautiful gardens that we can grow in upstate
New York, we can ship some more of the manure
process in upstate New York into those areas.
I will say that, in reviewing this
particular piece of legislation, Senator
Schneiderman's series of questions showed a
remarkable level of interest from an
urban-based legislator. And flattered as I am
that he would call me the queen of manure
management -- first lady, thank you. I don't
know which one I prefer.
But flattered as I am at that, I
believe that this particular law would be
better suited to reflect some of the comments
that Senator Schneiderman himself has made.
And some of my colleagues -- notably, the very
capable Senator Skelos and Senator Alesi -
have suggested, and I have concurred that we
could consider renaming this the Effluent
Regulation In Composting Act, better known as
Eric's Law.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
7575
Schneiderman, why do you rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. I am really awed by this
honor. And it really is a tribute to Senator
Hoffmann and many of my other colleagues that
a boy from New York City has come here and,
through my experience in this chamber, learned
an awful lot about manure.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And I am
not in any way opposed to having this referred
to as Eric's Law. I think that would be quite
an honor.
I think it may be a little bit
awkward because, having listened to the debate
and listened to the questions, I'm afraid that
I am constrained to join Senator Dollinger in
voting against my own law.
So it was a great moment in the
sun, but I do share his concern and the
concern that I raised. And as I thought this
through, I don't think that we should allow a
freestanding manure processing and handling
facility to be subject to the same exemptions
as a farm operation.
7576
I appreciate the tribute. And
perhaps as we go through this process, at
Senator Hoffmann's urging, to expand our
regulation of manure processing and handling
facilities, that we will have another chance
to pass a bill that perhaps could bear my name
in this area.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
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.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just very
briefly.
I appreciate Senator Hoffmann's
suggestion that Senator Schneiderman's first
name go on this bill. What I would suggest is
the appropriate way to end this session is to
put Senator Schneiderman's last name on a bill
7577
that benefits his constituents, and that would
be the right way to pay him homage. The first
name oftentimes gets lost. The second name
signifies that a bill may become a chapter,
which would be a fitting way to someday
conclude this session, Madam President.
I will be voting in the negative,
however, for the reasons stated earlier.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 582 are
Senators Dollinger, Duane, and Schneiderman.
Ayes, 56. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Does Senator
Duane wish to be -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Had I been present in the chamber,
7578
I would have canvassed in the positive for the
first canvassed amendment. I would like
unanimous consent to have that stenographered.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
record will so indicate. Thank you, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk before
we go on to the next bill?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
I offer amendments to the following
Third Reading Calendar bills.
By Senator Trunzo, on page number
22, Calendar 420, Senate Print Number 2594.
By Senator Johnson, on page 28,
Calendar Number 515, Senate Print Number 2221.
By Senator Seward, on page number
33, Calendar Number 570, Senate Print Number
2129B.
7579
And by Senator Kuhl, on page 56,
Calendar Number 805, Senate Print Number 2956.
Madam President, I now move that
these bills retain their place on the order of
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
the amendments are received, adopted, and will
retain their place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Madam
President.
I wish to call up my bill, Senate
Print 4178, which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
483, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 4178, an
act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which the bill passed the house and ask
that said bill be restored to the order of
third reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
7580
Secretary will call the roll upon
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is recommitted.
SENATOR KUHL: I think we
restored that to the Third Reading Calendar,
Madam President.
And I now move to discharge, from
the Committee on Rules, Assembly Print 7926
and substitute it for my identical bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitution ordered.
SENATOR KUHL: I now move that
the substituted Assembly bill have its third
reading at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
483, by Member of the Assembly Weisenberg,
Assembly Print Number 7926, an act to amend
the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
7581
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up Calendar Number 756, by
Senator Volker.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
756, by Member of the Assembly Eve, Assembly
Print Number 2397, an act to amend the Local
Finance Law.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:
Explanation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: An
explanation has been requested, Senator
Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
7582
this is a bill that came out of the fiscal
crises in New York and Buffalo back in the
'80s, I believe, and relates to the sale of
municipal bonds by Erie County. And it allows
for greater flexibility and a maximum return
on bonds sold.
Back when the County of Erie had an
extremely serious fiscal situation, we did
this bill. And I believe at the same time, as
I say, I think we did a bill very similar to
this for the City of New York. And it allows
the comptroller to sell private bonds,
municipal obligations in the marketplace.
It's been repeated every year as a
chapter. The present law runs out June 30,
2001. And all this bill does -- it's
completely the same bill -- it extends it to
June 30th of 2002.
And you might ask the question, why
don't we make it permanent. And the answer is
apparently we do this with New York City and
with a number of other places. The concept
was that just in case any kind of problem
should occur or anything untoward, the
decision is made that the authority, because
7583
actually all it is the authority -- we do the
same thing, by the way, with the City of
Buffalo. Did I say Buffalo? This is for the
County of Erie. We do one for the City of
Buffalo also, and give them the authority to
do private bonds.
In case there should be some sort
of problem, that the authority expires in
another year, so that we just don't have pass
it. And I think the thought was that if
something should come up with any of these,
then what would happen is that we would just
let them expire.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown.
Senator Smith, I'm sorry. Senator
Malcolm Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: I could
say something, but I won't say it. I won't
say it.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
President, would the sponsor yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
7584
Volker, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Why, certainly.
I'm a little confused, but I will yield.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much. Through you, Madam President.
Senator Volker, do you know
specifically what the proceeds of these
particular bonds that are being issued are
going to be utilized for?
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, I believe
that these bonds are going to the general -
there is no specific place that the bond
proceeds go to. It's -- this is the authority
to sell bonds, and the proceeds then go into
the general fund.
It's because of the market
flexibility that this would allow you to
generate some dollars. It would really be up
to the county legislature and the county
executive to decide where the proceeds would
go.
Usually, I think, if my
recollection is correct, there's usually some
specific part of the budget that they will use
these for. I know the comptroller told me
7585
that last year she ran into a problem because
we were very late in passing the authority,
and she was already out in the marketplace
trying to make sure that the bonds were sold,
and she couldn't do it right away because it
hadn't been signed into law.
So she asked this year if we could
do it a little earlier than June 29th, which
is somewhere in that area last year is I think
when it actually was passed and signed into
law.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you. Through you, Madam President, if the
sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Is this
particular bond sale, are these -- through
you, Madam President, is this competitive or
negotiated bonds?
SENATOR VOLKER: These are
negotiated bonds. And therefore, you're
7586
looking for the best rate possible. And
that's the prime reason for these, the private
sale of these bonds.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Through
you, Madam President, I also know that, in all
deference to my colleague here, that Buffalo
has been trying for quite some time to suggest
to Erie that perhaps from some of the proceeds
of these bond sales they'd be able to share
these proceeds with Buffalo, who is clearly
sort of strapped. And you yourself indicated
that there is some flexibility with this
particular bond issuance for Erie County. Is
there some possibility they would yield to
that kind of concern?
SENATOR VOLKER: They could. But
I think what they're really looking for the
7587
proceeds of is the sales tax.
The County of Erie, during their
fiscal crisis, requested -- the county
legislature and the county executive requested
an additional 1 percent sales tax. And it was
granted, and it's granted each year. The city
has asked that the county allow a piece of
that proceeds to go to the city. The county
has not agreed do that.
We have pointed out that it's not
up to the State Legislature to make those kind
of decisions, because it's really up to the
county to decide. We only allow the
implementation of it.
As far as bond proceeds are
concerned, the county, if they so chose, could
certainly allow the city, I suppose, a piece
of any bond proceeds.
They have their own ability, by the
way, to -- yes. And another answer to that,
from my learned counsel to my right, is that
they are actually doing that this year,
because the county is assisting the city with
some of the construction bonds for the city
schools, which this Legislature last
7588
December -- whenever we passed it, I think it
was last year -- passed. Art, myself, and the
delegation passed during last year, frankly, a
billion dollars' worth of bonds over the next
five or six years to repair schools and build
new schools in the city of Buffalo. And the
county is assisting in that process.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
President, through you, one final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you yield for one final question?
SENATOR VOLKER: I certainly
will.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
President, through you, I know the sponsor
sort of preempted the strike and earlier
answered why not permanent. But clearly, this
has been going on since 1986 and further back.
I just don't seem to understand why
there's no reason to make this permanent. Or
is it a cost measure or a matter in which they
feel that it's just -- the fiscal policy is
better for them to do so?
SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, in
reality, you will find as we go along that
7589
there's a lot of these types of things. And
we ask ourselves many times why do we continue
to do this.
And the prime reason that they've
been done has to do with control. Because we
don't directly control. We give them the
authority to issue bonds or do certain things.
And the prime control is if something untoward
should happen, that the way in which we can
stop it quickly is to just let the authority
expire.
So that the decision has been made
in a number of these areas, and usually
they're all joined together. That is, I'm
pretty sure you're going to see some bills
similar to this for the City of New York later
on this year. Usually they come in around
June 30th -- 28th, 29th, 30th, someplace in
there, a whole raft of them comes in here,
one- or two-year extenders.
And it's the same principle. And
the principle is that you keep control over
it, just in case something should occur that
is beyond the ability of the Legislature,
really, and the Governor to deal with, unless
7590
we -- and by the way, the other side of that
story is that either house then can decide to
let the authority lapse. Because if one house
doesn't pass it, it lapses.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Madam President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On the
bill.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: I thank
Senator Volker for the explanation as to why
and how Erie County is handling this matter.
A concern that I would raise, and I
have raised this a number of times at my
Cities Committee meeting, you have a number of
upstate cities -- Syracuse, Rochester,
Buffalo, Albany -- they are all on a mission
to establish their own authority to deal with
some commercial and residential development
within their respective areas.
And for some reason or another,
it's just not getting to the floor, it's not
getting through Cities. I believe this bill,
such as the ones that they are pursuing, have
7591
merit to it. When you find cities upstate who
are having some difficulty as relates to the
economics, economic development, authorities
do offer a means by which they can do some
social standing development on their own.
And I would just hope that as we
are also here ratifying this bill today that
we will consider the concerns of Mayor
Jennings and Masiello and the other mayors who
are in the cities upstate -- Buffalo,
Rochester, and the like -- and assist them in
establishing their own authorities to do such
similar work.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a couple
of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President. I know, Senator Volker,
you're well aware that when the whole concept
7592
of negotiated bond sales came up, there were
ethical issues raised, there were questions of
conflicts of interests, because we were going
to change from our normal practice of sending
these out to bid. There were allegations
about cozy sales and political contributions
that would follow.
And given all that, and the fact
that it's been in existence in Erie County for
at least 14 years, are you aware of any report
or information or a report from the
comptroller that would suggest that all those
fears that lots of people had about negotiated
bond sales -- because these are large sums of
money, and there are huge legal fees and
placement fees and consultant fees attached to
them.
But is there any report that you're
aware of that suggests the purpose for which
this was intended, to lower the cost of
borrowing, has not been attained or that any
of those chimeras, those dragons that we were
all afraid of, have actually come to pass in
the marketplace, either in the Erie County or
in the City of New York?
7593
SENATOR VOLKER: Not really that
I'm aware of.
Although I would point out that in
the ensuing years you've had initially
Republican county executive, then a Democratic
county executive, and now, after eight years,
we have a Republican county executive again.
And there have been times when the comptroller
and the county executive have had differences
of opinion.
But as far as actual allegations of
impropriety or anything of that nature, I
can't ever remember that. You might have a
disagreement on how something is done, but I
don't ever remember any allegations of
impropriety of any kind.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. And I thank Senator Volker.
I know -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I know
Senator Volker has preempted perhaps Senator
7594
Smith and myself by asking the question of why
not make it permanent. And I understand the
basis for his answer. But I would
respectfully disagree with Senator Volker.
I understand that we want to keep
some control over the way the governments
work. And I would understand that given all
those potential dangers that we talked
about -- and they were very legitimate. I
think they went to the core of what government
is, and that whole notion of pay-for-play
government, that these bond sales would occur
and that both attorneys and bond placement
counsels and securities firms would then, in
essence, ante up to get into this business.
I know there have been allegations.
And I know there have been lots of, most often
in the hot fire of a campaign, allegations
made about conflicts and other problems.
But seems to me that this whole
notion of negotiated bond sales has withstood
the test of time. I'm not aware of any report
from the Comptroller of the State of New York
that says it's not a good idea and that it
hasn't produced the benefit of reduced bond
7595
rates and actually reducing the cost of
borrowing for communities, including Erie
County.
So I would suggest to Senator
Volker one of two things. Either next time
around, let's make this bill permanent, or
let's ask, through some rider attached to this
bill, let's ask the Comptroller of the State
of New York to do a report that evaluates the
effectiveness of negotiated bond sales and
whether we've achieved the goal of reducing
the cost or whether we've complicated our
democracy by creating another temptation for
public officials and their contributors to
become involved in the bond sales and we've
created a pay-for-play environment.
I think the Comptroller of this
state is eminently qualified to do that. And
I would think -- although I agree with Senator
Volker, there have been occasional glitches in
this, occasional reports that suggest this is
worthy of scrutiny -- I think if the
conclusion is that we've achieved or goal and
that negotiated bond sales produce less cost
to borrowers, we ought to make all of them
7596
permanent, not just here in Erie County but in
New York City as well.
And I would suggest also to Senator
Volker that one of the things we always have
to be afraid of -- while I agree with him
completely that by making an extender that
either the Assembly or the Governor or the
Senate could prevent reauthorization of the
bill, I would suggest that that may be
micromanaging Erie County and the City of
New York and other communities that do these
sales just a little too far.
I would suggest that if problems
come up in the future, we ought to get a
bipartisan consensus to change it at that
point rather than allow, quite frankly, one of
my colleagues from Erie County to stand up and
say "I don't want this to happen," and
suddenly it doesn't, it seems to me over the
objection of his colleagues from the Senate
who would have maybe a better long-term
perspective or, given the size of the
district, a more pervasive interest in the
future of Erie County.
So I'm not so sure that making it
7597
continual through continual extenders is the
right way to manage this problem. My hope is
that Senator Volker would go back and -- and
I'm going to vote in favor of this, but that
we should either look at this whole issue in
detail, come up with a report, and if the case
is that it's actually been successful, let's
make it permanent everywhere and get out of
the business of looking over local
governments' shoulders when they make these
decisions.
I'll vote aye today, but I hope we
take this issue a couple of steps further.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, on the bill,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: Let me just take
a moment to reflect my support for this
measure and to thank Senator Volker for really
being a champion of the needs of Erie County
and the City of Buffalo in the Senate.
Just by way of some history,
7598
Senator Volker mentioned the fiscal crisis
that the County of Erie had which dates back
to, I think, 1987, when the County of Erie was
about $75 million in debt. And I think this
was one of the measures that was instituted
some years ago to assist the County of Erie in
being able to get itself out of debt.
And as a former department head in
the Erie County government, as a person that
ran a department of the Erie County
government, the county was able to right
itself. It was able to come into a situation
of fiscal stability from that period when it
had $75 million worth of debt. And it's
because of actions like this that were taken
in this house that gave that government the
ability to help heal itself.
So I certainly support this
measure, because for the over 1.1 million
people that reside in Erie County, giving the
county government this kind of flexibility is
important.
And Senator Dollinger and Senator
Smith spoke to why not permanentize this. And
certainly there can be arguments made for
7599
permanentizing this ability of the county to
have the flexibility to sell its own bonds.
But as Senator Volker has indicated, in
probably three administrations of county
government, two Republican county executives
and one Democratic county executive that
served for a period of 12 years, there has
never been an issue with how the county has
handled the sale of its bonds. There has
never been any question of impropriety in how
those bonds have been handled.
We also in Erie County have a
strong county comptroller who audits the
business of county government, who presides
over the bond sales in Erie County. So there
is a check and balance to this measure.
Senator Volker and Senator Smith
also touched upon -- and I know this is a
tangential issue, but they also touched upon
the sales tax in Erie County. And again, back
in 1987, after the fiscal crisis that Erie
County was experiencing, the local governments
came to the state and asked to increase the
sales tax by an additional 1 percent,
increasing the sales tax in Erie County from
7600
7 percent to 8 percent.
And at that time that sales tax was
supposed to be a temporary measure to again
assist the county in getting out of this major
fiscal deficit. Well, it has been passed, you
know, every year, and the county has come to
rely on that sales tax. And it is true, as
Senator Smith was alluding to, and as Senator
Volker confirmed, the city has asked for a
larger share of the sales tax. And I
certainly would at some point like to see the
County of Erie acquiesce to that request on
the part of the City of Buffalo.
The city has gotten older in
population, the income in the city has gone
down, the population in the city has gone
down. But still the city is the financial
center, the hub of the County of Erie. And
the health of the city I think is critical to
the health of Erie County. So at some point I
would like to see us be able to get a larger
share of that sales tax.
But with respect to this measure, I
think it is an important piece of legislation
to pass; yet again, another piece of
7601
legislation that Senator Volker has championed
for our community. The only thing that I as a
new Senator lament is not being able to show
my support in the strongest of terms for this
measure and be able to join Senator Volker as
a cosponsor.
Hopefully, as we go forward in this
legislative session, that will be able to be
rectified and those members on this side of
the aisle that wish to join members across the
aisle in the sponsorship of measures to show
our support in the strongest terms will be
able to do that.
But on this measure, I'm certainly
very proud to join Senator Volker and my other
colleagues in support. I will vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Is there
any other Senator wishing to be heard?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
There is a home rule message at the
desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Call the
7602
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: The bill
is passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
646, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 3543, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
illegal possession.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: The bill
is laid aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
700, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2840, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
increased penalty.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Farley, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill would increase the
maximum penalty that may be imposed for a
7603
refusal by a bank to permit examination by the
Banking Department. The current penalty was
established in 1930. It is $200 a day. This
would increase it to $5,000 a day, which is
the general penalty for any kind of a
violation of the Banking Law.
And examinations, as you can well
imagine, are a crucial part of the regulatory
process for the safety and soundness of our
banks. It is important that these financial
institutions cooperate with the Banking
Department, and having an adequate penalty can
serve to be an effective deterrent to a
violation.
Let me just say this. In recent
years, New York has not had problems with
banks refusing an examination. But there have
been a lot of them around the nation, by OCS.
And consequently, by the time they got in
there, all kinds of mischief had happened.
This is a deterrent. Now, why has
this not been changed since 1930? Almost all
of your penalties were raised to $5,000, and
this one was one that was overlooked and just
not done. And it more or less levels all the
7604
penalties for violations. I think it is one
that is reasonable. There's no known
opposition to it.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Madam
President, through you, if the sponsor would
yield for a question.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Farley yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Madam President, when an investigation of a
bank is conducted, what actually takes place?
SENATOR FARLEY: Well, they
examine all facets of the bank for safety and
soundness and -- as far as all their books are
concerned.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again, through
you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Farley, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Farley yields.
7605
SENATOR BRESLIN: How frequently
do these examinations take place?
SENATOR FARLEY: Once a year.
SENATOR BRESLIN: And is there
any sort of a reporting system to make sure
that the Superintendent of Banking in fact
investigates each bank on an annual basis?
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Farley, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
The report is made to the Banking
Department every year. A report goes to the
Superintendent Of banks.
SENATOR BRESLIN: And again
through you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Farley.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Is the Banking
Department efficient in making sure that all
banks in New York are in fact reviewed on an
annual basis?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, they are.
And incidentally, on that same
subject, we have one of the finest banking
departments as far as examining banks in the
7606
nation. We set the standard.
As you recall, some of you that are
old enough to remember when banks and S&Ls
were failing all over the nation, this did not
happen in New York State.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Right.
And again through you, Madam
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Farley, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: He
yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Do you have any
sort of numbers available to you as to how
many banks in New York State during the past
twelve months have in fact refused an
inspection?
SENATOR FARLEY: None. As far as
we know, I think it's zero. And to be very
frank with you, Senator Breslin, I think since
1930 there's been few or none.
SENATOR BRESLIN: And again
through you, Madam President, if a bank -
7607
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Farley continues to yield.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
SENATOR BRESLIN: If a bank was
found to be noncompliant by the
superintendent, would the bank have any right
to appeal that decision, that administrative
determination?
SENATOR FARLEY: Well, of course
you can always appeal an administrative
determination. But this is a fine of $5,000 a
day if you refuse to be inspected.
SENATOR BRESLIN: And again
through you, Madam President -
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Farley, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Does the annual
inspection include affiliates or related
corporations?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, it would
include branches and affiliates, yes.
SENATOR BRESLIN: On the bill,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: On the
7608
bill, Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I accept
Senator Farley's explanation that in fact it's
a kind of a cleanup bill and brings a higher
penalty.
And particularly given the fact, as
Senator Farley expressed, that throughout the
country there seems to be more banks that are
doing less kinds of "compliant" things, that
it's probably a wonderful safety measure to do
it now, to make sure that in fact if there is
a bank -- and Senator Farley indicated that
there are few or none that have been
noncompliant since 1930.
I think that, based on those
observations, I will be voting in the
affirmative.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Breslin.
Is there any other Senator wishing
to be heard on the bill?
Hearing none, read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
7609
act shall take effect in 30 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR FARLEY: Just to explain
my vote -
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Farley, to explain his vote.
SENATOR FARLEY: -- because I
didn't address this.
This also applies to mortgage
brokers, check-cashers, money transmitters and
all the other ancillary groups, which there is
more chance for mischief, if you will, than
there is with the banks.
So it goes across the board, and it
is a significant piece of legislation. It's
like the stitch in time saves nine.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: The clerk
shall read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
725, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 4097, an
7610
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
the licensing and continuing education.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: An
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: This bill would
stagger the expiration dates of licenses with
the State Insurance Department for the life
and accident and health agents.
Currently, all of these licenses,
which are valid for a two-year term, they all
expire on the same day, June 30th of the odd
numbered year. And this would, under this
legislation, provide for commencing on July 1,
2001, the life, accident and health agents'
licenses shall be for a two-year period, but
they would expire on -- one-third of them on
February 28th, one-third on June 30th, and
one-third on October 31st of the odd year.
And this is done to help to
7611
facilitate the processing of these license
renewals, so that they can be done in an
expeditious manner.
This is a departmental bill from
the State Insurance Department. And I think
it should be supported, because it helps to
streamline operations for the benefit of not
only the personnel at the department but, more
importantly, for the license holders out there
across our state, and there are approximately
105,000 of these individuals.
And this would mean that they will
always have a license in effect without the
hassle of this difficulty in getting the
renewals done in a timely manner.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Is there
any other Senator wishing to be heard on the
bill?
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. If the Senator would
just yield for a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Seward, do you yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
7612
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Seward yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
Through you, Madam President,
during the confirmation hearings, the new
Superintendent of Insurance stated that he
felt with the department's new speed to market
reform that they would be able to solve this
problem. If this is so, why would this bill
be necessary?
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, I applaud our new Superintendent
Serio at the Insurance Department, and the
previous superintendent, for initiating the
so-called speed to market initiative at the
department. They're attempting to speed up
the process of approving new insurance
products but also in this area of licensing
and license renewals.
That certainly is going to help.
But the department has indicated to us -- in
fact, the legislation before us is a
7613
departmental bill -- that they still would
like to spread out the work load throughout
the year rather than having every license done
at the very same date every other year.
So I think the combination of the
two, the initiative that you've outlined and
the passage of this legislation, I think would
ease the process completely.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator would continue to yield, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Seward, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
If I read this correctly, this bill
also calls for the issuance of temporary
licensures. And the Assembly Insurance
Committee, headed by Assemblyman Grannis, has
had serious opposition to this and has been
said to say that this problem would keep them
7614
from passing it in the Assembly. How does
that augur for us passing this bill?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, I would say this. I think it's
important that we pass the bill because in its
current form -- the issue of the temporary
license is one that I think it's important
that our house go on record as supporting it,
because this deals with the situations that
arise when someone has completed all of the
requirements for a license and they are simply
awaiting the process at the State Insurance
Department. And in the meantime, they are
unable to pursue their profession and derive
an income from it and serve their prospective
new clients.
The temporary license would allow
them to, just as the name would suggest, to on
a temporary basis, as they are awaiting the
final license to be processed and approved,
that would allow them to go out and make a
living and to serve their clients.
Now, under the legislation we give
a great deal of authority, as we should, I
believe, to the Superintendent of Insurance to
7615
really come in with some strict rules so that
the public is protected here from any
unscrupulous activity, shall we say. But I
think it's certainly justifiable to include
the temporary license provisions in our bill.
Obviously, as we move toward our
June 20th adjournment or recess from the
regular session, obviously we will have
discussions with the Assembly to try to work
this out. And stay tuned.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Just a
couple of final questions, if the Senator will
continue to yield, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: Senator
Seward, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT RATH: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President, through you.
What changes will be made in the
certification of continuing education
requirements for insurance agents?
SENATOR SEWARD: What changes?
We just -- changes from last year?
7616
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Mm-hmm. What in terms of this bill?
SENATOR SEWARD: The only change
that we make under this bill is to streamline
the process, in effect, to allow for
electronic filings in terms of the information
that is submitted to the department. That's
really just to update the law because of the
updated technology that now exists.
Rather than saying in the law that
you have to submit the information in written
form, under the changes we've made, it would
allow that to be done electronically.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
I appreciate Senator Saland's -- I
do this all the time -- Senator Seward's -- I
call him that, and I apologize -- Senator
Seward's full explanation -- Senator Seward in
terms of his explanation.
7617
Having had the opportunity on a
couple of occasions to talk with some agents
about this problem, I certainly know that
there is a tremendous amount of necessity and
support, so that there is not -- number one,
there's not such a backlog in the numbers of
applications that come through at any one
time. But also, I also appreciated the fact
that you were cognizant too of the possible
abuse that could in fact occur with temporary
licensure issuance, and so that that is a
piece of what will be addressed.
So I certainly support this, and I
appreciate your consideration in the way that
you answered my questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
7618
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. May we return to motions and
resolutions, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Order of
motions and resolutions.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President, I
believe there is a privileged resolution at
the desk by Senator Morahan. May we have its
title read and move for its immediate
adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Morahan, Legislative Resolution Number 1905,
commending Dr. Larry R. Pedersen upon the
occasion of his designation for special
recognition by the members of Rockland's
school-community partnership on May 17, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
7619
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President,
would you please recognize Senator Dollinger.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I hereby give written notice,
pursuant to Rule XI, that I will move to amend
the rules of the Senate and add a new rule,
XV, which creates ethical standards for
officers, employees and members of the New
York State Senate.
I would ask that that notice be
recorded in the Journal, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
notice is at the desk and it will be recorded
in the Journal.
7620
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Are there any substitutions at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There
are. Shall we read them now, Senator?
SENATOR ALESI: Will you please
do them now.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 31,
Senator Spano moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 7404
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 4383, Third Reading Calendar 550.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. May we have Calendar Number 734,
by Senator Larkin.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 734.
7621
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
734, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 4252, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law, in relation to reports.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson of Calendar 734.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr.
President.
Senator Paterson, this is a Racing
and Wagering Department bill. It amends the
law to shift various financial reporting dates
from March 1 and March 31 into a consolidated
date of July 1st.
The problem is that some of these
reports were due in February, some were due in
March. But in order to get them into the
Racing and Wagering Board like they are and to
the Legislature and to the Division of the
Budget, it was very clear that these reports
were mixed and that a complete report was
never sent forward, because it was always
delayed because some of the information was
not available.
7622
And what we've done is we've put
four sections into this bill. In order to
give the report a bit of accuracy, where here
before all it had was some information on the
status of the tracks, whether it was
simulcasting or not, we have four sections to
the bill.
In the first section, we shift from
March 31st to July 1st the board's report to
the Director of the Budget and the Legislature
about the extent of NYRA's utilization,
retained percentages, and breakage for
operations.
In Section 2 we shift from March 1
to July 1 the board's report to the Director
of the Budget and Legislature concerning
similar rate and pool distributions, as I said
in the previous section. This only
involves -- this section involves the harness
tracks.
The next one would shift it from 31
March to 1 July, a similar harness track
report, as stated. The only difference is
that includes their simulcasting revenues.
And the fourth part shifts from 31
7623
March to July 1st the board's report to the
Division of the Budget and the Legislature
with regard to an evaluation of simulcasting,
its capability with the well-being of horse
racing, breeding, and pari-mutuels.
This is something we didn't have
before. So many times when we were asked at
the end of the session to do certain things
for the tracks, whether it was the breeders,
back stretch, or whatever else we were adding
to, we really didn't have all of the factual
data, because the reports were not submitted
in a manner so they could be consolidated.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Larkin will yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm a
little unclear on what it was about the
7624
reports. Was it that by the time we passed
the budget the information was obsolete? Or
was it that the information was hurried and
when it got into the report it wasn't
sufficiently compiled?
SENATOR LARKIN: It really wasn't
compiled, David.
What happened was when you started
to see that they had a deadline of submitting
a report on the 15th of March, and they were
told to have their part of it done by the 1st
of March, they didn't have all of the
information, whether it was the part that was
simulcasting -- and it was all frustrated.
So what we did, in working with the
Racing and Wagering Board, was put it all
together so that now when we get a report from
them, we will have an up-to-date report and it
will actually tell us what the financial
status of it is and what they're doing with
their operational monies.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Larkin would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you -
7625
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
Senator, what happens if we pass
the budget before the report comes in on
July 1?
SENATOR LARKIN: That wouldn't
have any bearing on us, David. What we're
talking about is their operation and the
reports that they'll submit to us.
Go back to what I said before.
Remember, David, we used to have it the last
day of the last night. They would say, we're
going to make some changes and cuts and do
something for the breeders or the harness or
the back stretch or whatever it might be with
regard to the industry. And we didn't have
all of the data.
We did things, but now this will
make sure that when they submit this report,
it will consolidate everything on the 1st day
of July.
When we start to look at anything
7626
that they come to us in January or February
saying, Well, we need to have something, we
will actually have in hand a fully documented
report, including all aspects of the industry.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I know exactly and I've been here to witness
what Senator Larkin is talking about. If he
would yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then do we
need any of this information essentially to
accommodate the Racing and Wagering portion of
the budget that we pass?
SENATOR LARKIN: Well, take it
away from the budget, David. We need to
see -- because they're a public authority, we
need to see what they're doing, how they're
doing.
Every aspect of this here has
7627
something to do with the Racing and Wagering
Board. And the Racing and Wagering Board
should have the capability of evaluating
what's going on in the industry.
And what we're going to do is
instead of having them submit reports to the
Division of the Budget and the Legislature as
we've asked for, we're now going to be able to
get a report from them. And the report that
we'll get in July will be a total report,
rather than the one we got on March 15th,
which was a report but it did not include
up-to-date financial statement capabilities
and stability of the industry.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I may have gone to the back stretch when I
haven't settled into the gate. I may not
understand exactly what is going on.
If Senator Larkin would yield for a
final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you yield for what is promised to
be a final question?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr.
President.
7628
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I was under
the impression, Mr. President, that the
April 1st deadline that we work with or the
March 31st deadline that we work with right
now was scheduled specifically to coincide
specifically with the statutory deadline of
the budget.
But from what I'm getting from
Senator Larkin, that may not actually be the
case, which would really urge us that we need
the information, but we don't necessarily need
it for that process.
Is that a correct assumption,
Senator?
SENATOR LARKIN: Well, in part,
David.
Years ago, they used to have this
in because they would make some comment on the
budget, as I mentioned before, where they
would make some shifts and do some changes.
But the point is that the data that
they were giving us was never complete,
because they in turn did not have all of the
7629
information. They were getting a report
together which in some cases was not factual.
Here, what we're doing is moving it
to July 1st so everybody will have had their
opportunity. And we won't be playing with the
budget, we'll be dealing with an agency of the
government that has to do with Racing and
Wagering. It will take in their simulcasting
and every other aspect of the tracks, so that
when we get a report on July 1st we should
know what that agency is doing and what the
industry is doing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: I guess that
it really is the end of session each year
where we really need that information. So the
change in the period which is seasonable for
the information to be accumulated and filed
into a report probably is not affecting our
process any more by July 1st and may actually
give us more relevant information on than
March 31st.
7630
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will the
sponsor yield to just one question, Mr.
President?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do we
actually get these reports?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Could you
produce a couple, let's say the last two
years' worth, and just make them available to
me? I'd love to see them.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, I'll send
it to you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you
very much, Mr. President.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill. I don't have a problem pushing the date
back to July 1st.
7631
I do find it a bit, I guess,
quizzical just in my own mind that they can't
get the report done by March 31st and they can
get it done by July 1st.
We -- as some people may know, I've
begun to rail against constantly requiring
state agencies to give us reports that we
never see, that we never actually get. I
would be pleased as punch if the Racing and
Wagering Board were delivering the reports so
that we could make the analysis necessary to
figure out whether we should play with the
simulcast revenues or the betting pools or the
percentage pools.
I think that stuff is critically
important to figuring out the health of the
gaming and wagering business, figuring out
what role the state should have in it.
I'm pleased -- if the Racing and
Wagering Board is actually producing these
reports, I commend them. Unfortunately, many
other state agencies are not. And that's why
I asked the question.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
7632
other Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
none.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
There being no further business, I
move we adjourn until Monday, May 21st, at
3:00 p.m., the intervening days being
legislative days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
7633
Monday, May 21st, at 3:00 p.m. Intervening
days will be legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)